I think it was Aristotle who originally claimed we have 5 senses (sight, hearing, touch, taste and smell).
At first thought, I would have said that we most commonly call something beautiful which we either see and/or hear, e.g. a sunset, scenery or a song. While our other senses (touch, taste, smell) can contribute to this process of perceiving something as beautiful, I do not think that this thought of something being beautiful can stem out of these other 3 senses of touch, smell and taste (Feel free to prove me wrong here). A delicious meal might please our sense of taste and smell. However, does this automatically make it beautiful? Call it delicious maybe, but I feel like it is something different from the concept of beauty.
I'd see the sense of taste, smell and touch much more as amplifiers, instead of direct causes of enabling the perception of beauty.

Therefore I wonder. If we take these senses of vision and hearing away:
In what type of situation would a person with this dual sensory impairment (no vision or hearing)
label something as beautiful?
Or does such a person simply experience beauty in a completely different way?

I think someone without any sensory faculties could not feel or perceive beauty at all.
Consequently I have to agree with you. In my opinion, we at very least need our senses (vision and hearing) to be able to grasp beauty. (I'm not so sure about the other senses.)

You may ask, what about the reasoned beauty from the works of Picasso, Van Gogh, the famous Mona Lisa by Da Vinci,..etc? We may say, they please our brains.

Therefore we may conclude that beauty is an aesthetically pleasing emotions arising from our bodily sense organs in perceiving the objects or situations? — Corvus

I don't think art, which we analyse, necessarily 'pleases' our brain, but rather that, through thorough reflection about it and contemplation on the object itself, we reach a (reasoned) conclusion regarding its' qualities, like that it is beautiful.
I do agree with you though that beauty seems to be intrinsically linked to our sensory perception.

I found a short passage about bears and what I mentioned earlier briefly.
I tried to find some studies about this however, along the way I found out that there hasn't yet been any extensive research done on this, though many seem to have observed this seemingly rather 'odd', or so far inexplicable behaviour of bears (them sitting in the same spot for prolonged periods of time without doing too much, just staring off into the distance), possibly indicating that they possess a to us similar' "sense of beauty" (but of course, who knows, could also be attributed to something else).
Just thought I'd clarify that.

I see..

Without Mind, but only consciousness, like our advanced cousins among the animals; that real feeling would have been present to our aware-ing, but only in its presence. — ENOAH

So according to you, the mind — as in, our ability to think ("Reason") — is what made us more or less incapable of enjoying such moments for what they really are due to this once started, unstoppable chain of associations and so on being triggered, tainting the 'real' experience.

But don't you think this is maybe more of a problem of language and not the mind itself?
Not as in our language not being precise enough or whatever, but that us acquiring language (words for also more complex ideas) is the main source and cause of this process?
Because after all if we didn't have words nor language, (but maybe some other means of communication instead?), wouldn't this 'problem' be 'solved'?



Thank you for this new perspective by the way, no need to apologise!

This reminds me, perchance a bit off topic, but: I read somewhere that they had found out or at least assume (through observation) that bears, too, enjoy landscapes and sceneries, seemingly as also able to appreciate them. Take this with a grain of salt though. I don't remember the details.


That aside, though, you also mentioned that I (applying to others as well) was "

at that moment, not expecting it; thus, not paying (conventional) attention and so reality was able to slip through. — ENOAH

Regarding that: Do you think there is a way (or ways) for us to actively stop this process from happening or at least try avoid it in order to enjoy such moments and experiences for what they truly could be?

Thank you for your comment!
That's a very interesting point there.
I've often wondered how much of a word's 'true meaning', or that of what this word in question is trying to really describe gets lost through this process of trying to categorize and put a label on everything in this world.

Please correct me if I've misinterpreted your comment;
You mean to say that basically this experience, which I (or others too) had, is not something as 'simple' as the word "beautiful" or at very least cannot be encapsulated within a single word? In fact, that what this experience in essence really is might not be describable in mere words (at all)?
Therefore, as soon as we label this moment as 'something' (for example as the word 'beautiful') it loses some (or all) of its' actual 'meaning'/essence of what it is?

As if forcing a cage (man-made construct) onto something far too big for it to actually fit inside (and in the process only catching a glimpse/fragment of its' real manifestation or maybe nothing at all due to the real nature of this moment being lost)?

Hmm... So what you mean to say is that...perhaps beauty is something purely contingent and subjective, and if it were not, there would have to be some kind of consistent, determinable pattern behind its' occurrence or emergence?

You mentioned this example with people and how they might seem more or less beautiful depending on the situation and if this were the case, that beauty would be more of a contingent thing. Then again, doesn't this idea with your example above assume beauty would have to be a property or an attribute in order for it not to be random/subjective? That it must always be applicable to an object after it once has been designated as beautiful?

Regarding your example, I also think when it comes to things we perceive with our eyes, aesthetics play a big role in our judgement of them as well. Not sure how much this overlaps with beauty or our judgement/perception of/on it. (While we might find the aesthetics of an object pleasing, does this necessarily mean it is beautiful?)

Also what if we take, say, a song for example. A lot of people might find this certain song beautiful. Where- or whenever it is played, it will still be perceived as beautiful. In this example outside factors or different situations might not influence the perception of beauty at all imo.

Could you elaborate that? (this other aspect?)

Interesting thought but is beauty really something that can be labeled or called good or bad?

I like this take of trying to define something by starting to define what it isn't (process of elimination or exclusion, whatever it is called), outlining the shape of the thing in question. While I do agree that beauty sometimes is something that conforms, does it necessarily have to conform? One could also find something tragic beautiful, something that makes them cry, no? I'm not sure if beauty always entails conform.

Your question about beauty being a transcendental or not, or whether it perhaps says something deeper about our reality is super interesting imo.
It makes me wonder when taking this idea that Corvus mentioned earlier in this thread into account:

But if you are perceiving the art objects or beautiful scenery in ordinary daily life, then I would reckon your aesthetic judgements on them would be more likely based on the emotional responses to the objects or scenes.

The reasoned beauties could give you the rational reasons why Picasso suits better than Van Gogh for the space with the modern furnishings, however, it might not be able to offer the psychological pleasure, ecstasy and peace of mind you would get from the purely emotional judgements and feelings of the beautiful objects or scenery you encounter in your daily life. — Corvus

So pretty much something being thought of as beautiful, and this having two different, possible reasons for occurring: The first being objective/rational and reasoned, the second being based on subjective experiences, emotions, current mood, outlook on life, etc... .


I thought that maybe, through this definition/separation of why we perceive something as beautiful, the answer to the question of whether the concept of beauty is simply a man-made construct or (as you said it) "if it reflects in some way a divine reality, something that transcends contingent human experience and says something deeper about reality?", might become more evident.

I feel like one could argue that both, in a way, could be transcendental, but also not. Not sure what you'd think of this separation of beauty into a subjectively and a more objectively based and shaped beauty and the thought of it being a transcendental.

Wow, yeah, I quite like that thought. These two sides of beauty.

True, I agree with that.
Whether the notion of beauty always has to arise in correlation with rationality or not is an interesting thought.

Perhaps it's usually a mix of rationaliy and emotion.
Though since usually beauty is seen as a type of feeling, could we still perceive it if we were completely rational beings? Or on the contrary, entirely emotional? Makes me wonder..

Thank you, I'll give that a read for sure!