Reply
Fri 26 Jan, 2007 08:57 am
Beauty, a Rival to Truth and Good?
Einstein was said to have rejected the theories of Quantum Mechanics, which he was instrumental in devising, because they lacked beauty. He was constantly attempting to improve on QM; he constantly looked for something more pleasing to his aesthetic considerations.
Physics has discovered the power of symmetry. It has, as I comprehend it, become as important to certain physics considerations as is the conservation of energy and momentum. I suspect that symmetry is very important in our judgments regarding beauty.
It is generally accepted that the characteristics of "esthetic feeling or of the aesthetic judgment (aesthetic value)" are due to social conditions.
Aesthetic judgment expresses a value, and hence implies a subjective element; but this value is not always apprehended as subjective, private, and relative, but rather as universal. It represents a confluence of emotion and intellection. In this context universality means "super-individual" and "implies that my attitude toward the aesthetic object is not individual, but is possible for any of my fellows."
"The aesthetic consciousness in its beginnings is connected with art rather than with nature
Art has not arisen primarily to satisfy an already existing love of beauty
Art has its origins, almost without exception, in social relations; the explanation of the aesthetic categories is to be sought largely in social psychology."
A widely recognized characteristic of the aesthetic attitude is one of detachment, or freedom from desire, and positively as an immediacy, or purely intense pleasure independent of desire; Kant described it as disinterestedness; a contemplative attitude; in Schiller as play. Recent writers, I think, tend to accentuate this detachment; it is sometimes called semblance, imitation, conscious self-illusion, or make-believe. The work of art is a closed unity; the aesthetic object is a world apart.
An additional characteristic of the aesthetic is stated as a "widening of our life of feeling toward the typical, comprehensive, and universal". "Aristotle and Hegel emphasize the universality of the aesthetic object." It expresses an idea that gives the human and not merely the particular.
There seems to be a congruence between play, i.e. make believe, and art. Aesthetic pleasure arises partially due to ease of adjustment, which "is favored by unity, symmetry, rhythm, etc." In that all sapiens seem to harbor a similar disposition; we might assume such characteristics will give pleasure to all.
Aesthetic pleasure often seems to undergo a growing toward an objective sense, in that often, at first perception when we might distrust our judgment, our first judgment might be "I like this". In such a moment we certainly regard the sensation as aesthetic but not universal. Under further examination our attitude switches to "This is great" or perhaps even "This is sublime" and further still to "This is heroic." We might very well say that this sequence from "This is good" to "This is great" is passing from a purely subjective to a universal evaluation partially do to "the substitution of a social and objective attitude."
The universality may be due in part a consideration as to how far I am really viewing the object as an expert and to whether the object stirs a genuinely social feeling. Universality of a mere numerical form may "belong much more to a judgment respecting strawberries than to judgments respecting Wagner. The aesthetic universality is qualitative and internal, not quantitative and external." It means that I judge as from a standpoint that has been created and developed within me largely by the "social experience and expression."
Kant expressed a category of the aesthetic as disinterestedness or detachment, and freedom; and it may have reference to a "certain absence of egoistic desire, and this quality stands almost necessarily to be enjoyed by contemplation." Another aspect of the aesthetic to be noted under this category of disinterestedness is the aspect of freedom, of detachment from reality, or "make-believe"; the imagination of spectator as well as of artist must widen beyond the present reality.
"The claim is, that the various forms of art have been the most effective means of developing this free-play and the attendant delight. Further, in certain of the arts, notably the drama, we find a form of tension and excitement which, like certain of the games of childhood, or certain of the sports of mature life, suggests previous periods in the race-history when life itself, as maintained by fishing or hunting, in battle or strategy, was a process containing far more of emotional strain and stimulation than the life of civilization."
Can you imagine aesthetic value as having a universal quality, i.e. a quality that comes primarily from the object versus one that comes primarily from the subject? I think that all judgments have both objective and subjective components. I think that if we imagine a stick with ?'totally objective' on one end and ?'totally subjective' on the other that all judgments lie somewhere between these two end points.
Quote:"The aesthetic consciousness in its beginnings is connected with art rather than with nature
How, if that is so, could art have come to be in the first place?
The "artlover" gets hung up on expressions. That is why he's never more than a critic. The artist, however, is more concerned with impressions. Something to express. So I disagree with your statements in this paragraph. Art has risen because man had a need to express the beauty he found all around him, or the horror, or whatever it was he saw.
All that other crap which people who can't paint say about the pictures has about as much to do with art as beer drinking in front of the tv on gamenight has to do with football.
Forgive my rudeness, but if you have something to say about a piece of art you've missed the point of it.
(In my opinion, of course).
Re: Beauty, a rival to Truth and Good?
coberst wrote:Einstein was said to have rejected the theories of Quantum Mechanics, which he was instrumental in devising, because they lacked beauty. He was constantly attempting to improve on QM; he constantly looked for something more pleasing to his aesthetic considerations.
"Aesthetics" refers to a purely emotional response to something. "Beauty" in the sense Einstein used it (as well as other phycists) refers to something that is in it's most simplistic form yet maintains a universal truth. (E=mc2 is the "standard" for beauty in physics because of it's simplicity and universal application). The two have nothing to do with each other.
When you start with a wrong premise, you end up with a wrong conclusion.
The Golden spiral is the only thing that I ever understood in math:
Golden Spiral
The Golden Spiral is based on a mathematical sequence involving the Golden Mean, and which at the same time yields a unique result. The uniqueness results from the fact that there is a far deeper purpose in the development of the numbers/spiral, one which provides a profound image of the movement through time, one essential to evolution.
The Golden Spiral is routinely manifested in nature in the spiraling bracts of a pinecone, the development of a nautilus (the sea creature as well as the exercise equipment), the path a fly follows as it approaches an object, or most anything! In man's attempt to replicate this beauty of nature, we see the Golden Spiral in the fact that the Sphinx and Pyramids of Giza (The Great Pyramids) all lie on a Golden Spiral. Even the Yellow Brick Road (the symbol of transformation from the Land of Munchkins to the Land of Oz -- in the Wizard of Oz), begins as a Golden Spiral! (And surely the Wizard of Emerald City knows best!)
That's why I love Oliver Wendell Holmes' Chambered Nautilus, Coberst
Re: Beauty, a rival to Truth and Good?
coberst wrote:Can you imagine aesthetic value as having a universal quality, i.e. a quality that comes primarily from the object versus one that comes primarily from the subject?
No, I can't, nor can I understand why such a thing would be desirable. In the realm of aesthetics, universal qualities are almost by definition trivial qualities. For example, it is a "universal" (i.e. objective and undeniable) quality of Wagner's
Das Rheingold that it begins in Eb-Major. I doubt very much that this fact has much importance in whatever aesthetic pleasure someone may derive from it.
I am not so sure about that, shapeless.
The key of any given piece of music has an effect on the subconsciousness of the listener. If that piece was played in G major it might cause a different emotional response in the listener, thus being the source of a different aestethic experience.
Cyracuz wrote:If that piece was played in G major it might cause a different emotional response in the listener, thus being the source of a different aestethic experience.
I think "might" is the key word in your comment, Cyracuz. Coberst was inquiring about "universals," so the potential and subjective responses of a listener to certain keys (which is a frequent phenomenon in music, no doubt about it) wouldn't fall under that purview.
JAMES HAYDEN TUFTS Aesthetic Categories
http://spartan.ac.brocku.ca/~lward/Tufts/Tufts_1903.html
I failed to reference my source.
Objective or Subjective: It's all a matter of degree
If we place the concept ?'subjective' on one end of a stick and the concept ?'objective' on the other end every matter of fact will fall some where in between.
The most objective truth might be "It is raining on me", the most subjective truth might be "This grass tastes good". Something that might fall exactly in the middle might be "I love you".
I suspect we might take the three major classifications of human thought--aesthetic, real, and moral?-i.e. beauty, truth, and good?-and find propositions within those domains with the same relationship to subjectivity and objectivity.
If all of this is true does that not cause you to change your ideas about many things? We seem to give such great weight to something being objective and such little to something being subjective when it is all a matter of degree.
coberst wrote:If all of this is true does that not cause you to change your ideas about many things?
It doesn't, quite, because it seems largely self-evident. What doesn't seem self-evident, however, is the following statement:
Quote:We seem to give such great weight to something being objective and such little to something being subjective when it is all a matter of degree.
I have a harder time understanding this statement because it is very vague. There are many different kinds of "somethings" out there, so it is futile to make a blanket statement about how "we" give great weight to "something's" objectivity or subjectivity. There are certainly instances when objectivity counts more than subjectivity--whether to prescribe penicillin to this patient, for example--and other instances where subjectivity counts more than objectivity--whether to score this melody in the flute or the trumpet. Don't you think it's important to specify contexts before trying to analyze something as vast as "propositions"?
When it comes to matters of aesthetics, I freely confess that I used to be an arch-formalist--i.e., I used to believe that what was of primary interest in works of art (mainly music) were those things that were inherent in the musical work itself rather than located in my sujbective response to them. It took me a while to realize (1) that this view was a quintessentially modernist, reactionary view, which shattered my illusions of having found a "universal" approach to music; and (2) that, in my quest for purely objective musical features, the things I would often tout as "inherent" musical properties (e.g. that this chord is a half-diminished 7th) were, in themselves, remarkably uncontroversial and obvious. This is why I believe that, in matters of aesthetics, there is a direct relationship between what is undeniably true and what is straightforwardly uninteresting.
The question asks whether "beauty" is an alternative to "truth", presumably in the "sciences" since Einstein views are cited as an example.
Firstly we must be clear that the particular aspect of "beauty" involved is one of "elegance" or "simplicity". It comes as a revelation to some for example that a geocentric planetary system was rejected over a heliocentric one largely because it made the equations simpler ! There is no " objective truth" applicable to the heliocentric model.
This leads to the second point that "truth" is not what "science" is about....it is about "successful prediction" for which "elegant models" have a practical advantage. (Indeed Popper's "falsifiability principle" underscores the point that so-called "universal laws" are philosophically statements of "confidence" rather than "fact") Einsteins problem with quantum mechanics was a subtle one about probability levels, or in laymans terms "shades of grey" which made prediction more complex than "all or none". In this sense QM failed the "elegance test".
Shapless
It appears to me that we put a great deal of emphasis on a judgment being subjective or objective. Everyone considers physics as being like the greatest and they say objective facts, i.e. objective judgments are the reason.
I am just begining to consider the possibility that aesthetic judgments are as important to us as are our judments about truth and good.
Fresco
As I mentioned to shapless I am just now begining to think that our aesthetic judgments may be as important as our judgments regarding truth and good.