It's relative to whoever considers it to be beautiful (including a society or a culture).

So do you mean that what is thought to be beautiful is relative, or what is beautiful is relative? Obviously, the former is true. But is the latter true?

What is beautiful is relative in the same way that was is thought to be beautiful is relative. The concept of beauty isn't an objective feature of the physical world, so doesn't the former entail the latter and vice-versa?

So, there is no difference between thinking something is beautiful, and its actually being beautiful? I thought that whether beauty is an objective feature of the world is what is the question. Could a sunset be beautiful if no one had ever witnessed it? "Objective" might mean independent of mind. And "subjective" might mean, dependent on mind. But does that mean it means dependent on just one individual mind? And what is the difference between "subjective" and "relative". "It is to my left" and "It is to my right" are relative, but they are not subjective. Are they?

I suppose there is a difference between the two. For example, what is thought to be true may be relative but only in respects to whether or not it's accepted to be true. But what is true is objective and independent of who accepts to be true. However, what is beautiful is subjective and relative to an observer. A sunset is only beautiful to the person or people who consider it to be beautiful.

What is to your left is relative to you and anyone in the same space and time as you, but that's physics. When something is relative in philosophy, I understand that it usually means that a judgment or position holds no real truth value, and that it is representative of a personal or collective opinion. Relativism, however, doesn't invalidate an opinion as long as it is recognized as such.

Beauty is not a significant view it merely points out what might be obviously a personal inclination. This picture is beautiful, WHY? you could say this picture is green. I think it stinks. Subjective or objectively it has to be collaborated by more than stating the obvious, to you.

I cant stand people saying I dont like it or aint that pretty and then think they have given their opinion, subjectively or objectively. UGHHH...

So, does that mean that a sunset cannot be beautiful unless it is witnessed, and judged beautiful by those who witness it? All of those, or some of those? And what if nobody witnesses it?
What do you mean by validating or invalidating an opinion. How, in your view can an opinion be valid or invalid? And how are "valid" or "invalid" different from "true" or "false" which you say a belief about beauty cannot have?

---------- Post added 11-03-2009 at 01:16 PM ----------



Yes, a sunset cannot be beautiful unless it is witnessed and judged to be so by an observer.

Invalidate was probably the wrong word to use. By invalidate, I meant that it doesn't render an opinion to be meaningless or without value.

So, it could not be true that a sunset no one ever witnessed was more beautiful than the most beautiful sunset ever witnessed? Hmmm. Have you any reason for saying that other than that it is consistent with what you believe is true about the notion of beauty?

Your statement that beauty is not a significant view is merely your opinion. I happen to think that beauty is a significant value, but that's just my opinion. I may say that the picture is beautiful because I like the color schemes.



That sounds very rigid of you. It doesn't bother me if a person says that something is pretty or that they don't like something as long as they don't go about it as if their opinions are objectively true.

---------- Post added 11-03-2009 at 01:16 PM ----------



Yes, a sunset cannot be beautiful unless it is witnessed and judged to be so by an observer.

Invalidate was probably the wrong word to use. By invalidate, I meant that it doesn't render an opinion to be meaningless or without value.

Lets say you see a picture of women who is crying and her make up is running down her face, she is not at her best. Someone tells you she is beautiful, do enquire why? or do you just accept the comment. We need to elaborate, if we intend to give our opinions, a blunt statement such as "its beautiful" is no more pointed than saying its green.

I'm not an aesthetic realist. That's my reason for saying that something cannot be beautiful unless someone considers it to be beautiful. You can only verify that some people believe that sunsets are beautiful, but you cannot verify that sunsets are beautiful.

No, but you can give good reasons for one sunset being more beautiful than another. Verification has to do with knowing that something exists. And if you know that something exists, then, of course, it exists. But it needn't go the other way. If something exists, it may be impossible to know it exists.

Sure you can give good reasons for why you believe that a sunset is beautiful, but that doesn't mean that it's true minus of what you think of it. The existence of beauty isn't objective because it's not independent of the mind. Beauty is a subjective notion.

Art does not have to be beautiful it has to arouse the senses, revulsion can be an emotion that we obtain from viewing certain works. The more emotion it conjures , the better the work.

So, if it is a painting of your child being raped, that makes it better than another picture of another child (not yours) being raped?

Now your being silly. There is difference between pornography and art. So in your mind beauty is the only requirement?