I don't really subscribe to this idea of the sublime (awe and wonder?).........................The experince is not transcendental. It's a personal reaction. — Tom Storm

There is no one meaning of the word "sublime". From Wikipedia - Sublime (philosophy)

For 1st C AD Longinus, the sublime is an adjective that describes great, elevated, or lofty thought or language, particularly in the context of rhetoric.

In an early work (of 1764), Immanuel Kant made an attempt to record his thoughts on the observing subject's mental state in Observations on the Feeling of the Beautiful and Sublime. He held that the sublime was of three kinds: the noble, the splendid, and the terrifying.

For Schopenhauer, the feeling of the sublime, however, is when the object does not invite such contemplation but instead is an overpowering or vast malignant object of great magnitude, one that could destroy the observer.

Not only is it a personal reaction to which definition of the word "sublime" one accepts, but even if accepting one particular definition of the "sublime", it remains a personal reaction to one's experiences of the "sublime" as defined.

Wow, yeah, I quite like that thought. These two sides of beauty. — Prometheus2

Yes, interesting. Would you say beauty could be also from the other aspect of the world or situations?

Not only is it a personal reaction to which definition of the word "sublime" one accepts, but even if accepting one particular definition of the "sublime", it remains a personal reaction to one's experiences of the "sublime" as defined. — RussellA

Yes, and what I'm saying is I have not had that reaction. By any definition I've seen. :wink:

Could you elaborate that? (this other aspect?)

Could you elaborate that? (this other aspect?) — Prometheus2

The idea of beauty could be much effected from situations. For example, a beautiful person in the dental chair getting her teeth scaled may not look beautiful at all, as she would when she is dancing in the night club.

Likewise an ordinary looking person can look more beautiful when just out of shower or working out hard in the gym sweating than formally dressed and greeting her customers in the office.

Some situations can make beauty to climax, while other situations could decrease it. These situational aspects seem to indicate the idea of beauty is a contingent psychological feelings on the perceived objects.

I would [pardon my presumptiousness] suggest that at the instant that your eyes saw, your body had a/some real feeling(s)--perhaps an organic bonding with Nature (or, your place within that whole). The moment you identified it as a thing, 'beautiful' your real connection with that unnamable thing, became displaced by the conventional concept, thereafter relegated to Mind and History, forever displacing that moment of reality with our construction of it. Real beauty is that organic sensory experience, and not any of this discourse about it.

I submit you will yearn to repeat it, but the yearning belongs to the label, and this discourse. You cannot repeat it. But it can return. When it does, like the moment you described, it will surprise you and make you feel something real...until the nanosecond after, when, again, you acknowledge it with "beautiful."

Hmm... So what you mean to say is that...perhaps beauty is something purely contingent and subjective, and if it were not, there would have to be some kind of consistent, determinable pattern behind its' occurrence or emergence?

You mentioned this example with people and how they might seem more or less beautiful depending on the situation and if this were the case, that beauty would be more of a contingent thing. Then again, doesn't this idea with your example above assume beauty would have to be a property or an attribute in order for it not to be random/subjective? That it must always be applicable to an object after it once has been designated as beautiful?

Regarding your example, I also think when it comes to things we perceive with our eyes, aesthetics play a big role in our judgement of them as well. Not sure how much this overlaps with beauty or our judgement/perception of/on it. (While we might find the aesthetics of an object pleasing, does this necessarily mean it is beautiful?)

Also what if we take, say, a song for example. A lot of people might find this certain song beautiful. Where- or whenever it is played, it will still be perceived as beautiful. In this example outside factors or different situations might not influence the perception of beauty at all imo.

Thank you for your comment!
That's a very interesting point there.
I've often wondered how much of a word's 'true meaning', or that of what this word in question is trying to really describe gets lost through this process of trying to categorize and put a label on everything in this world.

Please correct me if I've misinterpreted your comment;
You mean to say that basically this experience, which I (or others too) had, is not something as 'simple' as the word "beautiful" or at very least cannot be encapsulated within a single word? In fact, that what this experience in essence really is might not be describable in mere words (at all)?
Therefore, as soon as we label this moment as 'something' (for example as the word 'beautiful') it loses some (or all) of its' actual 'meaning'/essence of what it is?

As if forcing a cage (man-made construct) onto something far too big for it to actually fit inside (and in the process only catching a glimpse/fragment of its' real manifestation or maybe nothing at all due to the real nature of this moment being lost)?

this experience in essence really is might not be describable in mere words (at all)?
Therefore, as soon as we label this moment as 'something' (for example as the word 'beautiful') it loses some (or all) of its' actual 'meaning'/essence of what it is? — Prometheus2

Yes, exactly. I would dare to go as far as your parenthetical 'not at all'. Your experience was one thing: real, natural, felt organically by the real you in the present, i.e. the only 'place' where reality is. Then--owing to the human condition, I.e. that we have built a cage and locked ourselves in it:Mind--that feeling in its entirety, is displaced by the construct, say, 'beautiful', which in turn begins a process of triggering more 'constructs' by association, then triggering other feelings, all of which are utterly not that initial so called 'beautiful' feeling long gone.

But as you say, we all do this. And I suggest inescapably, and autonomously, Mind being that process of triggers leading to responses, in a continual feedback loop which we think of as time.

Without Mind, but only consciousness, like our advanced cousins among the animals; that real feeling would have been present to our aware-ing, but only in its presence. There would have been no dragging it with the Subject into the future by attaching it to a word, nor looking back, both a function of attachment and desire, and both at best, re-presented but no longer real.

That's as briefly as I am capable of putting it. I do think you already got the gist.

Sorry, but this is an essential final point. For all we know, every time a sophisticated animal, or prehistoric human animal looked at nature the way you did, the same blissful feelings are always aroused; but with Mind, constructs are always flooding that experience and displacing or diluting it with well tread paths of conditioned responses. I am confident you have described something real and venerable, but by so describing, you have also inadvertently buried its true potency. Again, 'you' here applies similarly to me, and all of us.

The constructs are useful as hell, but they are also what has alienated us from always feeling that bliss. Ironically, you were, at that moment, not expecting it; thus, not paying (conventional) attention and so reality was able to slip through. Lucky you!

I see..

Without Mind, but only consciousness, like our advanced cousins among the animals; that real feeling would have been present to our aware-ing, but only in its presence. — ENOAH

So according to you, the mind — as in, our ability to think ("Reason") — is what made us more or less incapable of enjoying such moments for what they really are due to this once started, unstoppable chain of associations and so on being triggered, tainting the 'real' experience.

But don't you think this is maybe more of a problem of language and not the mind itself?
Not as in our language not being precise enough or whatever, but that us acquiring language (words for also more complex ideas) is the main source and cause of this process?
Because after all if we didn't have words nor language, (but maybe some other means of communication instead?), wouldn't this 'problem' be 'solved'?



Thank you for this new perspective by the way, no need to apologise!

This reminds me, perchance a bit off topic, but: I read somewhere that they had found out or at least assume (through observation) that bears, too, enjoy landscapes and sceneries, seemingly as also able to appreciate them. Take this with a grain of salt though. I don't remember the details.


That aside, though, you also mentioned that I (applying to others as well) was "

at that moment, not expecting it; thus, not paying (conventional) attention and so reality was able to slip through. — ENOAH

Regarding that: Do you think there is a way (or ways) for us to actively stop this process from happening or at least try avoid it in order to enjoy such moments and experiences for what they truly could be?

I found a short passage about bears and what I mentioned earlier briefly.
I tried to find some studies about this however, along the way I found out that there hasn't yet been any extensive research done on this, though many seem to have observed this seemingly rather 'odd', or so far inexplicable behaviour of bears (them sitting in the same spot for prolonged periods of time without doing too much, just staring off into the distance), possibly indicating that they possess a to us similar' "sense of beauty" (but of course, who knows, could also be attributed to something else).
Just thought I'd clarify that.

don't you think this is maybe more of a problem of language and not the mind itself? — Prometheus2

Without the extensive explanation required, and which you are entitled to. Yes, precisely. But I think Mind is structured by/emerged with (or out of) language ( using that word very broadly).

Do you think there is a way (or ways) for us to actively stop this process from happening or at least try avoid it in order to enjoy such moments and experiences for what they truly could be? — Prometheus2

Very briefly; only as glimpses. You indeed, had such a glimpse. But you cannot do that through language (e.g. don't think of 'monkey'--if you are familiar with that little gem). But I don't fret. 1. Mind and Language obviously have their pros. 2. A glimpse might be enough to raise the awareness so that attachments and desires are put in their place, and Nature/Reality can at the very least be appreciated.

Again, all to brief, likely dissatisfying, but what can we do?

them sitting in the same spot for prolonged periods of time without doing too much, just staring off into the distance), — Prometheus2

Thank you.

My thinking is that my dog did that too. And likely other advanced animals. Likely, if it weren’t for thinking, any spare time we had prehistorically/pre-advanced-linguistically, would have been occupied in a blissful bonding with Nature.

Hmm... So what you mean to say is that...perhaps beauty is something purely contingent and subjective, and if it were not, there would have to be some kind of consistent, determinable pattern behind its' occurrence or emergence? — Prometheus2

I have thought about this concept again, and it seem to me that beauty could be very much closely related to bodily sensory perceptions, which cause aesthetically pleasing emotions in us.

When we see beautiful scenery, person or flowers, they pleases our eyes via the visual sensations and perception. When we hear beautiful music or songs, they please our ears or hearing.

Likewise, smells, tastes and touches could be described as beautiful, if they give us pleasing sensations.

You may ask, what about the reasoned beauty from the works of Picasso, Van Gogh, the famous Mona Lisa by Da Vinci,..etc? We may say, they please our brains.

Therefore we may conclude that beauty is an aesthetically pleasing emotions arising from our bodily sense organs in perceiving the objects or situations? Not sure if you would agree, or see the point. I would be interested to hear about your opinions on the point.

On “reasoned beauty”:

Do you think we reason to an aesthetically pleasing emotion?

beauty could be very much closely related to bodily sensory perceptions, which cause aesthetically pleasing emotions in us. — Corvus

I agree...for what it's worth

I think it was Aristotle who originally claimed we have 5 senses (sight, hearing, touch, taste and smell).
At first thought, I would have said that we most commonly call something beautiful which we either see and/or hear, e.g. a sunset, scenery or a song. While our other senses (touch, taste, smell) can contribute to this process of perceiving something as beautiful, I do not think that this thought of something being beautiful can stem out of these other 3 senses of touch, smell and taste (Feel free to prove me wrong here). A delicious meal might please our sense of taste and smell. However, does this automatically make it beautiful? Call it delicious maybe, but I feel like it is something different from the concept of beauty.
I'd see the sense of taste, smell and touch much more as amplifiers, instead of direct causes of enabling the perception of beauty.

Therefore I wonder. If we take these senses of vision and hearing away:
In what type of situation would a person with this dual sensory impairment (no vision or hearing)
label something as beautiful?
Or does such a person simply experience beauty in a completely different way?

I think someone without any sensory faculties could not feel or perceive beauty at all.
Consequently I have to agree with you. In my opinion, we at very least need our senses (vision and hearing) to be able to grasp beauty. (I'm not so sure about the other senses.)

You may ask, what about the reasoned beauty from the works of Picasso, Van Gogh, the famous Mona Lisa by Da Vinci,..etc? We may say, they please our brains.

Therefore we may conclude that beauty is an aesthetically pleasing emotions arising from our bodily sense organs in perceiving the objects or situations? — Corvus

I don't think art, which we analyse, necessarily 'pleases' our brain, but rather that, through thorough reflection about it and contemplation on the object itself, we reach a (reasoned) conclusion regarding its' qualities, like that it is beautiful.
I do agree with you though that beauty seems to be intrinsically linked to our sensory perception.

On “reasoned beauty”:

Do you think we reason to an aesthetically pleasing emotion? — Mww

I think we can reason on all the contents of our perception no matter how trivial they are. When you are asked "What does it feel like?", you explain the nature of the feeling using your reason reflectively. e.g. "It feels like coming home." or "Unbelievably interesting".

But in the case of aesthetically pleasing emotion, reason could offer a lot more explanation on the object in analytic and critical way. Most of the art critique essays are in the form of explanation based on reasoning.

I don't think art, which we analyse, necessarily 'pleases' our brain, but rather that, through thorough reflection about it and contemplation on the object itself, we reach a (reasoned) conclusion regarding its' qualities, like that it is beautiful. — Prometheus2

You could be right. Reasoned beauties cannot please our brains like the bodily sensory beauties please our bodily organs. Could it be because of the fact, brain is located inside body under the skin and skull hidden away from the external stimulation?

I still believe that brain feels and knows everything which is fed via the sensory organs, as the centre of the mental events where all mental operations take place. But maybe the way brain feels pleasure of reasoned beauty might be different from the way our eyes or ears feel pleasures from the sensations? In what what would it be different? Or does it have anything to do with the reasoned beauty at all?

Do you think we reason to an aesthetically pleasing emotion?
— Mww

I think we can reason on all the contents of our perception…. — Corvus

Agreed, but does that make to reason on content the same as to reason to emotion?

It looks to me as if you’re hinting they are not, and if they are not, it may be because we don’t reason to emotion at all. To do so is equivalent to thinking a feeling, which would be difficult to explain.

On the other hand, I can see here I might reason to an emotion I’ve already felt, given a cause I’ve already experienced. But this is mediated emotion, rather than immediate affectation, so in these cases, I’d be less inclined to question the idea.

Anyway….thanks.

Agreed, but does that make to reason on content the same as to reason to emotion? — Mww

I am definitely aware of my emotions in most times. I can feel happiness when seeing the newly arrived parcels, and when I opened them, the contents inside of the parcel were what I was expecting and satisfactory in quality. I feel satisfied and happy about them. I go to the online store, and leave a positive feedback reflecting my satisfaction and happiness on the goods delivered. This whole process is based on my reflective reasoning.

But as you pointed out, whether the content of perception is identical with the emotion seems a bit unclear. And what would be the nature of the reasoning between those different mental events?
Could emotions be classed as a type of perception? Or are they different events altogether? If so, how different?

On the other hand, I can see here I might reason to an emotion I’ve already felt, given a cause I’ve already experienced. But this is mediated emotion, rather than immediate affectation, so in these cases, I’d be less inclined to question the idea. — Mww

Yes, this is it. We can reflect and reason the felt emotions after the experience of emotion. Hence it looks like our emotions could be the subject matter for reason. According to Kant, reason can even reason about reason itself, which is then pure reason. In that case, why couldn't reason reason on the emotions or the content of emotions?

When emotional experience has gone through the analytic investigation of reason, it can be looked as in "the content" of reason, because then we can describe it in linguistic form.

Anyway….thanks. — Mww

Anytime Mww. Thank you.

@Prometheus2

What and how much exactly do these unique perceptions of beauty of individuals have in common and why? — Prometheus2

Dr. V.S. Ramachandran, Director of the Center for Brain and Cognition and Distinguished Professor with the Psychology Department and Neuroscience Program at the University of California.

In this 1 hour long talk, dr Ramachandran explains in his typical humorous way how strucures in the brain give rise to our experience of beauty and aestetics. I think this is what you are looking for.