The Metaphysics of Beauty

[Elmira]

This past spring at the University I took a course on contemporary metaphysics. It was offered to me by the powers that be at the higher levels of the philosophy department, the class title--"Aesthetics & The Philosophy of Art." The guiding spirit of the classroom--a vision of my professor's that was brought to light as we pushed through the syllabus, and one that certainly carried me to lecture every day--was a belief in the powerful roles beauty and art play in our fundamental understanding of the world and our place in it.

Mid-term we began reading Nick Zangwill's book "The Metaphysics of Beauty." It is a discussion in three parts: namely, a discussion of the concepts of ‘Dependence,’ ‘Formalism,’ ‘Realism,’ and their connections and differences. The book consists of twelve chapters, the content of which is ultimately a celebration of beauty and our experience of it.

The most interesting part of the book for me came at the introduction of the "Physicalist Aesthetic Realism" thesis. It is a thesis born out of the notion that every aesthetic fact is identical with some physical fact in aesthetic realism. In Zangwill's opinion, it is not the case that the dress on a woman, or the house we see, or the poetry we read, is beautiful because it pleases or charms us in a way, and so becomes beautiful in light of a private feeling. His pre-occupation with beauty is in the physical arrangement of the beautiful object, whereby the realization of the beautiful is due to that arrangement. The classic example provided, the one most attractive for Zangwill’s theory, is that of the beauty of the red rose. We may think its beauty stands alone, but it does not--rather what we really find to be beautiful (and all we really find to be beautiful) is a specific arrangement of its colored petals, leaves, and stems. So "beauty cannot be solitary and we cannot appreciate it as such."

I have my own reasons to be a little dissatisfied with this theory, but first I would like to hear your opinions. So I ask the age old question: Is beauty skin-deep or in the eye of the beholder? Is beauty free-floating? Can it exist by itself?

 

[Chronic]

I've wondered this myself in regards to music and the reaction on different species. (I've tried getting a reaction out of my guinea pigs but even the loudest heavy metal just keeps them unphased ) Are there certain tones that provoke the same reaction in different animals? And of course the question of whether physical attraction is in the eye of the beholder. If we stripped down all external influences would we all find the same things beautiful?

But ultimately I think it's irrelevant when it comes to free-floating beauty. To me love is not beautiful, it's just some biological reaction with an evolutionary purpose. But when two people truly appreciate each other on an intellectual level and do things not because they're in love but because they feel the person deserves it, that's when it becomes beautiful to me. By itself it doesn't mean a thing but we give it meaning. Because of our unique intelligence I think we can often transcend nature.

There may not be a meaning to life but that doesn't mean you can't give it meaning.

 

[AmerikazMost]

^ I was going to bring up music myself.

There are certain combinations of keys that elicit positive responses in all but everyone, and vice versa. I wouldn't be surprised if the same was true for visual stimuli, though the complexity of an image makes it harder to define and de-construct.

 

[Chronic]

Little bit off-topic but I think it goes in line with the question of how robotic we actually are and how bound things such as beauty are. I thought it was interesting that I recognized the sound my cats make when they want food as begging purely by the sound of it. When they hiss it doesn't scare me but it's still an unpleasant appearance, so they still manage to bring that "negativity" across. Animals know which insects they shouldn't fuck with and wasps for example just look evil to me.

 

[S O F I]

So, basically, what he is saying is that when it comes to beauty, the whole is not more than the sum of its parts. When you look at a woman, it's not that you find her beautiful, but her nose, her eyes, her face, her movements, and all of that culminates in what attracts you. If I'm on the right track, I'm a bit dissatisfied with that myself.


Anyway, when it comes to the age old question as you say, I prefer the way social theory approaches it. We as a people define beauty and the definition varies from time to time. For example, back in the day, really pale women were attractive and women would end up poisoning themselves by intaking a certain chemical that makes their skin pale. The name of the chemical escapes me now.

 

[Preach]

I'm gonna cop out the easy way and say it's a mixture of the two. No but really, hear me out lol. I think the theory holds some ground. I think our perception of beauty is akin to our perception of symmetry. I think beauty is determined by a quality that is principally the same as symmetry. A definition of the composition of... whatever, the atoms, the cells, the colors.

But obviously, like a two-jointed robotic arm, the phenomenon is extended by our personalities. I'll use an example. We have these primal instincts that are supposed to encourage us to react certain ways in certain situations. Yet, if we are pressured enough through lecture, abuse or manipulation, we develop a form of dementia that encourages different, irrational behavior. Social phobia is an example of a mental condition that discourages normal behavior. I'm a little high right now, but my point is that the brain is powerful enough to tamper with your perception of these aesthetic qualities, if they are actually there.

In all honesty, what I just said is something I've always considered a fact and it's gotten me this far.

Edit: To comment on the music thing, I've read some various articles and editorials, and blogs believe it or not, dealing with what was discussed earlier. I remember reading that Christmas songs are notorious for containing a lot of musical tones and compositions/sequences of tones that through studies have been proven to have a positive emotional effect on people.

 

[Jokerman]

I don't think the term beauty is of much value in phlosophical inquiry. We call something beautiful that we get enjoyment from or we call something beautiful that we feel has an intrinsic value. In the first case it's purely subjective, and in the second case it's a subjectively determined objective standard. So in the second case it has both a subjective and an objective dimension, or a subjectively objective one. And that's really it. No mystery, unless the universe has a purpose we're unaware of.

I could go on to describe what I mean more but this is one of my least favorite lines of philosophical inquiry, and I have no time for academic philosophers who use terms like Physicalist and Formalism.

 

[Bender]

Of course beauty has philosophical value, it is to do with aesthetics. Metaphysics is the breaking down of, in this case, aesthetics.

Beauty appeals to the senses. It could also appeal to mental imagery and imagination. We all have senses that like to be pleased. Beauty is a consolation for the senses.

 

[Preach]

^^
Your anal rhabdosphincter most likely has senses. Do they like to be pleased?