Your need to isolate visual art as being of some special category of art that needs to be discussed is elusive as is your need to protect the blind from what you envision are attacks on their limitations. — Hanover

Well hey, who's to say the sighted (non-blind) aren't the truly limited ones, as far as knowledge and the true depth of the universe is concerned. Sure, it's a physical world, we need to see, to eat, basically.

My "need" or rather point expressed is that, as a sighted, non-blind person, you don't know the world they experience. I thought that was the whole point of idea of philosophy in regards to qualia. Sure, the sighted people have overtaken the world, and so find blind people as relatively low priority, with nothing to offer, teach, or learn from. We look at them as some sort of pariah or outcast, masquerading as sympathy or pity or "right from wrong" since they are effectively more vulnerable than those who can see. But what of it?

Also, as a fellow lawyer-in-practice let's not ignore the fact it was you who first intended to isolate visual art with your statement "a legal argument could be beautiful, but not like a sunset". I don't know what it is you're trying to do, but you're not doing it very well. Which is out of character for you.

My "need" or rather point expressed is that, as a sighted, non-blind person, you don't know the world they experience. I thought that was the whole point of idea of philosophy in regards to qualia. — Outlander

I'm sort of wondering why you're discussing qualia about right now, with it not having to do with anything we were talking about. I don't have a problem with tangents or even distant associations of one concept with the other, but this is entirely unrelated, like you just wanted to start arguing that the blind people are missing certain qualitative states that non-blind people are. But I'll agree, to the extent qualia exist, I would agree blind people would be missing the qualia of non-blind people, namely the stuff of seeing.

we look at them as some sort of pariah or outcast, — Outlander

Now we're flying over the cuckoo's nest. No one is telling blind people they are pariahs, but if you know someone who is, you ought tell them to stop bullying the blind.

Also, as a fellow lawyer-in-practice let's not ignore the fact it was you who first intended to isolate visual art with your statement "a legal argument could be beautiful, but not like a sunset". — Outlander

My objective, which is not that hard to decipher, was to point out the varying ways "beautiful" might be defined, which isn't terribly controversial because it forms the better part of aesthetics, which is to define beauty.

I don't know what it is you're trying to do, but you're not doing it very well. Which is out of character for you — Outlander

I will try to better do what you don't know what I'm trying to do so that I can do it the way you have come to expect.

But seriously, I think you're using the term "beautiful" here in a pretty broad way, so maybe a legal argument could be beautiful, but not like a sunset. This issue isn't a small one because the definition of "beauty" is obviously central to aesthetics and this whole conversation.

So, define "beauty" so that the term makes sense in claiming a legal brief is beautiful in some way as is a sunset beautiful so that the term can be applied to both. — Hanover

It’s a feeling I get when I read poetry or fiction. My primary aesthetic medium is the written word. I like music and visual arts, but my relationship to them is not as close. The feeling I’m talking about is the same one I get when I read anything well written—poetry, fiction, technical documents, legal documents, construction documents, philosophy, history, letters, emails, posts here on the forum. It’s the same feeling. Competence is beautiful.

What saith Collingswood on it? — Hanover

I’m not sure what Collingwood would say about beauty and I’m too lazy to go check. What he says about art is that it is a way for the artist to express their experience and share it with an audience.

But seriously, I think you're using the term "beautiful" here in a pretty broad way, so maybe a legal argument could be beautiful, but not like a sunset. This issue isn't a small one because the definition of "beauty" is obviously central to aesthetics and this whole conversation.

So, define "beauty" so that the term makes sense in claiming a legal brief is beautiful in some way as is a sunset beautiful so that the term can be applied to both.
— Hanover

It’s a feeling I get when I read poetry or fiction. My primary aesthetic medium is the written word. I like music and visual arts, but my relationship to them is not as close. The feeling I’m talking about is the same one I get when I read anything well written—poetry, fiction, technical documents, legal documents, construction documents, philosophy, history, letters, emails, posts here on the forum. It’s the same feeling. Competence is beautiful.

What saith Collingswood on it?
— Hanover

I’m not sure what Collingwood would say about beauty and I’m too lazy to go check. What he says about art is that it is a way for the artist to express their experience and share it with an audience. — T Clark

This raises an interesting question: what the hell is beauty supposed to be anyway? I see it in women, but not much else. I occasionally see landscapes in nature that strike me as "visually arresting," but I wouldn’t personally call them beautiful. I am mostly indifferent to scenery. Most of the pictures on this thread, to me, are just images of striking things, some of which I find unappealing. Maybe it’s my problem, I’m not quick to find things beautiful. Perhaps music is the only exception. But I am quick to notice when something looks interesting or arresting in some way. Maybe beauty is just whatever draws your attention and gives you pleasure, which makes it a rather somewhat ambiguous, emotional category.

No one is telling blind people they are pariahs — Hanover

Of course they're not. But they live as such, only were it not for that one nagging social order we call "being a good person." If there were but one meal to eat, and it were you and a blind man, you'd eat that meal yourself fully. Yes, I know your type. Of course, not with other people around. So you'll convince yourself you might share otherwise. Yes, in mixed company, indeed you shall.

What is a man who cannot see who has nothing for you to gain if under your responsibility under punishment of suffering? A treasure. Otherwise, he is but another fixture in this world, a non-human who your ego and false sense of virtue may wish the best aloud, hoping someone would hear it. But short of that, a nobody.

My objective, which is not that hard to decipher, was to point out the varying ways "beautiful" might be defined, which isn't terribly controversial because it forms the better part of aesthetics, which is to define beauty. — Hanover

And someone else clearly did. A poem or "legal ruling" can be beautiful. But you insist "not like a sunset." So we come back to the root of the issue here. Can someone blind or perhaps unable to feel the warmth on their skin of said sunset for whatever reason know the beauty of a sunset like any normal, able-bodied person can?

These are your own words, Hanover. Not mine.

Yes, I know your type. Of course, not with other people around. — Outlander

You're ridiculous.

. A poem or "legal ruling" can be beautiful. But you insist "not like a sunset." — Outlander

The reason I said that the beauty of a sunset and a legal ruling are different is because they are. You think that's because I hate blind people and that you're going to expose that hatred regardless of my efforts to conceal it. I'm somewhere between appreciating your schtick if it's intended as nonsense and wondering whether you can think straight.

In any event, I've grown tired of the nonsense, but do enjoy the rest of your day.

You think that's because I hate blind people and that you're going to expose that hatred regardless of my efforts to conceal it. — Hanover

To the contrary, I'd bet life and limb you don't have a hateful bone in your body. Not one that was placed there by your own will or volition, at least.

I merely sought an explanation so as to alleviate my apparent ignorance. I have a problem and look to you for a solution. I didn't mean to if such endeavors are inappropriate in your eyes. Surely you can forgive me.

The reason I said that the beauty of a sunset and a legal ruling are different is because they are. — Hanover

Well, explain how. Once more. Not everyone is as quick to logic and fact as you are. Surely this is the beauty of life, no?

Clearly multiple people here think (or at least remain uniformed) otherwise. Why not enlighten us instead of pejorati. It's clearly within your capacity to explain. I've seen it. And how.

Of course things are different. No different than saying every person's life is unique. I simply wished to ask how a non-visual form of (perceived) beauty is irreconcilably different from a visual experience of such. Perhaps this is self-evident. But it's not to me. It's not to many. I merely assumed someone or your wit and knowledge would be able to explain such. We look toward those whom we respect or otherwise find have qualities that are respectable to gain greater insight into the world around us. That's all. Nothing more, nothing less. I'm sorry if this upsets you, it certainly wasn't meant as such. I didn't wake up this morning, or any morning for that matter, wishing to be ignorant of things, facts or understanding you take for granted as second nature. Surely you can believe that. :confused:

Perhaps I'm merely barking up the wrong tree, so to speak. Out of my league. Is that such a crime? Surely, you yourself have been in such a position, at some point. I just thought you'd have a bit more to say is all. My fault?

At least one other person recently participating in this discussion aside from myself believes beautifully written words themself can be either equal or equivalent to a visual scene of beauty. If this is false, and the other person has received adequate proof or explanation from your words as such, that's all there is to it.

Let's start over. If one was non-sighted (I.E. blind), that person would never know the beauty of a sunset, nor that it is different from an otherwise beautiful arrangement of words or rulings. This to me, leads it to believe that blind people can never experience true beauty. Is this true or false? The idea of a "difference" is obvious, no different than one drink being flavored citrus and another being flavored non-citrus, but my question is, regardless of whether one is able to detect such flavoring or not, is inability of such truly defining of the overall experience?

I have a problem and look to you for a solution. — Outlander

As you should.

Surely you can forgive me. — Outlander

You must work harder for atonement than simply asking for forgiveness.

Let's start over. If one was non-sighted (I.E. blind), that person would never know the beauty of a sunset, nor that it is different from an otherwise beautiful arrangement of words or rulings. — Outlander

I think you're likely right that a blind person would not know the beauty of sight, much like a non-thinking person would suffer from being unable to appreciate the beauty of thought.

The idea of a "difference" is obvious, no different than one drink being flavored citrus and another being flavored non-citrus, but my question is, regardless of whether one is able to detect such flavoring or not, is inability of such truly defining of the overall experience? — Outlander

Ah, yes, the age old question of trying to decipher the difference between essays and sunsets that has troubled mankind since the cave dwellers. Let's see, a sunset is natural, an essay man-made. A sunset is sensory, yet an essay intellectual. A sunset might be temporary and fleeting, yet an essay enduring. An essay requires some cultivation, the product of learning and culture, yet a sunset fairly universal (unless you're blind or perhaps wearing a sleeping mask). One is linguitic, doubtfully appreciated by dogs, cats, and mice, but it's potentially possible they would enjoy a lovely sunset. My cat does enjoy the hottest spot in the room, typically within the sun's rays. But is my cat's appreciation of a carefree day at all like my appreciation? It's hard to know what Gumbo thinks.

The question then is what does an essay and sunset have in common that might allow us to call them both "beautiful." This question, I did not realize when first posed, was deeply insulting to the blind (i.e. non-sighted), so I reask it with much trepidation. But that, all along, was the question.