Beauty

Chat viewable by general public

Moderator: Moderators

Nick_A
Sage
Posts: 504
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 9:49 am

Beauty

Post #1

Post by Nick_A »

What is beauty and how does it relate to "awe" It is useful for appreciating this deep question by comaring the observations of an atheistic and a Christian mystic. First contemplate and excerpt from Richard Feynman with atheistic leanings.
Poets say science takes away from the beauty of the stars — mere globs of gas atoms. Nothing is "mere". I too can see the stars on a desert night, and feel them. But do I see less or more? The vastness of the heavens stretches my imagination — stuck on this carousel my little eye can catch one-million-year-old light. A vast pattern — of which I am a part... What is the pattern or the meaning or the why? It does not do harm to the mystery to know a little more about it. For far more marvelous is the truth than any artists of the past imagined it. Why do the poets of the present not speak of it? What men are poets who can speak of Jupiter if he were a man, but if he is an immense spinning sphere of methane and ammonia must be silent? ~ Richard P. Feynman
Notice how the perception of beauty stops at the stars and meaning begins by scientifically examining the nature of the stars. Compare this with Simone Weil's appreciation of what beauty is an indication of. It doesn't deny the physical makeup of the stars but rather the feeling of beauty includes the indication of a higher reality beyond our conceptioon of the stars that Man is drawn towards.
"Beauty is the only finality here below. As Kant said very aptly, it is a finality which involves no objective. A beautiful thing involves no good except itself, in its totality, as it appears to us. We are drawn toward it without knowing what to ask of it. It offers its own existence. We do not desire something else, we possess it, and yet we still desire something. We do not know in the least what it is. We want to get behind beauty, but it is only a surface. It is like a mirror that sends us back our own desire for goodness. It is a sphinx, an enigma, a mystery which is painfully tantalizing. We should like to feed upon it, but it is only something to look at; it appears only from a certain distance. The great trouble in human life is that looking and eating are two different operations. Only beyond the sky, in the country inhabited by God, are they one and the same operation. ... It may be that vice, depravity and crime are nearly always ... in their essence, attempts to eat beauty, to eat what we should only look at." Simone Weil

What is beauty? Does it exist as an objective reality or even indicate the existance of objective reality? Is it an emotion that serves no purpose or does it serve a purpose we find hard to comprehend? I side with Simone and believe human experience of beauty indicates an inner recognition of a facet of intelligent design that indicates the source of this design.. How as either atheist or believer would you define and explain beauty?

Nick_A
Sage
Posts: 504
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 9:49 am

Post #21

Post by Nick_A »

acamp1 wrote:"Beauty" depends upon our limited earthbound perspectives. The light bounces off the subject and hits our eyes just so... We're on the ground to experience that gorgeous sunset... We're on top of the mountain looking down on a sprawling pastoral scene.

Is your hypothetical hired model still beautiful with the lights out?

If we could be omniscient - if our perceptions were not limited by geography - how would we perceive beauty? Would we?

[edit: Visual beauty is just an example here. Of course, other senses would apply as well. Tactile, for example: I mean, sure, the model is still beautiful with the lights out... ;-) ]
Beauty is just the emotional response to the perception of order. I link "order" to intelligent design. Consider how we experience beauty:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11023208/
Emotions and the heart
Recent HeartMath studies define a critical link between the heart and brain. The heart is in a constant two-way dialogue with the brain — our emotions change the signals the brain sends to the heart and the heart responds in complex ways. However, we now know that the heart sends more information to the brain than the brain sends to the heart. And the brain responds to the heart in many important ways. This research explains how the heart responds to emotional and mental reactions and why certain emotions stress the body and drain our energy. As we experience feelings like anger, frustration, anxiety and insecurity, our heart rhythm patterns become more erratic. These erratic patterns are sent to the emotional centers in the brain, which it recognizes as negative or stressful feelings. These signals create the actual feelings we experience in the heart area and the body. The erratic heart rhythms also block our ability to think clearly.
The experience of beauty is a collaboration of the brain and heart region. It is more than just the animal response to design but a different quality of attraction that doesn't seem to have an earthly value. We could function without it as animals do.

Naturally if your sight is unable to sense from the lights being out, the order that provokes the experience of beauty isn't registered.

I believe if man were more evolved the experience of beauty would be secondary to the emotional response to the higher reality beauty is a rudimentary indicator of.

acamp1
Scholar
Posts: 285
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 12:50 am
Location: Massachusetts

Post #22

Post by acamp1 »

Beauty is just the emotional response to the perception of order.
That is absolutely not correct.

The perception of beauty does NOT presume a perception of order. In fact, beauty is subjective - and cultural - and can often be found where order can not.

You sure make a lot of logical leaps; I see a pattern in your postings. Dare I say... an order.

So beautiful.

Nick_A
Sage
Posts: 504
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 9:49 am

Post #23

Post by Nick_A »

acamp1 wrote:
The first is by induction: he examines phenomena, classifies them, and attempts to infer laws and principles from them. This is the method generally used by science. The second is by deduction: having perceived or had revealed or discovered certain general laws and principles, he attempts to deduce the application of these laws in various studies and in life. This is the method generally used by religions..
I do not believe this is a fair representation of deductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning is classic "Sherlock Holmes"-style logic. Superstitious as Conan Doyle actually was, I doubt Sherlock would agree his was the same manner of thinking used by religion.

From the venerable wikipedia:
Both types of reasoning are routinely employed. One difference between them is that in deductive reasoning, the evidence provided must be a set about which everything is known before the conclusion can be drawn. Since it is difficult to know everything before drawing a conclusion, deductive reasoning has little use in the real world.
I guess my problem with the summary you've provided is this: "having perceived or had revealed or discovered certain general laws and principles..."

Had "revealed"? Who invited revelation? Who's to say what's a valid revelation and what's not?

False premises yield false conclusions. That's deductive reasoning.
It is one thing to say that we cannot understand the "whole" and another to say that understanding is impossible. This one reason I enjoy chess. The win is proof of understanding.

The great Cuban champion Capablanca was once asked how far he sees ahead. he said "one move; but it is always the best move." This is classic deductive reasoning. He saw the whole board and the logic of the position. Seeing it as a whole, his move was the logical deduction of this knowledge.
I guess my problem with the summary you've provided is this: "having perceived or had revealed or discovered certain general laws and principles..."
The universe is logical order. Some people are gifted to be able to see the whole just like Capablanca saw it in chess. They verify it by looking for the facts that validate this perspective.

For me to understand chess at the quality of understanding possessed by Capablanca, I would have to begin to better my game and positional knowledge. It is the same with understanding the wholeness and logic of the universe at the level some can. It requires bettering your ability to understand with the whole of yourself. But this is considered insulting so people are content to argue rather than grow.

acamp1
Scholar
Posts: 285
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 12:50 am
Location: Massachusetts

Post #24

Post by acamp1 »

You've said nothing I directly disagree with there, except that a win in chess is not necessarily proof of understanding (chance does play a part).

Yes, of course, the universe "is logical order." All is as it should be; it could only be as it is, or it wouldn't be so.

Oops, I dropped my spoon and it landed at a certain angle at a certain moment in time. It could only have been so, because that's how it is. Proof of intelligent design? I flatter myself.

"Some people are gifted to see the whole" - that statement seems a bit presumptuous. Are we to assume you are among the lucky few?

Okay, so maybe you've said quite a few things I disagree with.

Nick_A
Sage
Posts: 504
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 9:49 am

Post #25

Post by Nick_A »

acamp1 wrote:
Beauty is just the emotional response to the perception of order.
That is absolutely not correct.

The perception of beauty does NOT presume a perception of order. In fact, beauty is subjective - and cultural - and can often be found where order can not.

You sure make a lot of logical leaps; I see a pattern in your postings. Dare I say... an order.

So beautiful.
The perception of order can either be primarily a subjective conditioned response or an objective response from the depth of ones essence. Consider these observations from Simone Weil
All these secondary kinds of beauty are of infinite value as openings to universal beauty. But, if we stop short at them, they are, on the contrary, veils; then they corrupt. They all have in them more or less of this temptation, but in very different degrees.

There are also a number of seductive factors that have nothing whatever to do with beauty but which cause the things in which they are present to be called beautiful through lack of discernment; for these things attract love by fraud, and all men, even the most ignorant, even the vilest of them, know that beauty alone has a right to our love. The most truly great know it too....
As you see, people can be conditioned to believe something beautiful. Fashion is built on this. What is considered beautiful one year is simply outdated during the next.

acamp1
Scholar
Posts: 285
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 12:50 am
Location: Massachusetts

Post #26

Post by acamp1 »

This Simone Weil is very interesting. You started me on a little research binge. Know of any good books about her?

(I still disagree, BTW. And anyway - even if the perception of beauty did come from an instinctive appreciation of order - that is in no way an argument in favor of intelligent design. Life IS order. Of COURSE life would have affinity for order. What does that prove?)

acamp1
Scholar
Posts: 285
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 12:50 am
Location: Massachusetts

Post #27

Post by acamp1 »

In retrospect, I want to retract what I said. I don't believe beauty is entirely cultural.

I'm thinking of a study that was done a few years ago in which very young children were asked to choose the "smartest" and "nicest" faces from a photo gallery. They typically chose faces with classically attractive, symmetrical features. Of course, these kids could have been corrupted by TV, etc., but as anecdotal evidence I find it interesting.

I think there probably is something in us that seeks the "best" physical features in our mates - features that might tend to indicate a more robust genetic strain. I wonder how one explains "heroin chic", though...

Anyway... perception of order as a prereq for (unlearned, instinctive) perception of beauty. I'll have to think about that...

Nick_A
Sage
Posts: 504
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 9:49 am

Post #28

Post by Nick_A »

acamp1 wrote:This Simone Weil is very interesting. You started me on a little research binge. Know of any good books about her?

(I still disagree, BTW. And anyway - even if the perception of beauty did come from an instinctive appreciation of order - that is in no way an argument in favor of intelligent design. Life IS order. Of COURSE life would have affinity for order. What does that prove?)
More and more books are coming out all the time on Simone. She is the only person I know who could be admired by both Pope Paul V1 and Leon Trotsky. She is so non conventional that one can sense the purity; the complete dedication to truth at the expense of herself. Some call her the "New Saint" since she refuses to abandon her mind. Here is an interesting summary

http://www.cesnur.org/2002/slc/bauer.htm

Her ideas on metaphysics are extremely deep. As an Atheist, you'd probably be more drawn to her ideas on society as in "The Need for Roots" All the books in the beginning of this list are good but either reflect her social activism or her religious depth. She is pure, brilliant, and simply beyond petty classification. How can I as an Aries male not admire this individuality that needed to understand so much and dedicated her short life to attempting to do so?

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/10 ... imone+weil

Life IS order. Of COURSE life would have affinity for order. What does that prove?)
I ask myself what the source of order is. It cannot appear by itself since it has no pattern to evolve towards. The only explanation is that order is the normal result of the interactions of universal laws having a conscious origin. This doesn't imply a personal God for us but just the source of universal laws. Proof for me begins with the inadequacy of other explanations.

acamp1
Scholar
Posts: 285
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 12:50 am
Location: Massachusetts

Post #29

Post by acamp1 »

As an Atheist, you'd probably be more drawn to her ideas on society
I don't consider myself an atheist. I simply reject the American Judeo-Christian notion of a paternalistic anthropomorphic personal deity.

Something drives life. That is clearly so. I don't know what it is and I'm fine with that. No need to jump to conclusions about angry/loving bearded giants in the sky.

Nick_A
Sage
Posts: 504
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 9:49 am

Post #30

Post by Nick_A »

acamp1 wrote:
As an Atheist, you'd probably be more drawn to her ideas on society
I don't consider myself an atheist. I simply reject the American Judeo-Christian notion of a paternalistic anthropomorphic personal deity.

Something drives life. That is clearly so. I don't know what it is and I'm fine with that. No need to jump to conclusions about angry/loving bearded giants in the sky.
I'm the same. This is why I side with those like Simone and Prof Jacob Needleman. He writes in part in the preface of his book "Lost Christianity."
........As once again we witness the horrific engines of war being fueled by religious zeal of one kind or another, and under one kind of name or another, the answer to this question is obviously to be: Yes, sometimes: Yes often! Have not the darkest crimes of world history - the insane barbarism of genocide, the bloody crusades, the murder of innocents, and the depredation of defenseless cultures - have not many, if not most, of these crimes been committed under the banner of religion or through a quasi-religious frenzy attaching itself to religious ideals? Put next to these endlessly recurrent horrors, the intimate comforts of personal religious faith and day-to-day individual efforts to live religiously may seem to count for little in the balance scales of human life on earth. Little wonder, then that so many of the best minds of the modern era entirely rejected religion as a foundation for both ethics and knowledge. Just as the scientific turn of the mind seemed to have entirely eclipsed religion's claim to knowledge, so - it has seemed to many - the same modern turn of mind must inevitably displace religion's claim to moral authority. Just as religion can no longer show us what is true but must yield that task to methods of thought that are independent of religious doctrine, so neither can religion, it was claimed, show us what is good, but must now surrender that task as well to the secular mind of modernity.

But in fact, no assumption of moral authority by secular humanism has taken hold or now seems in any way likely or justified. The modern era, the era of science, while witnessing the phenomenal acceleration of scientific discovery and its applications in technological innovation, has brought the world the inconceivable slaughter and chaos of modern war, along with the despair of ethical dilemmas arising from new technologies that all at once project humanity's essence-immortality onto the entire planet: global injustice, global heartlessness, and global disintegration of the normal patterns of life that have guided mankind for a millennia. Neither the secular philosophies of our epoch nor its theories of human nature - pragmatism, positivism, Marxism, Liberalism, humanism, behaviorism, biological determinism, psychoanalysis - nor the traditional doctrines of the religions, in the way we have understood them, seem able to confront or explain the crimes of humanity in our era, nor other wise and compassionate guidance through the labyrinth of paralyzing new ethical problems.

What is needed is either a new understanding of God or a new understanding of Man: an understanding of God that does not insult the scientific mind while offering bread, not a stone, to the deepest hunger of the heart; an understanding of Man that squarely faces the criminal weakness of our moral will while holding out to us the knowledge of how we can strive within ourselves to become the fully human being we were meant to be -- both for ourselves and as instruments of a higher purpose.

But this is not an either/or. The premise --or rather, the proposal -- of this book is that at the heart of the Christian religion there exists, and has always existed, just such a vision of God and Man. I call it "Lost Christianity," not because it is a matter of doctrines and concepts that may have been lost or forgotten; nor even a matter of methods of spiritual practice that may need to be recovered from ancient sources. It is all that, to be sure, but what is lost in the whole of our modern life, including our understanding of religion, is something even more fundamental, without which religious ideas and practices lose their meaning and all to easily become the instruments of ignorance, fear, and hatred. What is lost is the experience of oneself -- myself, the personal being who is here, now, living, breathing, yearning for meaning, for goodness; just this person here, now, squarely confronting ones existential weaknesses and pretensions while yet aware, however tentatively, of a higher current of a higher current of life and identity calling to us from within ourselves. This presence to oneself is the missing element in the whole of the life of Man, the intermediate state of consciousness between what we are meant to be and what we actually are. it is perhaps the one bridge that can lead us from our inhuman past toward the human future.,,,,,,,,,
It seems to me that a new understanding of man can only come from intentional efforts to "Know thyself." Unfortunately this is frowned upon.

I don't see what is so offensive about considering a source for universal laws. Of course it is a lot to ask modern man to accept that he may be as Plato described psychologically in a cave and include within education the means for acquiring self knowledge. But this is IMO what must happen if we are ever to acquire a new understanding of God and Man.

Post Reply