No, it just makes it a theory, and not proven.Great. There are critics of it. So what? That makes it unworthy? Only views which fit well within established orthodoxy are credible?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What is Beauty?
- Thread starter Nakosis
- Start date
"Just a theory, not proven", is the exact same type of response Creationists toss out there when presented with the Theory of Evolution. "It's just a theory, not fact." You're learning from the wrong team here. Or perhaps, just borrowing from them something that they use to deal with challenges to their faith. It sounds reasonable, to them.No, it just makes it a theory, and not proven.
If you see it that way, who am I to say different. Beauty is still a subjective human construct though."Just a theory, not proven", is the exact same type of response Creationists toss out there when presented with the Theory of Evolution. "It's just a theory, not fact." You're learning from the wrong team here. Or perhaps, just borrowing from them something that they use to deal with challenges to their faith. It sounds reasonable, to them.
Except that other animals see and respond to beauty. So that dashes your assumption right at the outset. It's not just a subjective human thing.If you see it that way, who am I to say different. Beauty is still a subjective human construct though.
And, a "construct"? You mean, to argue that beauty is a social or mental construct? Seriously? It's only beautiful, because language and society tells us it is? Do you seriously believe this? Do any scientists who are critics-free agree with that idea?
Until we get inside the minds of non-human creatures will not know - as to what they are responding to. Whatever they are responding to will probably be as subjective as what we experience, and it would probably not be labelled 'beauty' but something else. What appeals to us is subjective. I can't see how you can argue otherwise even if we do tend to agree as to a consensus in many areas. Why wouldn't beauty be a construct just as ugliness is?
So, science has really nothing to contribute here, because they aren't clairvoyant? Aren't there other means to be able to assess behaviors, other than telepathy?
You've just kicked out one leg of your argument which deserved to be thrown out. It's not just humans, and it's not a human construct that beauty is a real, objective thing in evolution.
That the experience of beauty is a subjective thing, is not disputed. What I see as beautiful, versus what you see as beautiful, versus what a dog sees as beautiful, or a rabbit, or a whale, or a bird sees.... all of that varies based upon the individual. But ALL of them are responding to beauty, in their own ways.
To say something is subjectively experienced, does not mean it is not objectively true. It is objectively true, that humans and non-humans demonstrate that they are responding to the their own subjective experiences of what they perceive as beauty. That's observable, and measurable, and testable. In other words, a scientific reality.
Do you think birds have mental constructs about beauty? Do you think people experience beauty, because of mental constructs? Do you have any scientific, or just logical supports for that claim?
No one is claiming that X is beautiful, and Y is ugly. But beauty, or revulsion, are evolutionary in nature. You see it in humans, because it exists in nature. Nature evolved it. We respond to it, just like other animal species before us have. It played a role in creating us. We did not construct it. Nature did. Beauty literally, constructed us.
Well as far as I am aware, and apart from just supposition, we (the animal behaviour experts, that is) observe animals in the wild, where we are able to do so, such as to observe natural behaviour and try to deduce what such means. Hence we seem to be getting somewhere with their visual signaling that once was a mystery to us. What goes on in their heads is a bit more difficult - especially with regards attributes seemingly in common with humans but which might mean different things to them.
Says you.
How can it be objective then if we experience it subjectively? How do we measure such - the value of something over something else?
You are not very convincing, I'm afraid. Do you expect us to vote for what we find beautiful and hence obtain its objective value? And the same goes for non-human animals. How do we know what was the path to their finding something attractive or not - or beautiful as you would insist? Rather tricky to follow their evolutionary path back and make such assessments - other than brightest, biggest, etc., probably.
Well for humans I suspect beauty is an emotional state more than an intellectual one, but we no doubt assess such with our thinking, so probably a construct - that which is pleasing to us.
That sounds like a theological concept. We are a product of nature, and we see beauty in many things, but I doubt what you propose is what happens. We no doubt find things beautiful for many different reasons, and our culture will have influenced this to a great extent. For example, before artists produced realistic images of anything presumably people had a different concept of beauty - in whatever works of art were around then. I don't know what goes on in the minds of non-human animals, but I just can't accept that they experience beauty just as we do - not based on the proposals of one individual at least.
This, I can agree on! a hundred percent
I don't define it, I just divine it. Like everyone.
Everything is chemicals.
At least we're not Sacklers.
