So we only need to ask whether your experience falls under the aesthetic, or something closer to the heart. — J

And we need to determine how different the two are.

Strangely, mammals became more aesthetically pleasing over time. Why is that?

Cuz we like how they look and select which of them get to count which way.

When we look at the entire tree of life then it gets a bit uglier.

Is an aesthetic judgment objective in the same way that the sting is? Can one of us be right, the other wrong? Or does it simply cash out to "what I like" and "what you like"? — J

Let there be an object in the world. Suppose this object has been named "Derain's Drying the Sails 1905".

There are different styles of painting, including the Classical, Baroque, Rococo, Neo-Classicism, Pre-Modern, Romanticism, etc.

As regards this object, as an example of Post-modernism I don't like it, but as an example of Fauvism I do like it.

Post-modernism is a style associated with scepticism, irony and philosophical critiques of the concepts of universal truths and objective reality and Fauvism is a style associated with strong colours and fierce brushwork (www.tate.org.uk)

So I may like and dislike the same object at the same time, meaning that the liking and disliking is not an objective thing within the object but is a subjective thing within my mind.

I may like this object as an example of Fauvism and you may dislike the same object as an example of Post-modernism. Alternatively, I may dislike this object as an example of Post-modernism and you may like the same object as an example of Fauvism.

IE, our liking our disliking an object is independent of the object itself but is dependent on what happens to be in our particular minds. Objects don't have any intrinsic art value, the mind imposes an art value on the objects in the world.

As regards what is in the mind, I like this particular object as an example of Fauvism, where Fauvism is a style having strong colours and fierce brushwork. In other words, I like this object for its strong colours and fierce brushwork.

But what explains my likes?

I like the colour red, I like Merlot, I like meat and potato pies, I like Sade, I like Mediterranean weather. I also like the elegant, the rational and the clear, as @Moliere said about adjectives often applied to philosophical arguments and thoughts.

When I see the colour red, for example, I don't consciously think "do I like this colour or not". I know instantly without conscious thought that I like it. No judgment is involved. I may judge that my seeing the colour red was caused by a postbox rather than a sunset, but I don't judge whether I like this colour or not.

What I like aesthetically does not depend on any judgment. I make no subjective aesthetic judgements.

As objects don't have any intrinsic art value, my aesthetic likes cannot be objective but only subjective.

Strangely, mammals became more aesthetically pleasing over time. Why is that? — frank

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I am sure beautiful to another proboscis monkey.

Scientists say that visible features are usually the result of sexual selection. So if that nose was a result of natural selection (as opposed to genetic drift), it exists because the opposite sex is attracted to it.

I think that indicates that aesthetics is part of evolution.

I think that indicates that aesthetics is part of evolution. — frank

:100: If Frances Hutcheson is correct, and the appreciation of beauty is innate within humans, and described as "uniformity amidst variety", this clearly shows an evolutionary advantage. Specifically in the human ability to find patterns within the chaos they perceive of the world .

What I like aesthetically does not depend on any judgment. I make no subjective aesthetic judgements.

As objects don't have any intrinsic art value, my aesthetic likes cannot be objective but only subjective. — RussellA

But how does this fit with "Derain is a great artist and Banksy is not"? That's what I meant about an aesthetic judgment "cashing out" as merely a matter of likes and dislikes. So I guess that is what you mean? "Great artist" = "someone I like a lot".

Or, perhaps, the bolded phrase above is the way out? Derain's painting doesn't have any intrinsic art value, but somehow acquires it? How might that happen?

Apologies if I'm still not getting it.

So I guess that is what you mean? "Great artist" = "someone I like a lot". — J

Both Derain and Banksy are artists. But are they equally great?

If greatness is determined by monetary value, they are probably equally great as a Banksy original more than likely sells for as much as a Derain original.

If greatness is determined by popularity amongst the public, then Banksy is probably greater than Derain.

If greatness is determined by the humour in their works, then Banksy is clearly greater than Derain.

If greatness is determined by an aesthetic of form and shape, what Frances Hutcheson called "uniformity amidst variety", then Derain is clearly greater than Banksy.

You are right that my equating greatness as an artist with an aesthetic of form and shape is personal to me. Others may well equate greatness as an artist with monetary value, popularity or being humorous.

You are right that my equating greatness as an artist with an aesthetic of form and shape is personal to me. — RussellA

OK, that's how it seemed to me, thanks.

: If Frances Hutcheson is correct, and the appreciation of beauty is innate within humans, and described as "uniformity amidst variety", this clearly shows an evolutionary advantage. Specifically in the human ability to find patterns within the chaos they perceive of the world . — RussellA

Right, but research indicates that visible features of an organism tend to be sexually selected. So it wouldn't be about patterns in chaos, it would be about sex.

Right, but research indicates that visible features of an organism tend to be sexually selected. So it wouldn't be about patterns in chaos, it would be about sex. — frank

It doesn't seem random that animals are often aesthetically pleasing. Evolution seems to favour aesthetic solutions.

There appears to be a direct analogy between Frances Hutcheson's explanation of aesthetics as "uniformity amidst variety" and life's dependence on an ability to discover patterns in chaos.

It would follow that if life is fundamentally aesthetic, and if philosophy is trying to understand life, then aesthetics in philosophy must be a "thing".

Ok. Maybe aesthetics comes from a fundamental attunement to the universe that consciousness arises from. It's the universe's awareness of itself. Where something seems afflicted aesthetically, consciousness has a bad connection.

"Beauty is truth, truth beauty,
that is all ye know on earth,
and all ye need to know."

What I mean by that is one's taste in philosophy. — Moliere

I guess we are all drawn more or less towards one area for numerous reasons. This will hopefully change for most people throughout their lives; which brings us to the additional question of 'good' or 'bad' choices.

I think anyone unwilling to look seriously at opposing arguments is making a mistake. I think anyone unable to see a flaw in their own interpretation of the world is making an even greater mistake.

As for styles, I think it is incumbent on the reader to understand the historical and relational contexts of a piece of writing. For the historical context, when reading Hobbes, Rousseau or Machiavelli, there are occasions when the spirit of the time these people lived in needs to be understood so we can sift out the relevance for our current circumstances. It is absurd to critique any of their thoughts and positions as if they had written their work for the world we find ourselves in. For the relational context, reading a modern philosophical text that attempts to replicate the style of Hegel, Nietzsche or Kant is deeply misguided as they were written for people in well-established circles not for mass consumption.

There are faulty approaches. Individually we must aim to be honest with ourselves as much as possible.

Personally, I opt for a Fox approach above the Hedgehog one (Berlin). Meaning, I am a Fox looking for connections rather than myopic specialisations of the Hedgehog - not to say these people are not needed!

Do you have a sense of your own taste? — Moliere

I have a distaste for philosophy as a be all and end all. I have the same distaste for holding rigidly to any particular field of study or interest. I appreciate that those who have amore rigid grip on certain areas at the cost of others are invaluable, but that just isn't for me. An example of this can be seen in the inability for people like Dawkins and Peterson to understand where each other is coming from. Both provide perspectives that are worthy of consideration, yet both (maybe not equally) all bound within their own interests.

I always look to figures like Richard Feynman who, whilst being a brilliant physicist, went out of his way to take an interest in other people's passions such as kite making or drawing.

Why are you more drawn to particular philosophers, schools, styles, or problems? — Moliere

I do not believe I am. What I read is usually determined by seeking out oppositional views or areas I know little about. Quality/Content overrides style. This goes for science, art, history, etc.,.

Do you think about how to choose which philosopher to read? — Moliere

If I am looking into something particular I think very carefully about who to read and try to find extreme ends of the argument and also someone in the middle ground (philosophy or otherwise). When looking into anthropology I chose Geertz, Eliade and Levi-Strauss specifically because they wrote in different styles, possessed different approaches, and were able to give me a broad perspective of what I was interested in learning more about.

While this could include the prose -- is it elegant or turgid? -- what I want to focus on is the aesthetic judgment of the philosophy itself. — Moliere

In short, I think anyone looking at philosophical choices as 'aesthetic' is more focused on political philosophy. If we asked the same question about a scientist choosing a field of study I think you would find the answer being more or less about intrigue. Only some of the Hedgehog scientists would call their choice of field 'more worthy' and then we are effectively back into social politics and weighing ourselves against others rather than against the nature of being.