Beauty: Defining the Indefinable

Beauty is bought by the judgement of the eye” This is a line by William Shakespeare in his play Loves Labours Lost. This idea of beauty having at it’s basis no overarching definition but instead being defined by the mere subjective personal idea of a particular man’s preference is the most widely held view of beauty in modern philosophy, but is it the only view? I would like present both the classical view, which is held by the likes of Plato and Aristotle, and also the postmodern view which has been held by Hume and Kant. I will also give a summary of what I believe to be the best definition of beauty.

Before we begin I would like to bring up the main point of difference between these two schools of thought. We have on the Postmodern side the Subjective Definition of Beauty, which is the idea that Beauty cannot be defined in a broad sense and is merely found in the personal, subjective ideas that are unique to each person. on the other hand we have the Objective Definition of Beauty which says, Beauty can and has been defined objectively and there exists either spiritually or physically an absolute form of beauty.

The Classical view is founded on the original principles of beauty that were explored in

the early days of philosophy. In the Phaedrus Plato claimed that Beauty is an absolute form or reality and through his writings we see him give three absolutes or transcendentals that he observed throughout creation, Goodness, Truth and beauty. Although including beauty in this list at the time would not have been a huge surprise, there are very few today who would classify it on the same level. This became rather prevailing but the problem arose when you can define goodness and truth and observe their objectivity but the same is not as easily said about Beauty. The task was then laid for a definition of beauty to be found which can be observed as well as proven. In the Poetics Aristotle said that “to be beautiful, a living creature, and every whole made up of parts, must … present a certain order in its arrangement of parts” (Aristotle, Poetics, volume 2, 2322). This idea flows from the idea that beauty is basically put together by a perfect arrangement. He later claimed that this beauty is impossible but is defined nonetheless.

Aquinas said: “There are three requirements for beauty. Firstly, integrity or perfection—for if something is impaired it is ugly. Then there is due proportion or consonance. And also clarity: whence things that are brightly coloured are called beautiful” (Summa Theologica I, 39, 8). So Aquinas’ definition builds on Aristotle’s idea that beauty is found in perfection, but he also adds that it it comes from proportion and clarity involved in making something beautiful. The last classical definition I would like to look at is that of Francis Hutcheson. He said “What we call Beautiful in Objects, to speak in the Mathematical Style, seems to be in a compound Ratio of Uniformity and Variety; so that where the Uniformity of Bodys is equal, the Beauty is as the Variety; and where the Variety is equal, the Beauty is as the Uniformity” (Hutcheson An Inquiry into the Original of our Ideas of Beauty and Virtue, 29). His basic idea veers in a slightly different direction and goes deeper into properties of beauty in its most basic sense and takes the definition further down to the essence of what beauty is instead of focusing on what certain beautiful things look like.

In the postmodern view of beauty there is no real basis for any kind of definition that lays outside of personal preference. There is some dispute over who coined the phrase ‘Beauty is in the eye of the beholder’ but that sentence remains the fundamental definition of beauty in postmodern thought. As one of the founders of this philosophy Hume said: “Beauty is no quality in things themselves: It exists merely in the mind which contemplates them; and each mind perceives a different beauty. 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.” (Hume 1757, 136). This is the basic idea behind this thought that every man decides for himself and there is no basis outside of preference as to what should be defined as beautiful or ugly. It ultimately removes any way of debating or even really resolving a beauty from another. One person may claim Da vinci’s art is the most beautiful while another may claim the same

thing about Picasso’s. In a similar manner Kant deals with this idea: “Taste is the faculty of judging an object or mode of representing it by an entirely disinterested satisfaction or dissatisfaction. The object of such satisfaction is called beautiful” (Kant 1790, 45). This definition places beauty merely as satisfaction of taste and completely reduces the search for beauty to a simple pursuit of pleasure.

A.J. Ayer said: “Such aesthetic words as ‘beautiful’ and ‘hideous’ are employed not to make statements of fact, but simply to express certain feelings and evoke a certain response. It follows that there is no sense attributing objective validity to aesthetic judgments, and no possibility of arguing about questions of value in aesthetics. (Ayer, Language, Truth and Logic, 113) He completely takes any kind of notion of any type of objectivity or reality out of his definition of beauty altogether and instead insists that beauty is merely a proclamation of personal sentiment or preference. To quote Hume again,”

If we consider all the hypotheses, which have been formed either by philosophy or common reason, to explain the difference betwixt beauty and deformity, we shall find that all of them resolve into this, that beauty is such an order and construction of parts, as either by the primary constitution of our nature, by custom, or by caprice, is fitted to give a pleasure and satisfaction to the soul. This is the distinguishing character of beauty, and forms all the difference betwixt it and deformity, whose natural tendency is to produce uneasiness. Pleasure and pain, therefore, are not only necessary attendants of beauty and deformity, but constitute their very essence. (Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature, 298-299)

I believe this sums up rather well a position of this entire side, Hume describes a beauty that is completely founded in the pleasure and pain it inflicts on someone and if it produces positive emotion it is beautiful and if negative it is deformed.

After looking into both these views on beauty for the past few months i have realized there are some excellent arguments on both sides. I personally believe that from a Christian perspective the idea that all good and perfect things come from God is very basic to our theology and that would naturally include beauty. The Bible quite explicitly says in Psalms 96:6 “Splendor and majesty are before him; strength and beauty are in his sanctuary” (Psalm 96:6) This places beauty along with strength in the sanctuary of God. I

believe that Hume’s theory that that the essence of beauty and deformity is based in pleasure and pain is a mere shadow of the reality of what beauty really is. I would like to submit that this idea be flipped around, instead of saying beauty flows from the pleasure found in the thing, maybe the pleasure is found in the beauty. Honestly, from my searching I think the best definition of an absolute form of beauty rests with Francis Hutcheson when he said that beauty is the ratio of uniformity and variety, or to use simpler terms beauty is at it’s essence complexity harmonized. Since mere complexity on its own if not harmonized is dissonant, and at the same time harmony without complexity is lacking. This definition separates the likes of Bach from Lady Gaga, Edgar Allen Poe from Dr. Seuss, and Thomas Kinkade from Jackson Pollock. We can see the affects of a subjective view of beauty all around the world we live in it is at its very least culturally destroying the world in the same way that subjectifying Truth or goodness. A world without absolutes is a world that is utterly meaningless.

#beauty #Kant #Plato #aesthetics #aristotle