"Beautiful.", was the first word that came to my mind then. However, what I had felt and seen seemed much more profound than just one word, which I would say only captured/described but a fraction of this moment. — Prometheus2
Edmund Burke, an 18th-century philosopher, is best known for his exploration of aesthetics, particularly his distinction between the “sublime” and the “beautiful.” In his influential work A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful (1757), Burke examines how these two concepts, though related to art and nature, invoke radically different emotional responses in the observer. While beauty tends to elicit feelings of love, calmness, and attraction, the sublime is linked with awe, terror, and a sense of the vastness that surpasses human understanding.
In the eye of the beholder.... Which I think contains depths of meaning beyond what it seems trivially to say.What really is beauty? What does the word beautiful even mean? — Prometheus2
All this thinking about when, why and how we perceive something as beautiful made me question what 'beauty' itself even is or what it really means.
"Beauty lies in the eye of the beholder.", is a well-known saying that might come to mind here. — Prometheus2
Beautiful describes the scene itself. If a very good artist painted it, everyone who saw it would probably think 'beautiful'. But the more profound part is what the beholder adds, in that moment, in his present frame of mind. Why the same scene affects each beholder differently is the subjective component."Beautiful.", was the first word that came to my mind then. However, what I had felt and seen seemed much more profound than just one word, which I would say only captured/described but a fraction of this moment. — Prometheus2
Though since usually beauty is seen as a type of feeling, could we still perceive it if we were completely rational beings? Or on the contrary, entirely emotional? Makes me wonder.. — Prometheus2
True, I agree with that.
Whether the notion of beauty always has to arise in correlation with rationality or not is an interesting thought. — Prometheus2
In combination with the song I had on, I was somehow deeply moved by this seemingly simple, urban view before me.
"Beautiful.", was the first word that came to my mind then. However, what I had felt and seen seemed much more profound than just one word, which I would say only captured/described but a fraction of this moment. — Prometheus2
What really is beauty? — Prometheus2
Beauty (as I see it) generally seems soft and cloying. — Tom Storm
"Beauty lies in the eye of the beholder.", is a well-known saying that might come to mind here. — Prometheus2
When a good aesthetic becomes a great aesthetic then it becomes sublime.
The aesthetic, being a certain combination of balance within variety of form can apply to all disciplines, whether painting, dance, music, architecture, as well as the design of cars. — RussellA
But if you are perceiving the art objects or beautiful scenery in ordinary daily life, then I would reckon your aesthetic judgements on them would be more likely based on the emotional responses to the objects or scenes.
The reasoned beauties could give you the rational reasons why Picasso suits better than Van Gogh for the space with the modern furnishings, however, it might not be able to offer the psychological pleasure, ecstasy and peace of mind you would get from the purely emotional judgements and feelings of the beautiful objects or scenery you encounter in your daily life. — Corvus
I feel like one could argue that both, in a way, could be transcendental, but also not. Not sure what you'd think of this separation of beauty into a subjectively and a more objectively based and shaped beauty and the thought of it being a transcendental. — Prometheus2
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.