The philosophy of beauty
The Turkeys by Claude Monet (1877) - at L’Orangerie in Paris, France
"She walks in beauty, like the night
Of cloudless climes and starry skies;
And all that’s best of dark and bright
Meet in her aspect and her eyes"
- Lord Byron
In the early days (Greek, Hellenistic, medieval, and Renaissance periods), beauty was often thought of as a value to strive for (like truth or goodness), but its meaning has evolved to reach the notion that beauty doesn't have a larger moral significance, it's just is a quality that evokes pleasure.
Western philosophers disagree as to whether beauty is an objective or subjective notion.
Objective View
The objective notion of beauty focuses on the form or features of an object and whether it has certain qualities, like definite proportions and relations among parts, symmetry, harmony, and order. And if you follow these qualities, you're indisputably exhibiting beauty. Advocates of this theory also viewed pursuing beauty and perfection as purifying the soul or believed beauty, virtue, truth, and goodness were inseparable, and thus appreciating physical beauty could allow you to contemplate the ultimate form of beauty, which is goodness and divinity.
This idea is flawed for several reasons. For instance, if you have different paintings that are all perfectly proportionate and equally exhibit the above-mentioned features, which is the most beautiful? It seems unlikely they're just as appealing to every observer, which would mean that there's another quality needed to assess beauty. Additionally, the principle of perfect proportions can't be applied equally to different objects: a flower (with large petals and a slim stem) would look distorted if it had the same proportions as a human face.
The objective theory also contends that beauty evokes pleasure: "This is the spirit that Beauty must ever induce: wonderment and a delicious trouble, longing and love and a trembling that is all delight," (Plotinus, Ennead). It seems unrealistic that defined angles and lines set in perfect proportions are what create such a profound response.
And here it's important not to assume that if an object evokes pleasure, it must be beautiful, i.e.:
If A (an object is beautiful) —> B (the individual experiences pleasure), does not mean if B (the individual experiences pleasure) —> A (an object is beautiful).
Thus, beauty is not determined by an individual's response to it (it's actually independent of the individual and his senses), and his response is a mere by-product.
Subjective View
Contrastingly, the subjective view asserts that there are no universal physical characteristics of beauty because each person judges it differently: "One person may even perceive deformity, where another is sensible of beauty; and every individual ought to acquiesce in his own sentiment, without pretending to regulate those of others," (David Hume, Treatise of Human Nature). Instead, the response of the observer determines whether an object is beautiful: if A (the individual experiences pleasure), —> B (an object is beautiful).
This view is also problematic because it removes all meaning from the word; if beauty is different for everyone, it can't have a universal meaning. To exist as a concept or term, it must have features that exist on their own, independent of observers. And it's too broad for pleasure to be the determinant of beauty; I could eat a bowl of ice cream and feel pleasure, but this doesn't mean I think the ice cream's beautiful—maybe I was just hungry.
Immanuel Kant (a German philosopher) limits the scope of the subjective view by adding that the individual must have a disinterested judgement in the object, i.e. the reason he experiences pleasure can't be related to his experiences, interests, or desires (which would prejudice him), and essentially has to pass a series of tests:
Do I think this is beautiful because it reminds me of something or someone in my life or past (e.g. am I drawn to this because it reminds me of my childhood)?
Do I think this is beautiful because I have a selfish interest in it (e.g. am I admiring this painting because I’m thinking about how much I could sell it for)?
Do I think this is beautiful solely because it achieves its function (e.g. solely because this is an accurate depiction of a horse)?
The object can only be considered beautiful after removing personal bias and considering it on its own. It seems impossible to define a concept without having universal features or for it to rely on feelings, which differ from person to person.
Conclusion
A mix of both objective and subjective features seems like the most compelling understanding—there are some universal features that make an object beautiful, and beauty is also influenced by the individual's perception or response.
It would be a mistake to completely dismiss the objective view. Instead, it's important to recognize there's a difference between superficial beauty (which is just appearance, achieved by things like symmetry and order) and absolute beauty. Superficial beauty is largely brought about by chance and fades with time. There are some things in life that are undeniably beautiful, like sunsets or the night's sky. These are phenomena that both exhibit and create beauty; they're physically appealing but they're also beautiful because they reflect nature, creation, and reality. The latter aspect is more important to focus on. Physicality is fleeting (here, the sun will rise, diminishing the sunset and the night's sky), but what it represents or allows us to contemplate is essential: the true nature of the world and reality. Physical beauty is just a means to an end, a mechanism for understanding absolute beauty and thus truth and reality.
In this context, it doesn't seem correct to say that all beauty does or can do is evoke pleasure. Just because with the subjective view there's no universal agreement on what's beautiful, and the only binding feature is evoking pleasure, doesn't mean that beauty lacks meaning. It means that beauty can be specific to the individual and the individual determines its value. It doesn't matter if each of us perceives beauty differently, as long as we're able to see beauty, we have a window for deeper contemplation and understanding.
If you liked this post, check out these:
Time: why it’s important not to squander and how to spend it
Sources: