Of course not. That's why something super-natural is logically possible. As an extreme example, multiverse theories include pretty much any and all hypothesis.

Super-natural from a physics perspective relates to something beyond the natural laws of physics. Which could also include brute mystery at the end of the Universe.

The phrases "impossible to exist" and "logically necessary to exist" contradict each other. One of the most fundamental principals of logic is that contradictory statements cannot both be true. It can be one or the other, but not logically both. — EricH

Correct. That's why driving while daydreaming is logically impossible. Hence you are driving and not driving at the same time. Or can you explain how the conscious mind works logically?

This sentence (as are all of your definitions and metaphors) is illogical. That does not mean it is valueless to you. To your way of thinking this contradiction implies a deeper "truth". But now you are using the word "truth" differently than it is used in logic. — EricH

Exactly. That my point. Your conscious existence is essentially logically impossible. Otherwise, explain how far objective truth can take you?

have. Religion is fundamentally illogical. You can use logic to analyze the religious texts of the various religions and point out all the impossible assertions & contradictions in the texts. But you cannot use logic to prove or disprove poetic metaphors. — EricH

Well that's not the point. But for the sake of argument, let's assume you are correct. Tell me then how do we analyze metaphors, through the intellect? And if so, does that consist of logic?

So whether we're arguing history from a textbook and trying to explain consciousness, mustn't you use logic?

And even if there are logical impossibilities, what difference does it make if you cannot even explain your own.... ?

If you guess that supernatural entities do not "exist" then you are an atheist about such entities. If you assert that the whole notion of supernatural entities is meaningless, then you are taking some variety of an ignostic position. — EricH

Why hide behind titles? Just use logic and the answer will come to you my friend!!!

Indeed. Christianity (the Wisdom Books) actually speaks to that sense of ignorance (Ecclesiastes/existentialism).

Nothing novel there!

180, once again, unknowingly acquiesced to admitting he hasn't figured it all out yet. And that's actually okay! How can you be a human and a snowflake all at the same time? Dr. Spock would say that's illogical! LOL

Hence, his liar's paradox, LOL

The object’s sentimental value is still a property of the relation, not of the actual object itself. — Possibility

Agreed. But it requires the object itself to be apperceived, otherwise, nothing happens.

Is the prize awarded to the artist or to the soap box car? The criteria would not consist of properties of the object itself, but of a demonstrated relation between artist and object: the aesthetics and creativity of the car’s design. It’s a subtle difference, but an important one. Beauty pageants and models are another story - the aesthetics is a form of objectification: the perceived isolation or separation of an object from the subject of which it is a property, by another subject. — Possibility

Of course, to the artist, who is, a subjective-object as well! I agree aesthetics is a form of objective truth. But you keep getting stuck on old-school paradigm's of objectification when the truth is that aesthetics (itself) is an objective truth.

Here's where you get stuck with when you literally conflate the two:

Objectification: 1.the action of degrading someone to the status of a mere object.
"the objectification of women in popular entertainment" 2.the expression of something abstract in a concrete form. The objectification of images may be astonishingly vivid in dreams

Aesthetics: a set of principles concerned with the nature and appreciation of beauty, especially in art.
•the branch of philosophy that deals with the principles of beauty and artistic taste.

You see where item 2 of objectification and aesthetics line-up? That's kind of what we're talking about, no?

There is a step between the aesthetic idea and the produced work of art, which Kant puts down to a genius’ ‘natural capacity’ only because - not being an artist himself - he has no means to understand it. It is the capacity to perceive an aesthetic experience in one’s own potential relation to an object, prior to its actual expression/exhibition. In my view, — Possibility

Agreed.

1. Concerning your statement about Kant: What you are not, you cannot perceive to understand; it cannot communicate itself to you----AH Maslow

2.In the case of the artist, it's the reverse from that which we were analyzing (from Kant's aesthetical judgement). A Beauty Pageant or the criteria set forth in employing a Model is based upon the perception of the aesthetical object initially/first (pragmatically speaking). That as apposed to the manifestation of the intellect through artistic medium's is that of a secondary means of expression (the written song, the painted canvas). So it's just an issue of subordination between the two, based upon the context of aesthetics and objectivity that is being apperceived.

The desire of the appearance. Your reference to the ‘subject’s object’ suggests a dualism that renders the object a property of the subject, but I’m struggling to understand the nature of the relation as you see it. Given that an ‘object’ is a goal or thing external to the thinking mind or subject to which a specific action or feeling can be directed, there seems to be some confusion as to which ‘object’ we’re referring to - object of which subject’s mind? In my view, reference to the subject’s object suggests either self-perception, or objectification. — Possibility

Yes, correct. but again, don't keep using the old-school term of objectification because its usage is not appropriate for philosophical discourse (which I'll give you credit for) in relation to aesthetics.

To then confine that aesthetic idea to the determined object of our desire is to ignore the transcendent extent of empirical intuition that inspired this aesthetic experience in the first place. The determined object of our desire is only one instance of perceived potentiality in the aesthetic experience, which is itself only one possible expression of an aesthetic idea, which is one representation of the imagination. — Possibility

I agree. I think the term you often use is indeed appropriate. That term being possibility. But I think it's more Freudian in nature in that it's more than likely a subconscious phenomena. Meaning, the desire (in Eros) is based upon the aesthetics (judgement of physical objective beauty) of the subject's-object first, then there may be a subconscious perception of possibility that equally involves the intellect in hopes of subsequent and ensuing true compatibility, along with other relational and rational criteria.

Is that what you consider an aesthetic judgement? — Possibility

No. It's what I consider in your macro theory of compatibility, for which I take no exception. But again, we're parsing the distinctions here.

Kant’s aesthetics is a process of suspending judgement in attributing the property ‘pleasurable’ - first to a determined object, and then to a concept - before engaging the full capacity of the intellect. This is compatible with the Platonic notion of Eros, the purpose of which was to inspire transcendence from physical passion towards Beauty as an ideal. It is recognising that there is much more to appearances than objects/concepts and their properties. — Possibility

But I'm not talking about Platonic love. I'm talking about the traditional definition of Eros; romance and passion, and how existential those needs are to the human condition. If I had the understanding necessary to write a romance novel, perhaps that would be meaningful to you. Nevertheless, I appreciate all that there is associated with same.

When you isolate the intellectually compatible and physically desirable components from each other (as you appear to have done in the scenario you described above, then you’re not adhering to Kant’s process of aesthetic judgement. Perceiving an aesthetic experience recognises an irreducibility of appearances to phenomena (or object/concept/properties), NOT a separation of physical and metaphysical/intellectual components. This seems to me a misunderstanding of Kant’s aesthetics. Idk — Possibility

Aesthetics, or esthetics (/ɛsˈθɛtɪks, iːs-, æs-/), is a branch of philosophy that deals with the nature of beauty and taste, as well as the philosophy of art (its own area of philosophy that comes out of aesthetics). It examines subjective and sensori-emotional values, or sometimes called judgments of sentiment and taste.[1]

Aesthetics covers both natural and artificial sources of aesthetic experience and judgment. It considers what happens in our minds when we engage with aesthetic objects or environments such as in viewing visual art, listening to music, reading poetry, experiencing a play, exploring nature, and so on. The philosophy of art specifically studies how artists imagine, create, and perform works of art, as well as how people use, enjoy, and criticize their art. It deals with how one feels about art in general, why they like some works of art and not others, and how art can affect our moods or even our beliefs.

My point of summary is that from Kant's initial (phenomenal) experience of beauty : First, they are disinterested, meaning that we take pleasure in something because we judge it beautiful, rather than judging it beautiful because we find it pleasurable.

And so judging is a secondary process. The object itself is apperceived initially. We can't escape it. It's existential in its implication.

For reference ( as you already know) : https://iep.utm.edu/kantaest/#SH2a

But as you seem to be acknowledging, poetry is not logical. You cannot engage in a philosophical discussion such as this with poetry. Well, OK, you can engage - it's just going to be meaningless - as is pretty much everything you've said so far in this conversation.. — EricH

Not sure what you mean. Are metaphor's not meaningfull in the absence of logic? Or are metaphor's a substitution for a lack of explaining nature itself? Meaning, are metaphor's just as logically confusing as your consciousness itself? Does theoretical physics/science use metaphor's?

Hence: Jesus existed and was known to have a human consciousness. Because consciousness itself is a mystery and logically impossible to explain, it is also logically necessary to exist.

That's not a metaphor, it's an objective fact, or is it? Can you sort that out for me using logic?

They want more, they want to turn math into a kind of God. — JerseyFlight

The irony and/or paradox for some (atheists, etc.) is that they rely on objective reasoning, yet deny the significant implications of Platonism/mathematical truth's.

:up:

Love what a great enigma! That's another part of conscious existence that seems logically impossible to explain doesn't it!

I'm kind of digging it actually! Maybe do more of a odd time signature like a 5-4 which would probably be more metaphorically appropriate.

Accordingly I still like my metaphor that : God is a mottled color of Truth.

LOL, in the spirit of Muhammad Ali (God rest his soul ), with all his pent-up anger I think he rope-a-dope'd himself!!

I hate to say it but 180z projection of anger only substantiates your position even more! It's kind of a cognitive science thing I think...

At least it's consistent with his nihilistic belief system; he's got nothing to argue!!! LOL

Oh, and don't forget to hit the quote button when you post, that way the other person knows that you've replied by way of their email.

Regarding consciousness, I don't know what is consciousness. My speculation is that it is the soul that is using the brain as an interface into this reality. This is obviously not science. — Marco Colombini

I understand, it is quite mysterious to say the least. Pretty much transcends many forms of pure/formal logic (as it should be).

I suppose kind of like multiverse speculation, what is your speculation on the so-called soul? What is it, comprised of photons? Though I haven't read any of them, there have been some books regarding the holographic soul, which presumably is based on the holographic principle in physics.

I know it's kind of sci-fi but I wonder how black holes enter into this picture, if you will?

Perhaps there is another (valid) example of something that both exists and does not exist. I'd be curious to hear about it. — Marco Colombini

Our consciousness is much like that. Consider driving a car while daydreaming then crashing and killing yourself. Was it our conscious or subconscious driving the car allowing ourself to kill ourself(?). In many ways, one could say you were driving and not driving because at the time, you thought that you were not driving, otherwise, you wouldn't have voluntarily crashed and killed yourself.

Consciousness seems to be logically impossible to explain yet is logically necessary for existence. Pardon the pun, but I too wonder if there are other things in life that are logically impossible to explain... ?

something does not need to have mass to exist. Photons have no mass. That allows them to travel at the speed of light. If they had mass then they could not travel at the speed of light because at that speed anything with mass would have an infinite mass and thus require infinite energy to reach the speed of light. If the definition of existence includes having mass then the definition is wrong.
How do we know that the mass of a particle increases with speed? Well, when charged particles are accelerated, the mass increases as described by Einstein's equations. In particle accelerators that increase in mass must be considered in order to control the motion of the particle and reach speeds close to that of light.
By the way, mass is not permanent. The collision of a particle and an antiparticle (e.g. electron and a positron) results in total annihilation producing gamma rays that have no mass. Mass is converted to energy as described in Einstein's famous equation, E=mc^2.
Perhaps there is another (valid) example of something that both exists and does not exist. I'd be curious to hear about it. — Marco Colombini

Nice; subscribed!!
:up:

A demonstration in one sentence of two things: 1) there is no accounting for what some people will say, ...........So I shall make the effort to communicate with you at your level, so that you will understand, no questions necessary. It will seem harsh, but given your style of discussion, it is actually just right: Fuck you, stupid! — tim wood

I agree Timmy, "there is no accounting for what some people say". It (some atheists) does seem to be a little extreme. :lol:

D) it is. Thanks for "flailing" around with me, Frank. My work is done here. — 180 Proof

He didn't pick D, so I'm confused. Actually, if he did, it would certainly make sense because only you yourself, know yourself. I don't know Frank, like Frank knows himself.

What you are not you cannot percieve to understand; it cannot communicate itself to you--AH Maslow

:lol:

3017amen, indeed, both views are held by persons interested in understanding the universe and our existence. These are two hypotheses of the nature of our reality. The difference is that one view is far better supported by all available information and the other is not. Some scientists I have known actively ignore information contrary to their hypothesis because they become so wedded to it. These can be very intelligent and capable scientists. It is quire sad especially if one knows the person. It is a human weakness. It is most difficult to put aside one's deeply held views and just take a hard look at all the information and come to the logical conclusion. I think that any atheist who does the very difficult task of considering all evidence dispassionately will realize that the existence of God is most likely to be the correct answer. — Marco Colombini

Indeed. Logically, there is more evidence in favor of a cosmological God v. no God. As far as human (Being) existence, those of us who are Christian Existentialist's typically understand Jesus existed and was known to have a consciousness. The irony is that because consciousness itself is a mystery and logically imposible to explain, it is also logically necessary to exist.

Trips-up the Atheist every time!

God is a conscious being, AKA Jesus, which designed a conscious being known as Jesus.This is poetry, not a definition. — EricH

On the contrary. Because consciousness itself is a mystery and logically impossible to explain, it is also logically necessary to exist.

No, and good question. Because consciousness itself is a mystery and logically impossible to explain, it is also logically necessary to exist.

I'm not sure what you mean by "A conscious being; Jesus." Could this be re-phrased as "A conscious being, AKA Jesus."? — EricH

Sure, I don't see why not.

How do you know this? Or it just an 'article of faith'? — 180 Proof

I would say that Marco's faith (assuming he has a thing called faith) is the same or similar faith that the atheist has in his/her belief system. For example, it's a faith towards something that is Metaphysical or not Metaphysical. At the same time, in the case of Christianity, since Jesus existed in history, another question emerges as to what kind of belief or faith does that represent?

It often seems like that are taking math a priori and assuming that the world must accord with it. That would be a Pythagorean position though. It would need defending. Anyone willing to help me reason through this issue? — Gregory

Sure, great question! Math/a priori abstract concepts go way back to Platonism which of course is still popular today. Numbers or other abstract objects are supposed to be objective, timeless entities, independent of the physical world and/or of the symbols used to represent them. However, we know that there are other problems associated with those descriptions and concepts of reality.

For example, we know that running mathematical calcs. to size-up a structural beam is an abstract way of describing a physical object. And similarly, also running calcs. to compute or describe unseen things (metaphysical) like the laws of gravity. Of course neither are necessary for building certain things or for dodging falling things/objects. And so you have this ancillary feature of human existence that just is. Why we have this ability is a mystery. But the mystery also extends to the paradox of existence (timeless truth's v. time dependent truth's).

Platonic realms, mathematics and reality relate to contradictions in temporal time and time dependency (contingency & causation in nature) v. timelessness. Since mathematical truth's are known to be timeless abstract truth's that can effectively describe physical things (though not perfectly complete viz Gödel and Heisenberg), yet at the same time we live in a time dependent reality, we have to confront the contradiction between those concepts from our reality. And that could also lead to the other intriguing questions about whether math itself has an independent existence or whether it's a human invention, or other problems relative to logically necessary truth's which are based on formal logic/mathematics, like the infamous ontological argument.

But here's the thing, living life itself is not strictly binary either/or like much in the world of mathematics, computers and mathematical abstracts. Instead, it's more akin to the dialectic reasoning of both/and.

So I think it's just another means to and end. It's a tool that is obviously useful yet has its limitations. When discussing the nature of reality and existence, you have to confront the paradoxes associated with timelessness and time dependent things in nature. But it's ironic that we ourselves have this capability to compute timelessness (Platonic realms) through the use of mathematics and mathematical abstracts in our thinking, yet we live in a world of time dependent * reality.

(*Though I suppose one could make a case for relativity insofar as the speed of light being timeless and eternal like mathematical abstracts.)

Your answer to 180 should be your belief in Agnosticism; it is both an objective and subjective truth (based on his options given).

Just trying to help. Approach it from that perspective and we could have an intellectually lucid and cordial discussion.

Yep. It would be nice if folks actually took theists or spiritual people on their merits rather than strawmanning. A lot of good discussions could be had if folks didn't go into shock and all defensive when they find a theist who is articulate and has some good ideas and contributions. And I speak as a non theist. — Asif

Well said. Yet again, in Christianity itself, that is nothing new under the sun (Ecclesiastes/existentialism).

Seems like you were championing agnosticism. I guess not? — jorndoe

I've been a Christian Existentialist for a long time. Thanks.

think a lot of people do not understand that all truths are subjective and inter subjective. The word objective is a much abused word and is really a nothing word. A word used to control and shut down ideas and dialogue. And the concept god Is used in differing ways,literal metaphorical or conceptual.
Truth is Description. Some descriptions are better than others. But descriptions should be based on lived reality not the formal logic/biases of academic philosophy or academic science. Life is eminently obviously Spiritual and debating endlessly especially when there are entrenched positions is not productive. — Asif

No exceptions taken!

Since the concept of God itself is so broad, another way of wondering about such causation could be to parse the meaning of Truth.

1. Reality itself. The thing-in-itself is probably what I have in mind.

2. Perceptions of reality. phenomenon seems to fit the bill. — TheMadFool

Great OP TMF!

I'm subscribed! (Because item 1 seems to include Metaphysics, and item 2 consists of things --many things-- like the paradox of time and the perceptions of same... .)

There are a lot of ways to parse the human condition in this context. For example, one part of the logical analysis would be to distinguish between an objective truth and a subjective truth.

If it is true that only you yourself know yourself, and that your truth is yours alone, I strongly suggest there would be no amount of logic that could change that. 180's truth is his truth just like Frank's truth is his truth.

For some reason 180 doesn't understand that. He seems upset that Frank does not share his belief system, presumably from some subset of logic that is not germane to the human condition.

Well, we CAN separate the object from our feelings - but we are so accustomed to Cartesian dualism that we don’t know how, and often don’t want to. A — Possibility

Not according to Kant's theory of feelings associated with aesthetic value. Consider the same inanimate object (car) being sold by the owner because it was breaking down. What if the car was rusty and unappealing to the owner who only used it as a commuter vehicle and who didn't care about its aesthetical value? Would he or she cry upon selling it? Or would they say good riddance, I never really liked it anyway? Either way, the object itself would have sentimental (an attitude towards something) value.

Or imagine an artist or otherwise a creative person designing a soap box car. He or she enters a contest which includes aesthetic's and creativity. And as such, it is judged and scored accordingly. What do you think the criteria of the object would consist of? Aesthetics? ( Beauty pageants, models, ad nauseum.)

really - An artist need not be successful at expressing themselves through an object/medium for the aesthetic experience to exist for the artist. — Possibility

How is that possible?

What you’re referring to here is not aesthetics - it’s desire. T — Possibility

The desire of what, the subject's-object, or some other desire?

is a relation at the level of potentiality: the potential beauty — Possibility

Precisely my point, the potential of beauty is the aesthetic judgement.

How else is it that an aesthetic experience exists despite failing to either distinguish our pleasure from judgements of the agreeable or establish a claim to universal vali — Possibility

Because we live in a physical world, you think?

My argument is that the personhood of any human being is recognised as an indeterminate concept, rather than an object. — Possibility

Let's consider your indeterminate concept in this scenario. Let's assume a male sees a female who to him is highly physically desirable. He pursues a relationship with her initially, for that reason. His choice to make a decision of sustainably would rest in the compatibility needs from the intellectual component. At that point it becomes determined that there is either compatibility or non-compatibility. The subject's-object is part of the criteria either way. In other words, one outcome from your potentiality calculation could be that she was really cute but unfortunately a 'bitch'.

Romantic love is considered ‘successful’ in a modern context only when it is reciprocal, resulting in a mutual instance of desire — Possibility

Absolutely agree, but it doesn't support your theory.

Or you are merely pointing out the limited applicability of human language — substantivalism

Sure (in our context) that would speak to the ineffable ; one having a religious experience.

The vagueness of our language/concepts is different from the inherent vagueness of the things-in-of-themselves. — substantivalism

That's correct. We don't understand things in themselves, much like the mystery associated with the nature of our conscious existence.

Likewise, dialectic reasoning would also violate similar laws of non-contradiction (Aristotle). Being and becoming, actual vs potential, pretty much anything in nature, etc. are outside of the many rules of logic (either/or v. both/and) which speaks to natural phenomenon and Being (living life). Some objects can be potentially F and potentially non F. Consider the exchange: Were you pleased? Well I was and I wasn't.

Or in the case of driving a car while daydreaming, you were essentially driving and not driving. And so if we cannot use logic to adequately explain our own existence, how can the atheist (in our discussion) make an accurate judgement about or explain the existence of, another Being or object? Is it logically possible?

the apple was from a certain distance away (all else being equal) both red and not-red at the same time then it would violate classical logic. To perform your experiment this would involve changing the state of affairs so we were actually seeing more clearly details that were inaccessible to us before (in the previous location or spot) therefore we could not make such a conclusion — substantivalism

Agreed. Similarly, consider a spinning ball that appears gray. Say we were never able to stop the ball from spinning, so we assume that it's gray. Then somehow the ball falls to the ground and stops spinning. Upon further inspection half of the ball was actually black and the other half was white. But if the ball never stops spinning we wouldn't know the true color or nature of the thing-in-itself. Phenomenology and Being is much like the spinning ball that never stops. In other words, living life is not confined to all the rules of logic.

Well quantum indeterminacy is a particular part of a few interpretations of quantum mechanics so you'll need to be further specific. — substantivalism

Heisenberg uncertainty principle and Godel's incompleteness theorem both had implications of indeterminacy in nature. The liar's paradox (unresolved paradox/self reference) is the classic example.

And so the question remains, using logic, how can the atheist claim God does not exist? And/or perhaps more importantly for some, in Christianity, how can the atheist claim that Jesus did not exist?

Given that (your) "agnosticism" is A TRUTH-CLAIM, tell me/us what makes (your) "agnosticism" TRUE. — 180 Proof

Hello angry atheist! Sorry for the redundancy, were you able to understand Frank's belief in Agnosticism?

Frank's Agnosticism can be summed-up in the concept/principle of Bivalence/Vagueness:

Consider the following statement in the circumstance of sorting apples on a moving belt:
This apple is red.
Upon observation, the apple is an undetermined color between yellow and red, or it is mottled both colors. Thus the color falls into neither category " red " nor " yellow ", but these are the only categories available to us as we sort the apples. We might say it is "50% red". This could be rephrased: it is 50% true that the apple is red. Therefore, P is 50% true, and 50% false. Now consider:
This apple is red and it is not-red.
In other words, P and not-P. This violates the law of noncontradiction and, by extension, bivalence.

Or if you like, quantum indeterminacy and/or Gödel and Heisenberg uncertainty principle might help... .

This is a paraconsistent system, by the way, and some who defende dialetheism employ it. — Nagase

Correct me if I'm wrong, LEM/Bivalence does not apply to things like natural phenomena and Being. Dialectic (both/and v. either/or) reasoning made that distinction.

You are either actively participating in the act of driving or you are not if you are day dreaming then you are not driving. Merely the inertia of the vehicle propels the hunk of metal forward and that then impacts something. — substantivalism

Really? Then why would a person intentionally daydream, crash and kill themselves, while driving? Surely that couldn't be the case.

In other words, tell us if consciousness itself, is logically possible? Or is its design logically impossible to explain? Or, a third option, is it a brute mystery?

Memory, feeling, or thought can all re-invoke an experience, long after the perceived object ceases to exist. In fact, I would argue that an illusion or simulation would be sufficient for an aesthetic experience. — Possibility

Sure the intellectual component that comprises feelings of perception from memory is alive and well. Nevertheless, you can't separate the object from your feelings. As another example from inanimate objects, when someone cries over their car that they've loved and become attached to but have to sell because it keeps breaking down, (in part) why do they cry?

Artistic production even suggests the aesthetic experience is contingent upon the existence of an aesthetic idea in relation to one’s capacity for apperception, rather than the existence or perception of any object itself. — Possibility

I can appreciate where you are going with that. An artist first has to intellectually express themselves through a medium, and that medium is usually an object. So if you want to argue subordination between the two you can. But that would only support my argument that we cannot escape (the need for) the object itself.

Yes, it does involve pleasure for both, but I dispute that romantic love-making necessarily revolves around selfish pleasure - rather, it involves a deconstruction or decentering of ‘self’ such that the pleasure sought is not a property of one or the other, but of the relation. The way I see it, romantic love is not a subject-object relation. — Possibility

Sure, ideally romantic love should encompass both appreciation of the subject and object. But a passionate relationship must involve appreciation of aesthetics. For example, regardless whether a subject is obese or not, the other subject would love that subject's object (body) when displaying any act of physical touching, caressing, loving the object itself, etc..

And so the subject-object dynamic is merely common sense.

but the aesthetic experience existed well before anyone had an opportunity to look at the baby. — Possibility

Sure, no exceptions taken.

My argument is that the process of aesthetic judgement and its ‘disinterested pleasure’ begins with apperception - of an aesthetic object, potentiality or idea - but is not contingent upon the physical existence of, observation or interaction with, the concrete object itself. — Possibility

I do get what you're saying despite my arguments to the contrary. We need to have the ability to perceive objects in order for the aesthetic judgement to even take place. And so you can't have one without the other. And so if we were simply brains in a jar perhaps we would make similar aesthetic judgments about the size, shape, and definition of what a pleasure a brain gives to us.

In the context of Eros (romantic love and passion) I just don't think that it's reasonable to project an intellectual connection onto a physical object that is considered undesirable to the subject.

What would give you that impression? I'm a Christian Existentialist and proud of it lol!

I'm always up for a challenge what's the challenge?

That's funny Frank, 180 unknowingly, just acquiesced to agnosticism. Yet another irony for the atheist (like him).