Blondie has immortalized this concept in her song "Rapture".

(...)
And you get in your car and drive real far
And you drive all night and then you see a light
And it comes right down and it lands on the ground
And out comes a man from Mars
And you try to run but he's got a gun
And he shoots you dead and he eats your head
And then you're in the man from Mars
You go out at night eatin' cars
You eat Cadillacs, Lincolns too
Mercurys and Subaru
And you don't stop, you keep on eatin' cars
Then, when there's no more cars you go out at night
And eat up bars where the people meet
Face to face, dance cheek to cheek
One to one, man to man
Dance toe to toe, don't move too slow
'Cause the man from Mars is through with cars
He's eatin' bars, yeah wall to wall
Door to door, hall to hall
He's gonna eat 'em all
Rapture
(...)

Nikolas, I remember you from that other philosophy site, I forgot its name, because my mind is quickly turning to mush. The memory part. There are tons of people here from that other site, including, but not limited to JohnDoe7 (written backwards). There may be more, I only remember the memorable ones, like yourself -- your devotion to holding Simone Weil as the person being the smartest next to god is unmistakably you. Plus your name was nick something or other. No disrespect, only faulty and leaky memory here.

Richard Feynman is attracted to explore the fragments when taken together produce beauty.

Simone Weil is attracted to the reality beauty conceals.

[W]hich ... attracts you the most: the attraction to wholeness or to fragmentation when appreciating beauty? — Nikolas

Neither.

They're faces of the same coin: one / many – yin / yang.

↪Nikolas
Nikolas, I remember you from that other philosophy site, I forgot its name, because my mind is quickly turning to mush. The memory part. There are tons of people here from that other site, including, but not limited to JohnDoe7 (written backwards). There may be more, I only remember the memorable ones, like yourself -- your devotion to holding Simone Weil as the person being the smartest next to god is unmistakably you. Plus your name was nick something or other. No disrespect, only faulty and leaky memory here. — god must be atheist

I've been banned on several sites not for any rule breaking but defending the ancient philosophical ideas such as those included in Plato's cave analogy. In modern terms, these ideas must be canceled. I refer to Simone a lot since she is called Plato's spiritual child and by introducing her I may let some young female students know that Women's philosophy is more than arguing over gender rights and abortions and have included a depth any man could admire.

Maybe I can introduce some of these discussions like like conceptions of beauty without getting culturally cancelled. It is worth shot.

Not sympathetic to platonism at all (pace A.N. Whitehead), I nonetheless have greater admiration for Iris Murdoch even more than I do for Mlle Weil.

They're faces of the same coin: one / many – yin / yang. — 180 Proof

Of course they are related but which path does beauty attract you more?

Yep, it's you. Interesting to hear how you describe the reasons to get banned. My memory (as faulty as it is) recall is that you were banned because you simply ignored valid and irrefutable reasons to counter your theories or the theories you presented. You were invincible in arguments because you simply dismissed or did not counter arguments, which were, like I said, valid and irrefutable. Oh, and you never actually made a point, even when you were squeezed: you kept on talking about some great hifolutin' secretive truths that only you, Plato, and Simone Weir understood, but when you were put to the task to describe what the secret knowledge was, you never revealed it.

Well, welcome to this site, and I hope you have better luck here. I always liked your intellect, despite the above.

There's no dark side of the moon really. Matter of fact, it's all dark.

Neither.

↪Nikolas Yep, it's you. Interesting to hear how you describe the reasons to get banned. My memory (as faulty as it is) recall is that you were banned because you simply ignored valid and irrefutable reasons to counter your theories or the theories you presented. You were invincible in arguments because you simply dismissed or did not counter arguments, which were, like I said, valid and irrefutable. Oh, and you never actually made a point, even when you were squeezed: you kept on talking about some great hifolutin' secretive truths that only you, Plato, and Simone Weir understood, but when you were put to the task to describe what the secret knowledge was, you never revealed it. — god must be atheist

There is no hidden knowledge. It is all well known and published material. It just wasn't understood. It requires thinking out of the box to know the difference between knowledge and opinion described by Plato. But people who deny knowledge and prefer arguing opinions rather than contemplating what is required to acquire knowledge find the idea too insulting.

There's no dark side of the moon really. Matter of fact, it's all dark.
↪Nikolas Neither. — 180 Proof

Now that would be good discussion: What is Light?

What provides the light above Plato's divided line. We know the Sun provides the light below the line but the greater reality is above the line not illuminated by the sun.

Of course these ideas are initially hard to contemplate but isn't the purpose of philosophy to open the mind?

There are two kinds of beauty - one superficial but without the negative connotations of that word that our physical senses are attuned to and the other deep which only the mind can appreciate. Oddly, for some unknown reason, these two kinds of beauty don't seem to correlate with each other - what is beautiful to look at may be ugly when understood and vice versa. We could either curse our luck that this is the case for many a lives have been ruined for not realizing this or marvel at the immense variety of permutations the universe has to offer.

The analysis in the OP presents a choice not between these two kinds of beauty but between two kinds of "deep beauty" viz. fragmentation or wholeness, both decidedly affairs of the mind rather than of the sense. Despite what I've said in the previous paragraph, it is entirely possible that I've got the wrong end of the stick for "superficial beauty" maybe "deep beauty" yet to be understood i.e. the mind hasn't figured out the relation between or the equivalence of "superficial beauty" and "deep beauty" if such is true.

There is no right or wrong here but only asking which direction attracts you the most: the attraction to wholeness or to fragmentation when appreciating beauty? — Nikolas

Beauty transcends even this for it is truly in the eye of the beholder. If beauty can be comprised of wholeness and fragmentation, then surely the wholeness is the work of art, and fragmentation is the appreciation of its many colors, both dark and light, equally together forming a single piece that is neither whole nor fragmented.

A fresh apple on a table can be beauty. For it is sustenance in its purest form. It can also be ugliness, if perhaps it was stolen from a hardworking man's farm that resulted in his death. The same apple though rotten and pulsating with worms and fly larvae can be beauty, because perhaps the thief who stole it was brought to justice and is no longer able to eat it, or perhaps, if it were outside, now becomes fertilizer for the poor man down on his luck who managed to snag his property for a bargain at a tax auction, and will now enrich the soil that he intends to plant many fields to feed those deserving, perhaps devastated by the same thief that plagued his father. It's hard to say. Impossible even.

I think of the deep kind as "beauty" (and agree with you about the OP) but the superficial kind is merely "pretty" or "attractive" or "fashionable" or eye/ear-"candy" ... Paraphrasing Iris Murdoch, the latter facilitates ego-fantasy (or Id-fixation) and the former ego-suspension (i.e. "unselfing", which is her word).

There is no right or wrong here but only asking which direction attracts you the most: the attraction to wholeness or to fragmentation when appreciating beauty? — Nikolas

Neither of those quotes mean much to me and they seem to reflect personalities rather than shed any insights on the nominal subject.

Feynman seems to be associating beauty with the numinous and I guess that's fine. The defended self of the scientist so often accused of using a sponge to wipe away the entire horizon.

Weil's comments become poetic blarney. From the thematic arrangement of the words in the first part of the quote I would guess she fears beauty. If I read this from anyone else I would say they had palpable unresolved conflicts.

I personally struggle to tell what is beautiful from what is striking or arresting or even from what is a visual cliche.

I think of the deep kind as "beauty" (and agree with you about the OP) but the superficial kind is merely "pretty" or "attractive" or "fashionable" or eye/ear-"candy" ... Paraphrasing Iris Murdoch, the latter facilitates ego-fantasy (or fixation) and the former ego-suspension (i.e. "unselfing", which is her word). — 180 Proof

I was considering the possibility that what you call, derogatorily I suppose, "eye candy" could actually be beauty of the deepest kind or if not at least an extension of it. If it is what I think it is then we must appreciate it, perhaps even study it in order that our mind can grasp what it till now only has a vague idea of.

It's what you called "superficial" as I wrote agreeing with you, Fool, in contrast to beauty that is "deep". And "eye candy" isn't derogatory, just deflationary, connoting a fleeting, if not trivial, or ornamental / cosmetic, quality. Mere fetishistic entertainment rather than aesthetic engagement

It's what you called "superficial" as I wrote agreeing with you, Fool, in contrast to beauty that is "deep". And "eye candy" isn't derogatory, just deflationary, connoting a fleeting, if not trivial, or ornamental / cosmetic, quality. — 180 Proof

My bad. So what are your thoughts on the matter? Does "eye candy" measure up to your view of "deep beauty"? Are they the same thing or are they vastly different in nature - one, "eye candy", something to be suspicious of and the other, "deep beauty", to be sought after as if our life depended on it.

Paraphrasing Iris Murdoch, [superficial beauty aka "eye candy"] facilitates ego-fantasy (or Id-fixation) and [deep beauty aka "sublime"] ego-suspension (i.e. "unselfing", which is her word). — 180 Proof

Check out the link.

Check out the link. — 180 Proof

Give me a moment. Thanks.

Paraphrasing Iris Murdoch, [superficial beauty aka "eye candy"] facilitates ego-fantasy (or Id-fixation) and [deep beauty aka "sublime"] ego-suspension (i.e. "unselfing", which is her word).
— 180 Proof
Check out the link. — 180 Proof

The words are almost self-explanatory and they give me a fair idea of what Iris Murdoch and you are getting at. Perhaps it was a poor choice of words on Murdoch's part but "ego-fantasy"gives me the impression that "eye candy" ain't good for us and that we should make a conscious decision to go for and do whatever it is that Murdoch recommends with the "ego-suspension" variety of beauty. Thus my question to you - is "eye candy" not worth our appreciation, love, respect...worship even?

I'll read your link more carefully and get back to you but I would like you to respond to the above if you don't mind.

Check out the link. — 180 Proof

"3.21 Like Zen koans which provoke a suspension of conceptual thinking, works of art in particular (and aesthetic experiences in general) prompt suspension of ego - what Iris Murdoch referred to as unselfing - by presenting sensationally or emotionally heightened encounters with the nonself which make it more likely than not for one to forget oneself for the moment if not longer.

3.22 Altruism - judging, by action or inaction, not to do harm to another - begins with learning and practicing techniques for forgetting oneself: unselfing: suspending ego. (Ecstatic techniques (e.g. making art.)) This is the moral benefit of art, but not its function.

3.23 The function of making art (along with morality & rationality (see 2.5)) is to help expand - develop - Agency, or to inversely limit its shadow: Foolery (see 1.1)"
— 180 Proof

Is it possible you could go a little more in depth here please? I find your view of Art, Aesthetics and Morality a possible point of interest for myself.

Especially in regard to the bold.
— I like sushi

3.21 says Aesthetics prepares us for Ethics and, in light of the preceding sections (statements 1.0-3.2), Ethics informs Aesthetics. E.g. Children begin learning 'right & wrong' through play and from bedtime stories (fables); Parents use games and storytelling to teach their children what's expected of them (good) and what they should avoid (bad). A dialectics, so to speak, of attention & intention.

3.22 says altruism can be learned and habituated by engaging in and making art because fully experiencing works of art (or nature in an aesthetic way) requires one to pay attention without intending to impose self-serving demands or whimsy of ego on the work (i.e. to move oneself out of one's own way, that is, to forget/immerse oneself); this 'attending without ego' is required in order to encounter an other as other, which is the sine qua non of altruistic judgment.

3.23 riffs off of 3.21 shifting the focus more explicitly to Agency the expansion of which is, I propose, the primary function of philosophy. To learn to reflectively inquire (e.g. making art) and reflectively practice (e.g. moral conduct) in tandem; to the degree these complementary exercises are habituated and optimized, Agency - capability for judging (see 3.11) - expands (and inversely foolery narrows (see 1.1, 1.12, 1.6)).

Any clearer? The references to other statements are included to help contextualize or build on earlier statements. Also, the highlit links embedded throughout making disparate implicit connections more explicit. I'm sure you'll tell me if that helps; I look forward to some elaboration on this "possible point of interest" of yours vis-à-vis my relation of aesthetics to ethics. My turn now to read your replies to the OP

The above post deals more about the link, if any exists, between ethics and aesthetics and I suppose that's something that can't be avoided if one believes that beauty is about "ego-suspension", the ego being, according to many ethical theorists I suppose, the stumbling block when it comes ethics and thus, I presume, the necessity to mention altruism as part of the relationship between ethics and aesthetics.

I, for one, am of the opinion that it's, in a way, quite the opposite in way that may strike you as weird. Consider the proposition that what you call "ego-suspension" beauty is actually the one in which one's ego can flourish and what you call "eye candy" beauty is the one it's easiest to lose oneself i.e. the situation is actually reversed - there's no suspension of the ego in "ego-suspension" beauty, in fact one's ego is consolidated through it and one truly submits or surrenders one's ego with "ego-fantasy" beauty. I may have misread the whole thing in which case you might wish to dispel my confusion.

↪TheMadFool
Paraphrasing Iris Murdoch, [superficial beauty aka "eye candy"] facilitates ego-fantasy (or Id-fixation) and [deep beauty aka "sublime"] ego-suspension (i.e. "unselfing", which is her word).
— 180 Proof
Check out the link. — 180 Proof

Plato provides an interesting perspective in Book V by associating the difference between recognizing beautiful things as opposed to the reality of beauty as a form with awakening. Awakening requires setting the attraction to fragments or tearing down beauty in favor of what the form of beauty conceals


Socrates talking to Glaucon:

"In fact, there are very few people who would be able to reach the beautiful itself and see it by itself. Isn't that so?"

"Certainly."

"What about someone who believes in beautiful things, but doesn't believe in the beautiful itself and isn't able to follow anyone who could lead him to the knowledge of it? Don't you think he is living in a dream rather than an awakened state? Isn't this dreaming: whether asleep or awake, to think that a likeness is not a likeness but rather the thing itself that it is like?"

"I certainly think that someone who does that is dreaming."

"But someone who, to take the opposite case, believes in the beautiful itself, can see both it and the things that participate in it and doesn't believe that the participants are it or that it itself is the participants--is he living in a dream or is he awake?

"He's very much awake."

"But someone who, to take the opposite case, believes in the beautiful itself, can see both it and the things that participate in it and doesn't believe that the participants are it or that it itself is the participants--is he living in a dream or is he awake?

"He's very much awake." — Nikolas

The fellow, the first time a girl grabs him, thinking, "Ah! Love!"

Thus my question to you - is "eye candy" not worth our appreciation, love, respect...worship even? — TheMadFool

It's ... less worthy than "deep beauty" (e.g. bumpin' to hip hop is far less worthy than swingin' with bebop; or riding through a Disney safari park is far less worthy than backpacking through the Amazonian rainforest; or praising biblical creationism is far less worthy than studying darwinian natural selection; or visiting the Taj Mahal casino in Las Vegas, NV is far less worthy than touring the Taj Mahal monument in Agra, Uttar Pradesh, etc) in so far as it's much easier to forget oneself in, and be profoundly affected by, the difficult pleasures of engaging "deep beauty" (the latter) than the relatively easy enjoyment, or commodification, of "eye candy" (the former).

It sounds like you've never engaged yourself in – undertaken pleasurably difficult works of art or scientific & formal theorems, or have been 'quickened' by sublime natural environments & encounters – that is, experienced ecstacies (re: "For beauty is nothing but the beginning of terror, which we are barely able to endure...").

[deleted]

↪TheMadFool It's what you called "superficial" as I wrote agreeing with you, Fool, in contrast to beauty that is "deep". And "eye candy" isn't derogatory, just deflationary, connoting a fleeting, if not trivial, or ornamental / cosmetic, quality. — 180 Proof

You are describing personally perceived subjective qualities of beauty but Plato indicates a person is more awake when they see beauty as a "Form"

Plato's Theory of Forms asserts that the physical world is not really the 'real' world; instead, ultimate reality exists beyond our physical world. ... The Forms are abstract, perfect, unchanging concepts or ideals that transcend time and space; they exist in the Realm of Forms.

I can have my own subjective interpretations of beauty, some may be deep and others superficial, but does beauty exist as an unchanging ideal "that transcends time and space?" Plato asserts this awareness of beauty as a form with awakening.

It's ... less worthy than "deep beauty" (e.g. hearing to Rhianna is far less worthy than listening to Ella Fitzgerald; or riding through a Disney safari park is far less worthy than backpacking through the Amazonian rainforest; or celebrating biblical creationism is far less worthy than studying darwinian natural selection; or visiting the Taj Mahal casino in Las Vegas, NV is far less worthy than touring the Taj Mahal monument in Agra, Uttar Pradesh, etc) insofar as it's much easier to forget oneself in, and be profoundly affected by, the difficult pleasures of engaging "deep beauty" (the latter) than the relatively easy enjoyment, or commodification, of "eye candy" (the former).

↪TheMadFool It sounds like you've never engaged yourself in – undertaken pleasurably difficult works of art or scientific & formal theorems, or have been 'quickened' by sublime natural environments & encounters – thar is, experienced ecstacies (i.e. what the poet Rilke suggests are 'the terrors of beauty'). — 180 Proof

Well, that's exactly what I said your view of the "ego-fantasy" kind of beauty is - derogatory. You have a dim view of it. What makes you think that way?

By way of contextualizing the question above I offer the following short paragraphs for your perusal albeit in a religious context.

One one hand, in Hinduism the gods are supposedly aesthetically endowed - male gods are handsome and female gods are gorgeous, so they say. Anyway, that gods are thought to be aesthetically pleasing to behold indicates a deep connection between "superficial beauty" and the "good".

On the other hand, Mara, the demon, reportedly sent his drop-dead-gorgeous daughters to seduce the Buddha in order to prevent the Buddha from attaining nirvana. This tells an entirely different story of "superficial beauty", that it's "bad."

Your thoughts seem aligned to the Buddhist take on "superficial beauty", that it's, in your words, "...less worthy..." What about the Hindu's opinion?

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/507090

I'm beginning to think you're just pissing down my leg, Fool. Your misreadings are getting tedious. I've spelled out my position as much as I care. Apologies for you not grokin' me yet.

It seems that I haven't been able to get my point across at all. All I'm asking: is the distinction between "ego-fantasy beauty" and "ego-suspension beauty" an illusion?

"Is the distinction between" sensation and trauma "an illusion"? :roll: