If beauty and ugliness are not intrinsic features of our experience, then we are biased and things are not beautiful or ugly in themselves. — MoK

Beauty and ugliness are features of the objects in the universe. We perceive and judge them. They are not intrinsic features of our experience. Experience captures what is given to us by the universe. Experience is a blank sheet with no features.

I think beauty and ugliness are innate parts of a healthy human experience. The more interesting question in my mind is, "What do they mean?" While someone might have subjective views of what is beautiful and ugly, is there there some underlying objective meaning behind those words that transcends subjectivity?

Beauty and ugliness are features of the objects in the universe. — Corvus

Yes, and no. Although beauty and ugliness are features of objects, things like ideas, arts (music for example that is not an object), etc. could also be beautiful or ugly. That is why I used experience instead of object since a beautiful object seems beautiful but beauty is not the feature of the objects only.

We perceive and judge them. They are not intrinsic features of our experience. Experience captures what is given to us by the universe. Experience is a blank sheet with no features. — Corvus

Of course, experience has lots of features. How could recognize something is beautiful if your experience has no feature?

I think beauty and ugliness are innate parts of a healthy human experience. — Philosophim

I think beauty and ugliness are universal features of the experience, whether humans' experience, aliens', or animals'. Something beautiful is beautiful in the eyes of anybody.

I think beauty and ugliness are universal features of the experience, whether humans' experience, aliens', or animals'. Something beautiful is beautiful in the eyes of anybody. — MoK

No disagreement here, but what is the underlying aspect that makes something beautiful? My apologies if I'm not volunteering my own thoughts, its more of a primer to take the subject and really philosophically examine it. I want to hear your thoughts.

I think it is a mixture of properties of an object, like symmetry, curvature, color, and the like.

I think it is a mixture of properties of an object, like symmetry, curvature, color, and the like. — MoK

Fantastic! Can you delve further? Why would symmetry, curvature, etc be beautiful? Is there a combination of object, color and the like which would not be beautiful? Is there a common theme between them?

As distinguished from extrinsic features of our experience? What would they be?

It seems to me that if the argument works for beauty and ugliness, then it works for any other features of experience - veridical and illusory, or married and unmarried, for examples. Which would be inconvenient, if the intention is to say something about aesthetics that distinguishes it from science or mundanity.

Yes, and no. Although beauty and ugliness are features of objects, things like ideas, arts (music for example that is not an object), etc. could also be beautiful or ugly. That is why I used experience instead of object since a beautiful object seems beautiful but beauty is not the feature of the objects only. — MoK

Ideas are subjective thoughts. You say ideas are good or bad. You don't say ideas are beautiful or ugly. All arts are objects. Music is the songs and musical instruments performing coming to your ears in the form of the physical wave vibrations.

Of course, experience has lots of features. How could recognize something is beautiful if your experience has no feature? — MoK

Again it is a bit odd to hear someone saying beautiful experience or ugly experience unless it is said in some metaphorical way. You always experience something, and the content of your experience could be beautiful or ugly. Experience itself has no properties.

Fantastic! Can you delve further? Why would symmetry, curvature, etc be beautiful? — Philosophim

That is an excellent question that made me think for a while! In the end, I concluded that it is what it is. When things come together in a specific configuration, the object looks beautiful otherwise ugly. Perhaps one person who is an expert in the philosophy of art can elaborate further.

This leads to an infinite regress. — MoK

Personally I don't really have a problem with infinite regress. :wink:

If beauty and ugliness are not intrinsic features of our experience, then we are biased and things are not beautiful or ugly in themselves. This means that something else, such as the subconscious mind, embeds the impression of beauty or ugliness in our experiences. — MoK

Isn't this false dilemma fallacy? Might beauty not be the product of both subjective and objective factors? You're suggesting there are only two options here. 1) Intrinsic experience or 2) subjective experiences. But there must be a range of other explanations. What about beauty being relational rather than inherent or subjective? Might beauty not arise from the interaction we have with an object? A phenomenological process. Also could beauty (and any general agreement we have about this) not simply be an intersubjective relationship - a contingent product of culture, experience and evolutionary factors?

Personally I think beauty is an umbrella term for many different things. We are attracted and repelled by the world we live in - by ideas, by people, places, animals, colours... we often call things beautiful when we don't know what else to say.

As distinguished from extrinsic features of our experience? What would they be? — unenlightened

That is an excellent question! I think like and dislike for example are extrinsic features of our experience. Let me give you an example: A man could be handsome but he would not be sexually attractive to you since you are straight. Does that make sense to you? I am open to discuss this.

Experience itself has no properties. — Corvus

Of course, any experience has a set of properties, so-called Qualia.

Of course, any experience has a set of properties, so-called Qualia. — MoK

Nope. Qualia comes after experience as perceived qualities of the objects. Qualia is not part of experience.

Personally I don't really have a problem with infinite regress. :wink: — Tom Storm

I don't have any problem with it either! :razz:

Isn't this false dilemma fallacy? — Tom Storm

I don't think so. The features of our experience are either intrinsic or extrinsic.

Might beauty not be the product of both subjective and objective factors? — Tom Storm

They are.

You're suggesting there are only two options here. 1) Intrinsic experience or 2) subjective experiences. — Tom Storm

No, I am suggesting that the features of our experiences are either intrinsic or extrinsic.

Might beauty not arise from the interaction we have with an object? — Tom Storm

Yes, beauty arises from our interactions with objects.

Also could beauty (and any general agreement we have about this) not simply be an intersubjective relationship (many of us share) - a contingent product of culture, experience and evolutionary factors? — Tom Storm

If beauty was completely contingent then we face the regress. I think that the effect of culture for example is extrinsic.

Nope. Qualia comes after experience as perceived qualities of the objects. Qualia is not part of experience. — Corvus

Just no. Could you have any experience without Qualia?

Just no. Could you have any experience without Qualia? — MoK

No I can't. I do need experience first, before having qualia. Qualia comes after the end of experience. Qualia is also contingent. It is not necessary. It can come, it can never come.

Experience and Qualia are inseparable. It is not correct to say that the experience comes first and the Qualia comes after.

Experience and Qualia are inseparable. It is not correct to say that the experience comes first and the Qualia comes after. — MoK

Could you demonstrate the point with some real life examples? Thanks.

That is an excellent question! I think like and dislike for example are extrinsic features of our experience. Let me give you an example: A man could be handsome but he would not be sexually attractive to you since you are straight. Does that make sense to you? I am open to discuss this. — MoK

Great example! I feel the same way about goats. But is it that I am blind to the sexual attractiveness of goats, whereas other goats can appreciate the intrinsic attractiveness, or is it that attractiveness is in some essential way relative to the observer, where handsomeness is not? How can one tell the difference?

Could you demonstrate the point with some real life examples? Thanks. — Corvus

You have the experience of a red rose when you are looking at one. The experience is gone if redness and other features of your Qualia are gone.

Great example! I feel the same way about goats. But is it that I am blind to the sexual attractiveness of goats, whereas other goats can appreciate the intrinsic attractiveness, or is it that attractiveness is in some essential way relative to the observer, where handsomeness is not? — unenlightened

I think that attractiveness is the extrinsic feature of the experience whereas handsomeness is the intrinsic one.

It seems to me that if the argument works for beauty and ugliness, then it works for any other features of experience - veridical and illusory, or married and unmarried, for examples. Which would be inconvenient, if the intention is to say something about aesthetics that distinguishes it from science or mundanity. — unenlightened

What sets aesthetic experiences apart from other experiences is not intrinsic and extrinsic features but the fact that some experiences are attractive (or deterrent) for their own sake regardless of whether it serves other interests.

I think that attractiveness is the extrinsic feature of the experience whereas handsomeness is the intrinsic one. — MoK

Well yes, I assumed that was what you wanted to say. But I was hoping you'd have some argument or rationale for saying it.

What sets aesthetic experiences apart from other experiences is not intrinsic and extrinsic features but the fact that some experiences are attractive (or deterrent) for their own sake regardless of whether it serves other interests. — jkop

Yes, I've heard that before in latin — "De gustibus non est disputandum" But that is rather wider than is being suggested here, and still both too vague and too unreasoned to be very helpful.

I'm tempted to suggest that the distinction being groped for here is between subjective and objective, such that matters of taste are to do with the subject, whereas matters of fact are features of the object. But therein lies a whole can of worms if not a pit of vipers.

You have the experience of a red rose when you are looking at one. The experience is gone if redness and other features of your Qualia are gone. — MoK

When I am looking at a red rose, I am looking at a red rose. I am not experiencing a red rose at that particular moment. After looking at a red rose, when I reflect on the red rose, I could describe the red rose as my perceptual experience.

The redness of the rose belongs to the rose, not to me or my experience. The redness of the rose is a conceptual image in my memory which was posited by the red rose. The redness is not the intrinsic feature of my memory or my experience.

Well yes, I assumed that was what you wanted to say. But I was hoping you'd have some argument or rationale for saying it. — unenlightened

I already argued for beauty and ugliness to be an intrinsic feature of experience in OP so they are objective (person-independent). What is left are like and dislike that are subjective so person-dependent and therefore extrinsic.

The redness of the rose belongs to the rose, not to me or my experience. — Corvus

No, the redness of the rose is constructed by your brain. The flower does not have any particular color at all so it is just the feature of your experience.

the distinction being groped for here is between subjective and objective, such that matters of taste are to do with the subject, whereas matters of fact are features of the object. But therein lies a whole can of worms if not a pit of vipers. — unenlightened

Then we'd better avoid those categories :cool: I think it's fairly clear that matters of taste refer to features of objects, and how an object affects subjects is one among other facts about the object.

No, the redness of the rose is constructed by your brain. The flower does not have any particular color at all so it is just the feature of your experience. — MoK

If the redness of the rose is constructed by your brain, can your brain construct the redness into pinkness or greenness?

Does it mean your brain can construct the colour of roses into any colour you want to construct? :chin:

That is an excellent question that made me think for a while! — MoK

I'm glad! I find that whether I arrive at an answer or not, the thinking about it is sometimes the best part of the process. I've give my answer, though it doesn't mean its necessarily right. See if it sparks something new in your own mind.

There is at least one common marker, at least in evaluating biological creatures, that seems to overlap with beauty. Symmetry. Think of a person with a symmetrical face versus one with their left eye drooping an inch lower than their right eye. Why do we value symmetry in creatures? because it turns out symmetry aligns with health. Health is strength, survival, capability, and energy.

Sexually, beautiful people signal health, which means they can spend the energy and resources to have, raise, and protect a child. Beauty may very in sexual interactions as what is 'healthy' can change based on genetics, culture, or environment. In a culture where food is scarce, heavier people may be seen as more beautiful because it indicates they are capable of getting more resources. In a resource abundant culture, thin people may be more beautiful as it demonstrates their ability to use resources responsibly, will power, and an active amount of work on their appearance.

In nature, beauty may signify a healthy environment. Again, this may be based on what one needs. If you desire little interaction with other living things, a remote area may be beautiful. A lush healthy forest means there's plentiful water and food nearby.

We want to be around beautiful things because we hope to share in that health. If a beautiful person likes us, it means a healthy person with resources is on our side. Being in a beautiful environment gives us what we need and want. Ugly things and places indicate to us a lack of resources, sickness, or possible problems we might have to deal with. Ugly people may look to us to help fix their loneliness, health, or other issues. Ugly places are harsh to survive in. Beauty indicates an easy life, ugliness indicates a hard one.

What do you think?