Their level of development of consciousness. — Noble Dust
I had the thought then, so much for beauty. Probably so much for any aesthetic judgment. — tim wood
Not quite, beauty doesn't entail an entity in the sense of it being an entity itself, but it does require an entity in the sense that it requires an observer. But if you take the second sense, then your (a) and (b) descriptions would be right, yeah. — Noble Dust
Just because (present) judgements (aesthetic or otherwise) can change doesn't mean they can't have value as (present) judgements. — numberjohnny5
Ok, so if "beauty" is not an entity but requires an observer, then what, ontologically, is "beauty" in your view? Does it have a spatiotemporal location? Does it reside within the observer? Is "beauty" a concept? If so, what is a concept ontologically? — numberjohnny5
Ok. Why is that particular quality/aspect the determinant of relative levels of hierarchy? Why not, say, limbs or mass, for example? — numberjohnny5
Ok, so if "beauty" is not an entity but requires an observer, then what, ontologically, is "beauty" in your view? — numberjohnny5
Consciousness gives birth to reason, imagination, etc; the things you're using to discuss in this thread. It's the backdrop of you're entire human experience. The bird clearly doesn't have a consciousness as developed as you because it can't reason through arguments the way you can, just as one example. — Noble Dust
If consciousness is a spectrum, then animals would have some sort of limited consciousness. I'm not sure what's sentimental about that. — Noble Dust
The combination in the bird of color, movement, and song, cause us to experience beauty. — Noble Dust
Agreed! But just what is that value? Ans.: in itself, nothing. What is the value of anything, beyond what some person will give it? — tim wood
I don't know what "ontologically" means, here. I assume you mean what is its being. — tim wood
Does the thing itself contain in itself that which satisfies the criteria? — tim wood
I'll try this: beauty is the name of a feeling, given voice as the expression of an appreciation for the compliance of something with something - like a set of criteria. — tim wood
Aristotle's matter and form — tim wood
Perhaps consciousness is on a spectrum, but why would you think birds have any of it? — tom
Because it's not a physical aspect like limbs or mass. Consciousness gives birth to reason, imagination, etc; the things you're using to discuss in this thread. It's the backdrop of you're entire human experience. — Noble Dust
t's just a subjective aesthetic judgement — Noble Dust
Beauty is there if you're willing to see it. — Noble Dust
Ah right. So the non-physical is what...superior to/better than the physical? — numberjohnny5
Would you say that the assertion that "consciousness/non-physicality determines relative levels of hierarchy" is subjective? — numberjohnny5
Yes, by "ontologically" I mean what some thing/X actually (as in, in actuality) or really (as in, in reality) is.
Ontologically, beauty is first an experience. — Noble Dust
The combination in the bird of color, movement, and song, cause us to experience beauty. — Noble Dust
But moving outwards from experience, the way I'm using beauty in this thread is as a fundamental aspect, an identifying characteristic, of a being. It's not the colors themselves, the movements themselves, or the songs themselves, that specifically make the bird beautiful. Even a flightless bird, a bird with a broken wing, a molting bird, or squawking crow is still experienced as beautiful. — Noble Dust
There is something intrinsic to our experience of the bird that is beautiful, regardless of the specifics of the characteristics. — Noble Dust
It's like we see parts of the beauty, but it's difficult to see the entirety of it. — Noble Dust
'Ontic' is what is, and 'Ontological' is the study of what is, its theory. — Cavacava
In my view the physical is generated by the non-physical. I'm not sure how one being superior to the other would obtain in any meaningful way. Consciousness isn't the basis for the hierarchy because consciousness is in some way superior to the physical world; it's just prior to the physical, in my view. — Noble Dust
What do you mean by subjective? — Noble Dust
I just want to clarify something: For me, "experience" is synonymous with "conscious experience". Do you agree? — numberjohnny5
I'd prefer to say that the properties of a bird (which includes things like colour, movement, etc.) cause us to experience something that we feel and refer to as "beautiful". — numberjohnny5
I take it you're only talking about those individuals who experience and label such birds as beautiful, since not all individuals will feel all birds are beautiful...? — numberjohnny5
By "intrinsic to our experience" are you referring to something intrinsic in our minds/mental apparatus? — numberjohnny5
I'm not sure; why is the distinction important for you? — Noble Dust
So we don't experience beauty as something external to us, is that the distinction you're making? — Noble Dust
As I mentioned to Jake, the fact that the experience of beauty is subjective doesn't mean there isn't an objective reality of beauty external to the experience. — Noble Dust
No, because I don't conflate experience and mental apparatuses. — Noble Dust
As with gold. What is its intrinsic value as a precious metal? As the "precious" suggests, it requires someone to think it precious. Without that, its "precious" value is nil.So if value is subjective, then it is "nothing"? That doesn't make sense. Or do you mean, if value is subjective then it is worth nothing, or value-less? In other words, value can only be valuable if it is "beyond" subjectivity. Is that what you mean? — numberjohnny5
Careful here. It's hard to defend the notions that any thing has qualities in and of itself, or that a quality (value) itself has qualities. Of course as a practical matter, this is a useless conversation: red is red, things are beautiful, and so forth. But sometimes the conversation is properly not about things as a practical matter, and that turns the practical aspect upside down.Yes, by "ontologically" I mean what some thing/X actually (as in, in actuality) or really (as in, in reality) is.
As to what it is, yes.So "beauty" is a name/label we assign to some appreciative feeling in relation to something. Is that right? In other words, "beauty" is a name, and therefore...what?...a concept? A mental thing?
I wasn't aware we were discussing your opinions of Aristotle's ideas. In any case with respect to the context, your remark is at best a non sequitor.I do not agree with Aristotle's "matter and form", mainly because I don't buy universals or essences as real (in terms of realism). For me, "matter" is identical to "form". In other words, "matter" is synonymous with "form".
Which is why I've been interested in finding out what "beauty" is ontologically for you. It seems that to you beauty is both subjective and objective. Well, what is objective beauty, ontologically? Is it the actual properties of things that we perceive? So objective beauty (external-to-mind beauty) exists in the objects themselves independent of any observer? Or is it a mixture all at once between subjective and objective beauty? — numberjohnny5
Hmmm it seems you are introducing the concept of overarching narrative into the procedings. — Jake Tarragon
The mega-meta narrative bothers me. — Jake Tarragon
As with gold. What is its intrinsic value as a precious metal? As the "precious" suggests, it requires someone to think it precious. Without that, its "precious" value is nil. — tim wood
Careful here. It's hard to defend the notions that any thing has qualities in and of itself, or that a quality (value) itself has qualities. — tim wood
I wasn't aware we were discussing your opinions of Aristotle's ideas. — tim wood
In any case with respect to the context, your remark is at best a non sequitor. — tim wood
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.