I don't think there are any "mechanics" involved: we have a sense of being part of something greater simply by virtue of being in a world. That 'being in a world' is a primordial mystery. Beauty consists in the evocation of that mystery; we have no other way of dealing with it, since we cannot explain it, and even if we could, to explain it would inevitably be to explain it away. — Janus

By mechanics I just mean the physical workings of the brain, and this sort of thing:

evolutionary psychologists think that a sense of awe increases group safety and bonding by temporarily reducing the importance of self (without reducing self esteem). — Jake Tarragon

That's all, metaphorically, the mechanics of human experience. It's the "this lever does that". It doesn't answer "why", just "how". The sorts of "why's" it does address are just social concerns like "safety and bonding", and not actual philosophical questions. That's the point I was making to Jake.

since we cannot explain it, and even if we could, to explain it would inevitably be to explain it away. — Janus

I agree with everything else you said, it's just that I think there is a drive to try to understand beauty; not philosophically or analytically, but in a fundamental way. I don't think it would ruin the mystery to uncover even one layer of a deeper truth to beauty, something that few people might or might not have uncovered. I get the sense that beauty is potentially infinite; I think we can pursue it relentlessly and not ever ruin the sense of mystery. The deeper you inquire into beauty, the closer you get to "being" itself, it seems...

Serenity. Awe. Wonder. Harmony. Joy. Humility. Delight. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

I actually think I would describe those experiences as pleasing.

I actually think I would describe those experiences as pleasing. — Daniel Sjöstedt

The same way that an evolutionary psychologist describes a symmetrical face as pleasing?

No, but it is still a "good" feeling :)

And that's why I asked about tragedy - I wonder what the reason might be for getting a "good" feeling from something tragic.

The feeling is certainly "awe inspiring", but awe before what? And why?

And that's why I asked about tragedy - I wonder what the reason might be for getting a "good" feeling from something tragic.

The feeling is certainly "awe inspiring", but awe before what? And why? — Daniel Sjöstedt

I sense teleology here.

I believe, therefore, that your OP was on the wrong track before you wrote it.

Evolution by natural selection, as I understand almost all biologists and philosophers of science will tell you, is not teleological, and its operation and the outcomes we observe do not include any "purpose".

Evolution by natural selection is simply a model that humans have constructed through observation and experimentation of the mechanism through which genetic diversity is generated and distributed.

Evolution favors nothing. If finding a symmetrical face to be "pleasing" is advantageous today, it could be a disadvantage tomorrow. Being obese may be a disadvantage in the dating and marriage market in the U.S. today, but tomorrow ecological collapse could start to unfold and all that energy stored in all of that excess body fat could then be an advantage--an obese person might then be everybody's preference for a romantic partner.

Therefore, if you want to place the recognition and appreciation of beauty--any kind of beauty--in evolutionary perspective then such recognition and appreciation has no "purpose". It is simply what has been selected until today and may no longer be selected starting tomorrow.

I think that characterizing beauty as a result of evolution by natural selection and then looking for a "purpose" or telos in something that "purpose" and telos have nothing to do with is the source of your confusion.

Natural selection may not have a purpose but it certainly has reasons.

Every human that I know of is able to experience this kind of beauty, so I am wondering why it has been selected for.

As it is a positive sensation, arising at particular moments, that the body seems to have a reason for delivering, why would it not make sense to look for the evolutionary reasons?

Natural selection may not have a purpose but it certainly has reasons.

Every human that I know of is able to experience this kind of beauty, so I am wondering why it has been selected for.

As it is a positive sensation, arising at particular moments, that the body seems to have a reason for delivering, why would it not make sense to look for the evolutionary reasons? — Daniel Sjöstedt

The part in bold is the problem.

Science, which evolutionary theory is a part of, does not ask or answer why. Science, including evolutionary theory, only asks and answers who, what, when, where and how.

Maybe this is your question: what in human evolution was advantageous about being able to appreciate things like music?

Well, I would say that appreciating music is learned from culture, not contained in genes.

If you do not mean appreciation--if you simply mean having one sensation or another--then that departs from "beauty". Having sensations is simply having sensations, not recognizing or appreciating some concept such as "beauty".

Why do we have sensations? If you are looking for an evolutionary explanation then variables like mutations, environment, reproductive isolation, etc. are going to have to be accounted for and controlled. I don't see how that can be done in an informal discussion of philosophy.

Evolutionary theory does indeed answer the question of why things act as they do.

I was not looking for an evolutionary answer per se, I was looking for the reason behind the sense of spiritual beauty, or awe. But if you say that it is culturally constructed, then that is a fine answer :)

Scientific American: The Neuroscience of Beauty

NYT: A Small Part of the Brain and Its Profound Effects

Isn't it a kind of category error. Sure brainwaves may indicate thought, but they are not thoughts, they are brain waves.

Isn't it a kind of category error. Sure brainwaves may indicate thought, but they are not thoughts, they are brain waves. — Nils Loc

I'm not sure what the significance is of category error.

In those articles it appears that interoceptive or exteroceptive status (ie. whether or not you are hungry or horny, suffering, cold, hot etcetera) heavily influences value appraisal and what you read or project into an aesthetic construct or object at any time.

If I saw Michelangelo's Pieta in the middle of a snow storm its beauty would still astonish me, warm me up.

The whole physical line of inquiry is fine, but it is a bullshit explanation of beauty of any kind in my opinion. That's the error...it's not an explanation for thought, it is the resultant of thought.

I believe the basic idea is that our perception is partly shaped by our affect. Some call this affective realism. Another dimension is the concepts we have about ourselves and the world, much of which is supplied by culture.

I don't know anything about Michelangelo's Pieta. It appears to be female figure holding a post-crucified Christ, an artifact infused with cultural and religious meaning.

If I saw Michelangelo's Pieta in the middle of a snow storm its beauty would still astonish me, warm me up. — Cavacava

Assuming that "spiritual beauty" is distinct from material beauty because it transcends materialistic concerns (such as adequate warmth), its immediate utility would apparently be to help regulate autonomic functions to optimally adapt to circumstances outside the sphere of control. Being in constant fear of freezing to death and the resulting stress, for instance, may be counterproductive to survival.

On a broader level, transcendence of materialistic concerns, facilitated by aesthetic concepts, may be expressed as compassion, or perhaps selflessness. Christ is a powerful symbol of sacrifice. On this broader level the question might be: what's the utility of selflessness or sacrifice in an evolutionary sense? If the underlying goal of evolution is the propagation of genes, self-sacrifice may be the best strategy in many circumstances, because there's a high probability that you share genes with those around you. If you sacrifice yourself for your family, there's a good chance that more of your genetic material will pass on, if there are at least more than one of them anyway.

Working cooperatively is a better survival strategy in general (and for the propagation of your genes), in other words, but this may require sacrifice, assuming the concept of sacrifice exists in your culture.

I saw the Michelangelo's Pieta a long time ago and then only briefly. It is his most finished piece of sculpture, he was 25 year old when he carved it, and it is the only work he ever signed, The woman is Mary, his mother. It was designed as a funeral monument. There is a smooth warmth that flows over the statue, like a glow from within, it is like nothing I have experienced since.

You mention material transcendence, OK, I think this work transcends the determinate concept of grief, it frees (but does not deny) our imagination from the concept of a mother's grief for her dead child, it sees Christ's death more as a necessary sacrifice. Jesus is calm, not in agony, and Mary is young and beautiful because of her love of Christ.

Didn't quite get your bit about utility.

You wrote that the aesthetic would warm you up in a snow storm. That's affective realism. At a minimum this would ease your discomfort. It may also provide additional and possibly even life saving benefits via the autonomic system. I'd say that was useful.

I guess the following is just about affective realism...

Perhaps the Pieta was associated with warmth in Cavacava's memory because it was inside a warmer place (inside rather than outside). If the Pieta was luminous for viewing it might further strengthen the the association, especially if the background was much darker, the way an experience of a fire place does in winter.

The coldness of death (the effects of winter exposure) juxtaposed with the memory of a mother's love (warmth of a caressing body). Mary is inside, grieving (not hysterically since she is quite silent, stoic) over a corpse (which is quite fresh, sterile and pure like the marble it's made out of). Mary is the hearth (source of warmth and light). Mary is a good ma (not an uncaring selfish vindictive bitch who is suffering from Munchausen by proxy syndrome) .

The light attenuates the subtle universal anxiety of darkness, the warmth attenuates the uncomfortable cold, the marble does not stink of death, et cetera.

↪Cavacava You wrote that the aesthetic would warm you up in a snow storm. That's affective realism. At a minimum this would ease your discomfort. It may also provide additional and possibly even life saving benefits via the autonomic system. I'd say that was useful.

I was being hyperbolic, however please tell me what you mean by affective realism. I looked for a general statement of position but did not have much luck, explanations of it seemed to me to be all over the place.

The Pieta is not realistic, Jesus and Mary are idealized somewhat along the lines that suggested, but I get the impression that's not the point of affective realism, that its point is that if something affects the observer, it derives its realism from that affect.

I have read of psychological experiments which show that the insertion of a smiling face or a scowling face at speeds too quick for a human to pick up, still affected test subjects perception of reality, how they interpret what they saw. I think that these results are interesting, and it agrees with how I think perception is accomplished.


We bring concepts to perception which limit the things we apprehend (concepts form the material law of an object) this is accomplished by the activity of the imagination, which is the driving force behind the synthetic unity of appreceptiom. The aesthetic affect suggest a freedom of the imagination that enables it to move beyond the limitations of the concepts of judgement. I think in beauty is a freedom that the imagination senses when it is struck by the beauty in an object. An excess that goes beyond our normative conceptions of reality.

I have never seen a beautiful flower, only beautiful gardens.

In some ways suffering ceases to be suffering at the moment it finds a meaning, such as the meaning of a sacrifice. — Viktor E. Frankl

Here's an article.

[

The aesthetic affect of Michelangelo work its real. It is difficult to believe that marble can be worked the way he modeled the statue. The most startling aspect of the work, for me, was their smooth warm skin tones, how very real it looked.

I think that the aesthetic affect of a work of art lies the effect it has on our perception of it. The perceptual beauty of the work draws us to it. It enables us to experience concepts such as love in death on a new basis.

So yes in a sense "affective realism" on a grand scale. The reality of works of art change the way we think about and perceive the world.

The reality of works of art change the way we think about and perceive the world. — Cavacava

Indeed, my understanding is that the real Jesus wasn't white with blond hair. Affective realism can be expressed in art rather concretely, or should I say marbly.