Is beauty real?

[Brickjectivity]

To me, it seems that life often strives, and makes attempts to achieve beauty. So is beauty an actual fundamental thing? Or just an imaginary concept. Even if imaginary, why does even that exist?

Order is real. Beauty is based on it. We have things we appreciate and don't, but the beauty is there even if we don't appreciate it. Was there harmony before people understood it or listened? Yes. There were harmonic series in nature, but humans now can appreciate them. The beauty was there unappreciated. Now its appreciated.

 

[Cooky]

Order is real. Beauty is based on it. We have things we appreciate and don't, but the beauty is there even if we don't appreciate it. Was there harmony before people understood it or listened? Yes. There were harmonic series in nature, but humans now can appreciate them. The beauty was there unappreciated. Now its appreciated.

Very interesting.

Also, as mentioned, symmetry is closely related to beauty, and symmetry indicates order as well.

 

[shmogie]

He is a punk woodpecker.

 

[Cooky]

In a nutshell, we know that life tends to be symmetrical. DNA is symmetrical. And we recognize this as beauty.

So for life, there is beauty.

It's like life has it's own realities, seperate from Universal and Fundamental qualities of the sciences. As if we were from another dimension or something. And our realities trace back to our DNA, and the order that is our DNA...

 

[Brickjectivity]

In a nutshell, we know that life tends to be symetrical. DNA is symmetrical. And we recognize it as beauty.

Symmetry is a big one.

 

[Cooky]

Symmetry is a big one.

But symmetry can't exist without order. The two go hand in hand.

Afterall, our DNA orders our entire lives. Each grey hair is preplanned decades beforehand. Each one's location on the scalp layed out in order from first to last -all preplanned in order, instantaneously after conception, before we are even born.

And the DNA itself is even symmetrically shaped.

 

[David T]

That doesn't make sense. How can belief and non belief both be delusional? And if they're both delusional then what are the other non delusional options, if there are any?

Both are the cranium determines as being fundemental. Thats nuts.

 

[Cooky]

Both are the cranium determines as being fundemental. Thats nuts.

confusion occurs when reductionists influence us by convincing us that we're nothing special, and that what we think and feel is not real. They tell us that what is only real is what exists outside of our orderly and symmetrical lives, as if we don't even exist.

But we do exist. And we're nothing like what we see around us. And I think we're from somewhere else.

 

[Milton Platt]

To me, it seems that life often strives, and makes attempts to achieve beauty. So is beauty an actual fundamental thing? Or just an imaginary concept. Even if imaginary, why does even that exist?

View attachment 30046 View attachment 30047

Why might not even be a question to ask. How is more relevant.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

For instance, the flower is beautifully colored, because colors attract insects who pollinate the flowers...

...But why do I think the flowers are beautiful, I'm not a bug.

But you see, the insects don't even see the flowers' colours the way you do. They see further up the spectrum towards the ultraviolet, and most flowers have colours in that range that provide "runways" for flying insects.

But many of our most beautiful flowers are the creation of humans, by repeated selective breeding, precisely to make them beautiful to us. In fact, there are lots of ugly flowers, too. Take a look at ten of them:

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

To me, it seems that life often strives, and makes attempts to achieve beauty. So is beauty an actual fundamental thing? Or just an imaginary concept. Even if imaginary, why does even that exist?

View attachment 30046 View attachment 30047

I believe so. Beauty itself is often deified or ruled over by a deity in polytheist religions.

 

[Cooky]

I believe so. Beauty itself is often deified or ruled over by a deity in polytheist religions.

I don't know much about polytheistic religions, but I think I like them. They seem open to ideas at least, which is more than the scientific reductionist types are willing to do most of the time -where if something said is not a documented theory, they just close off to it instantly.

...It's good to be open minded.

 

[Cooky]

But you see, the insects don't even see the flowers' colours the way you do. They see further up the spectrum towards the ultraviolet, and most flowers have colours in that range that provide "runways" for flying insects.

That would mean that insects see colors even more vividly than us. The runways (petals) is an interesting concept I hadn't thought about before.

 

[Cooky]

Why might not even be a question to ask. How is more relevant.

That just literally put me in a different place. Not sure I like this angle better.

I think the why is the philosophical approach, and the how is the scientific approach.

 

[Milton Platt]

That just literally put me in a different place. Not sure I like this angle better.

I think the why is the philosophical approach, and the how is the scientific approach.

Yeah, sorta......Often the why question infers a who......that's why I don't generally go there. I feel that the who must be established beyond reasonable doubt before we can infer that the who might have had any why's. something that does not exist cannot be the cause of anything.
I enjoy philosophical discussions (although I'm not well read on the subject of philosophy). But my take is that philosophy can't do more than put forth ideas and examine them........it can't provide any real evidence to support the existence of something.

 

[Cooky]

Yeah, sorta......Often the why question infers a who......that's why I don't generally go there. I feel that the who must be established beyond reasonable doubt before we can infer that the who might have had any why's. something that does not exist cannot be the cause of anything.
I enjoy philosophical discussions (although I'm not well read on the subject of philosophy). But my take is that philosophy can't do more than put forth ideas and examine them........it can't provide any real evidence to support the existence of something.

Good points. And you're right that philosophy won't provide evidence -that's the job of science. Of course, if philosophy and science worked together, we could get further.

But I agree, getting to the who is just going too far. Religion can stay in religion on it's own.

 

[siti]

Why does the woodpecker have a red head?

View attachment 30051

Isn't that what Prince Charles asked Diana when Harry was born?

 

[David T]

To me, it seems that life often strives, and makes attempts to achieve beauty. So is beauty an actual fundamental thing? Or just an imaginary concept. Even if imaginary, why does even that exist?

View attachment 30046 View attachment 30047

Wow an actual hard question. I had to actually think on this question for a number of hours. It reminds me of the question what is art?

Beauty is the myth with 10,000 faces.
Which then leads to the question is fiction real? It exists all over nature. So yes fiction is real. Like beauty. Speaking of fiction and beauty here is a good example all rolled into one being!!!

 

[David T]

Good points. And you're right that philosophy won't provide evidence -that's the job of science. Of course, if philosophy and science worked together, we could get further.

But I agree, getting to the who is just going too far. Religion can stay in religion on it's own.

Everyone seems to be avoiding art and artists in the question.. Not surprising actually.

 

[BSM1]

She also thinks she has a great guy we all know thats total BSM. which brings me Back to john prine inspite of ourselves!

We have been asked to learn this one...

BTW, let's not make her any the wiser...