The first question that pops into one’s mind when mentioning beauty in a philosophical context is whether it is objective or subjective. Do things bring pleasure because they are beautiful, or are things beautiful because they bring pleasure? It is a question that has created a major disagreement amongst certain of the greatest philosophical minds. It is commonly agreed upon that beauty is an ultimate value along with goodness, truth and justice. However, it does not exist in the thing itself, but is rather individually perceived. It is not determined logically but aesthetically, and can therefore be nothing but subjective.
To say that beauty is entirely subjective would be denying that human beings’ certain perceptions are the same and that we sometimes commonly perceive some sights or objects such as a sunset or a rose as beautiful, as able to trigger pleasure or satisfaction. Many would argue that things exist by themselves, that they bare their own proper essence, a natural soul that renders them independent from humans’ interpretations or imagination. For Plato, in the “Symposium”, an item’s beauty is located in its Form and not in the beholder’s response, and Plotinus agrees with him. He claims that any object’s beauty is determined by whether it is shaped like the type of the thing that object is. It is referred to by Plotinus as ‘formedness’. This theory is further explained in his work, the “Enneads”, where he says: “We hold that all the loveliness of this world comes by communion in Ideal-Form. All shapelessness whose kind admits of pattern and form, as long as it remains outside of Reason and Idea, is ugly from that very isolation from the Divine-Thought. And this is the Absolute Ugly: an ugly thing is something that ha...
... middle of paper ...
...of art in the viewers’ intentions and interpretations, and not in the piece of art itself, as opposed to others like Plotinus who would completely put the beauty in the art piece. I would argue that art cannot be ugly and therefore, this whole debate about it holding beauty within itself or not is entirely unnecessary, for art naturally bears the three transcendental ultimate values of beauty, good and truth. In actuality, I wonder: “Does art really have to be beautiful in the first place?” What has pushed me to ask myself this rather confusing question is the tremendous effect arts have on the emotions rather than on the intellect. It is not beauty that helps art get to people, but it is the message and the interpretations behind and given to it. One might perceive a piece of art as ugly, but still experience a feeling while interacting with it.
The lovers of sounds and sights, I replied, are, as I conceive, fond of fine tones and colours and forms and all the artificial products that are made out of them, but their mind is incapable of seeing or loving absolute beauty. And he who, having a sense of beautiful things has no sense of absolute beauty, or who, if another lead him to a knowledge of that beauty, is unable to follow — of such an one I ask, Is he awake or in a dream only?
He clarifies his interpretation of aesthetic value, rejecting the traditionally narrow notions regarding beauty and composition, and expands his view to include insights and emotions expressed through the medium. Explaining that he views overall value as an all-things-considered judgement, he asserts the ethicist’s duty to contrast the aesthetic with the ethical and determine the extent to which one outweighs the other. Gaut calls on readers to defy the popular paradigm equating beauty with goodness and ugly with evil, allowing for great, yet flawed pieces of
Titian’s health, inherited from his mountain race, along with his tendencies toward order, balance, and determination, defined the dominant characteristics of the art that he created. He is credited for his being capable of expressing beauty which springs from the deepest happiness of life, and granted his art with that sort of expression. His art was important and has influenced artists after him. He is considered to be a magnificent creator of beauty, which is a well-suited consideration.
Beauty is experienced through visual stimuli. The human being's intake of beauty is through both conscious and unconscious decisions. (4) (4) The question is what motivates our unconscious decisions...
Plato and Aristotle were both very influential men of there time bringing vast knowledge to the world. I honestly believe that Democracy does a lot of good but it definitely has some common side effects. Out of all of Plato's significant ideas, his best was the idea of democracy opening political decisions to the majority who cannot think on behalf of the community. Aristotle on the other hand is very optimistic when it comes to democracy so it becomes a rather interesting compare and contrast between these to men.
The attempt to set up a standard for assessing the merit of works of art, based upon contingent connections between these works and the sentiments (feelings of pleasure or displeasure) of spectators, was famously made by David Hume. His attempt remains the locus classicus for those philosophers who attempt to found the aesthetic judgment upon empirical, rather than a priori, grounds. I have myself given it a limited defense (1). Recently, Hume's argument has been severely attacked by Malcolm Budd (2). His central contention is that Hume completely fails to introduce any normative element into the aesthetic judgment; he fails, that is, to give any content to the claim that some judgments on the value of a work are more warranted or appropriate than others...
After studying the two dialogues, we’ve found that the concepts of love and beauty are inseparable in Plato’s philosophy. Love, despite not being beautiful in itself, is the love of beauty, and as love evolves, the lover ultimately acquire the ability to go through heaven to the realm of transcendental forms where Beauty lies.
In Book one of the Republic of Plato, several definitions of justice versus injustice are explored. Cephalus, Polemarchus, Glaucon and Thracymicus all share their opinions and ideas on what actions they believe to be just, while Socrates questions various aspects of the definitions. In book one, Socrates is challenged by Thracymicus, who believes that injustice is advantageous, but eventually convinces him that his definition is invalid. Cephalus speaks about honesty and issues of legality, Polemarchus explores ideas regarding giving to one what is owed, Glaucon views justice as actions committed for their consequences, and Socrates argues that justice does not involve harming anybody. Through the interrogations and arguments he has with four other men, and the similarity of his ideas of justice to the word God, Socrates proves that a just man commits acts for the benefits of others, and inflicts harm on nobody.
Women are talked about at length in book five of Plato’s The Republic. Plato expresses how women could and indeed should be used in his ideal state providing them with a place in the upper ranks of society; taking the position of a “guardian” alongside their male counterparts. He believed this could happen as women were an unused pool of resources, they had the ability in their nature and because he felt equality was an integral part of justice. Revisionist historians have argued that Plato felt women could be legitimate political guardians as he was an egalitarian. This idea that women should hold such an important position was extremely radical within the Athenian society he lived in, and indeed was a concept academics “dismissed, deplored
In Introduction to Aesthetics, G.W.F. Hegel’s opening paragraphs describe the spacious realm of the beautiful, the relationship of beauty in both nature and art, and the limitation and defense of aesthetics. Hegel addresses that the proper way to express the meaning of aesthetics is to refer to it as Philosophy of Fine Art, however, once adopting this expression humans, “exclude the beauty of nature” (Hegel). As humans, it has become a way of life to use our senses to help describe the beauty of nature, animals and other people in our world. According to Hegel, “beauty of art is higher than nature” (Hegel) and it is the art that is created by the spirit that stands above that of nature. Nature is an incomplete substance and the, “realms of nature have not been classified and examined from the point of view of beauty” (Hegel). Therefore, there is a difference between the beauty of nature and
The subjective element of beauty involves judgment, not opinion. Many people feel beauty is only something seen by the eyes. St. Thomas Aquinas views beauty in both the supernatural and natural orders. Aquinas lists the attributes of beauty to be found in nature. These are; unity, proportion, and clarity. We will see how these attributes of beauty are seen through the eye and felt by the heart.
This week in Senior Symposium we have been working with a book that seems to be unavoidable as a college student attending a liberal arts institution, Plato’s Republic. Specifically Books 1 and 7 of this well examined text. This text written as a play, and in this play a young Socrates is the protagonist. During the lecture relating to the reading for this week speaker Dr. Thomas Brickhouse (2016) brought up a very intriguing question early on in his discussion of this work of Plato. How good of a job does Plato’s republic do of representing the historical Socrates (Brickhouse 2016)? Finding a truly accurate interoperation of any historical figure is nearly impossible, but Brickhouse (2016) seemed particularly convinced that Plato took exceptional liberties with the actions and words of Socrates in The Republic using him as a character or talking piece,
Variations of this question are timeless, and without ever defining beauty, we are constantly attempting to achieve it. Hundreds of years ago the essence of beauty was a philosophical question. Plato was one of the first to conjecture that beauty may be due to what he called the "golden proportions." Plato went on to describe that the "width of an ideal face would be two-thirds its length, while a nose would be no longer than the distance between the eyes." (3) Although all of Plato's ideas were not entirely defendable, it was the first recognition that symmetry might play a part in what humans deem attractive.
regarded by many as the core of any act of beauty and reason. Different types of art have provoked many in life to pursue their goals and
In A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, Stephen Dedalus defines beauty and the artist's comprehension of his/her own art. Stephen uses his esthetic theory with theories borrowed from St. Thomas Aquinas and Plato. The discourse can be broken down into three main sections: 1) A definitions of beauty and art. 2) The apprehension and qualifications of beauty. 3) The artist's view of his/her own work. I will explain how the first two sections of his esthetic theory relate to Stephen. Furthermore, I will argue that in the last section, Joyce is speaking of Stephen Dedalus and A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man as his art.