1.0.PREAMBLE:
The concept of beauty has constituted one of the principal
disturbing issues in the history of Aesthetics. And because there has never
been a consensus on the definition of the term, the concept of ‘beauty’ has consequently
generated controversies among thinkers. For instance, Pythagoras argued that
numbers, proportion and patterns constitute beauty.[1]
Plato’s Formism ended up in
metaphysical objectivism. For him, ‘Beauty’ resides in the world of Forms, and
what we conceive as beautiful are only copies
of the ideal Beauty. Moreover, according to Aristotle, beauty is nothing
but goodness. Besides, David Hume maintained that beauty lies in our individual
perception. As a result of these, it is worthy to note that the peculiar
quality called ‘beautiful’ is not the same at all times and for all persons. Nevertheless,
the fundamental questions remain: What is beauty? What is the nature of beauty?
How can we identify someone who is beautiful? In other words, what makes
somebody or a work of art beautiful? Is beauty objective or subjective? If I
say that beauty lies in how I conceive of it, from where then did I know that it
is beautiful? If I say that beauty is objective, how then do I explain the
diversity in the conception of beauty? Following from the above, a
philosophical investigation into the concept of beauty will solely occupy the
interest of this work.
2.0. CONCEPTUAL
CLARIFICATION:
The term ‘beauty’ is an English derivative of the 13th
century French word la beauté originally from the Latin bellus meaning “good,” “pretty,” “handsome,” or “charming.” The
ancient Greeks used the word kαλός (kalos) which signifies “excellence,” or “proportion
of parts” to etymologically designate “beauty.” According to W. Tatarkiewicz,
the Greeks used the term kalos for
‘beauty’ because “they were particularly convinced that beauty … consists in an
arrangement and proportion of parts.”[2]
For C. Putnam, ‘beauty’ is said to be the object of study in aesthetics simply
because it is “a quality delighting the sense and [so gives] pleasure to the
person perceiving it….”[3]
3.0. THE CONCEPT OF
BEAUTY: THE MEANING
Dwelling on what beauty is, W. Owens remarks that “of
all the transcendentals, beauty is the most evasive and the most difficult to
understand.”[4] M.J.
Adler adds that “beauty is, perhaps, not definable in any strict sense of
definition.”[5] Nevertheless,
there have been many attempts to state with the brevity of definition, what
beauty is. As such, beauty has been variously thought to be:
A simple, indefinable property that cannot be defined
in terms of any other properties; … a property or set of properties of an
object that makes the object capable of producing certain sort of pleasurable
experience in any suitable perceiver; … whatever produces a particular sort of
pleasurable experience, even though what produces the experience may vary from individual to individual.
It is in this last sense that beauty is thought to be in the eye of the beholder.[6]
Again, beauty is “the quality of being pleasing to the
sense or to the mind.”[7]
It is commonly defined as “a characteristic present in objects, such as nature,
art work, and a human person, that
provides a perceptual experience … to the observer, through sensory
manifestations ….”[8] Thus, beauty
usually conveys some level of harmony amongst components of an object.
4.0. NATURE AND PROPERTIES
OF BEAUTY:
Concerning the nature of beauty, M.F.
Slattery submits that “beauty qualifies both nature and art….”[9]
For him, the beauty of an art object originates by human agency of the artist.
He goes on to say that beauty “qualifies structure, whether this organizes the
relations among physical elements or among relations simply as such….”[10]
Beauty is not imposed on matter as form is, instead, it “qualifies form
itself.”[11]
More so, Slattery tells us that “beauty is both objective and subjective. It
inheres in objects and, being distinguishable, can also provide an objective
criterion; yet beauty depends for its appearance on the mind, since it is the
mind that renders relation actual.”[12]
Herbert Dieckmann tenders that “the eye and ear perceive beauty as soon as the
object or color, shape, and sound are presented to them.”[13]
When this is done, “it arouses subconscious, latent, deep-seated forces or
emotions, which cannot be analyzed.”[14]
All these notwithstanding, Jerome Stolnitz aptly comments that “any attempt to
find the properties common and peculiar to beautiful objects is altogether impossible….
Beautiful is just a general term of approbation.”[15]
5.0. THEORIES OF BEAUTY:
These theories hinge upon the
angle from which beauty is perceived. They are five in number: objective,
subjective, instrumental, formism, and pleasure theories, but only the major
ones will be treated here.
5.1.
Objective Theory:
This theory holds that beauty is
outside of a subject’s individual biases, feelings, interpretations, and
imaginations. For Crispin Sartwell, the objectivists located beauty “in the
beautiful object itself or in the qualities of that object.”[16]
And so, any judgment “stating that something is beautiful ultimately refers to
an underlying… general quality of beauty.”[17]
They argue that “variability does not necessarily disprove objectivism….”[18]
Furthermore, the intellectual B. Anetoh, writes that “this theory… maintains
that what is beauty is objective because beauty is an objective property... [since
beauty] is the character of the item itself; [and] the function of object’s
context.”[19] The
vanguards of this theory include: Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, et cetera.
5.2.
Subjective Theory:
For the subjectivists, the foundation of the conception
of beauty lies in the response of our feelings, emotions, or our mind. They
argue that the origin of beauty is within us. Subsequently, “the beautiful does
not result from the effect of objects upon us, nor does it exist as a quality
outside of us.”[20] It is
with the above, therefore, that the
proverbial aphorism, Beauty is in the
eye of the beholder, originating from Margaret Hungerford’s famous novel called Molly Bawn, finds sufficient significance in this subjective
theory of beauty. The proponents of this view are: David Hume, Alexander
Gottlieb Baumgarten, Edmund Burke, and Immanuel Kant. For easy assimilation, let
us then see the positions of some of these philosophers.
6.0. BEAUTY: THE CENTRAL
POSITIONS OF PHILOSOPHERS
6.1.0. Philosophers Supporting the Objective Existence of
Beauty:
6.1.1. Pythagoras (ca. 570 - 490 B.C.):
Pythagoras claimed “that beauty consists in a
well-defined simple proportion of parts….”[21] For him, “a man… is beautiful when his proportions are correct.”[22]
Thus, convinced that beauty depends on proportions, the Pythagoreans, in a
general formula expressed that:
Order and proportion
are beautiful and useful…. No art comes about without proportion. All art therefore
arises through number…. Generally speaking, every art is a system of
perceptions, and a system implies number; one can therefore justly say: things
look beautiful by virtue of number.[23]
From this, therefore, C. Putnam, while commenting on Pythagoras,
quips that “number … is the touchstone of beauty, for from number flow the
ratios that make proportion satisfying; from due proportion comes form, as it
dwells both in the thing and in the mind of God.”[24]
6.1.2. Plato (428 - 348 B.C.):
Plato argued that Forms are the
true and real objects of knowledge.[25]
And these “forms are eternal patterns of which the objects that we see are only
copies.”[26]
Thus, a beautiful person is a copy of the ideal Beauty. For Plato, the
individual form of beauty partakes in the Absolute Beauty which transcends it. Beauty
is “independent of relativities; it reveals the Ideal and the universal. It
also has the metaphysical property of reconciling the infinite with the
finite.”[27]
He articulates that from the admiration of the beauty in a human body “one
advances to the inward beauty; from there to the contemplation of the beautiful
as it appears in observance… and then to the study of the beautiful itself, so
that in the end he comes to know the very essence of beauty.”[28]
More still, one sees beauty with the recollection
of the true Beauty which one once saw in the world of form before passing into
the form of a human being.[29]
6.1.3. Aristotle (384 - 322 B.C.):
Aristotle argued that “we can
never find matter without form or form without matter in nature….”[30]
For him, substance is a composite of
form and matter. Following from this, Aristotle sometimes mentions beauty “in
connection with the moral good….[31]
Hence, he saw a relationship between the beautiful and virtue, arguing that virtue
aims at the beautiful. Besides, for Aristotle, “things are found beautiful…when
they are in the condition in which they ought to be.…”[32]
In another instance, Aristotle maintains that “a beautiful object, whether it
be a living organism or any whole composed of parts, must not only have an
orderly arrangement of parts, but must also be of a certain magnitude; for
beauty depends on magnitude and order.”[33]
6.2.0. Thinkers Promoting the Subjective Existence of Beauty:
6.2.1. David Hume (1711 - 1776 A.D.):
For Hume, “the starting point of
our reflections on Beauty is in our experience of a particular kind of
agreeableness.”[34] In
defence of this view, he writes that:
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.[35]
6.2.2. IMMANUEL KANT (1724 - 1804 A.D.):
According to Sussan L. Feagin, Kant
explained the nature of beauty “by analysing judgments that something is
beautiful….”[36] For
Kant, a judgment on beauty may refer to an experience of the perceiver, but
they are not merely expressions of personal experience. So, the judgment that
something is beautiful has universal validity. Kant opines that “such judgments
are disinterested - determined … by contemplating the mere appearance of the
object. These are judgments about an object’s free beauty, and making them
requires using only those mental capacities that all humans have by virtue of
their ability to communicate with one another. Hence “the pleasures experienced
in response to such beauty can in principle be shared by anyone.”[37]
Kant, therefore, says that since all men share the same faculties, it is
imperative to transcend the subjectivity of beauty. He holds that albeit for the sake of convenience, it can
be treated as objective, “beauty itself is subjective…. [And] if it belongs to
the noumenal order … it is unknowable….”[38]
He concludes that “beauty does not give us knowledge of things in them
[selves].”[39]
7.0. BEAUTY IN ARTS AND
HUMAN BEINGS: THE CRITERIA
From historical chronicle, there
are variable standards of beauty. Paintings, for instance, show a wide range of
different standards for beauty. However, the criteria for deciphering beauty in
arts revolve around proportion,
harmony, perfection, form, and the idea of a model both in shape and colour. Besides,
for human beings, beauty is often
based on some combination of inner beauty, which includes factors such as:
personality, intelligence, refinement, politeness, charisma, integrity,
congruence, elegance, and physical attractiveness. Moreover, people who are
relatively young, with smooth skin, well-proportioned bodies, that is, with nice
body shape, and regular features,
have traditionally been considered the most beautiful throughout history. Therefore,
a strong indicator of physical beauty in human beings is proportionality or averageness
just as the ancient Greek philosophers put it. As such, when body parts are
averaged together to form a composition, people with such composition of body
parts are often perceived as more beautiful and attractive.
8.0. A PHILOSOPHICAL EVALUATION
OF THE CONCEPT OF BEAUTY:
From the above deliberations, one
may observe that beauty has been conceived in different ways by various philosophers,
even by all mankind. The ancients like Pythagoras conceive beauty as a product
of numbers and proportionality. Plato followed this view up by arguing that
what we conceive as beautiful is only a copy of the ideal Beauty in the world
of Forms. For Aristotle, beauty and goodness are interrelated. When these
arguments were raging on, David Hume interrupted by assigning beauty a place in
our individual conceptions. For him, beauty lies in the eye of the beholder. However,
a closer critical examination of the concept of beauty reveals that in reality,
what is beautiful for you may be ugly for me. Someone considered most
beautiful in Nigeria may not be taken as the most beautiful in London. A clear
example of this is seen in the criteria used for judging the Miss African Queen
Switzerland. The judges stated in their criteria for choosing the most
beautiful, that, the contestant:
Must have never married, or had
her marriage annulled…. Must be
of good moral character and shall not be convicted of any crimes and shall
possess talent, poise, personality, intelligence, charm and beauty of face and
figure…. [Must agree] that the time, manner and method
of judging shall be solely at the discretion of the MISS AFRICAN QUEEN SWITZERLAND
Committee and that the decision of the
judges will be final…. Must
be a female at birth whose age shall not be less than eighteen, nor more than
twenty-seven years….[40]
From this, one sees that even the
criteria for judging the most beautiful during a beauty contest are relative and solely depend on the judges as
pointed out above. Thus, for the subjectivists, beauty is relative. But the
fundamental question for them is: If they claim that beauty is subjective, how
then did they come to know the idea of beauty? To have known that somebody is
beautiful or not presupposes the fact that one already has an idea of what is beautiful. Hence, at
this juncture, one may say that beauty is objective since idea in itself is universal.
Nonetheless, for the
objectivists, beauty is objective because it is perceived without comparison to
anything external. However, I wonder the possibility of this! Anyway, judging
from the arguments of both the objectivists and subjectivists, it becomes
expedient for me to follow C. Sartwell in arguing that beauty is BOTH OBJECTIVE AND SUBJECTIVE for “if beauty is entirely subjective, entirely
a matter of individual feeling, then, except for conformity to standards set by
the customs of the time and place, no criteria would seem to be available for
measuring the taste of individuals.”[41]
Again, “if beauty is simply objective -
something immediately apparent to observation as are the simple sensible
qualities - no special training would seem to be needed for sharpening our
perception of it.”[42]
Still, “if beauty is entirely subjective
- that is, if anything that anyone holds to be or experiences as beautiful is
beautiful … then it seems that the word has no meaning, or that we are not
communicating anything when we call something beautiful except perhaps an
approving personal attitude.”[43]
Furthermore, Kant seemed to have
mediated between the subjectivists and objectivists. According him, the
experience of beauty is unique in that its judgment is represented as
universal, that is, valid for every man, yet at the same time, it is
“incognizable by means of any universal concept.”[44]
Thus, M.J. Adler presents that “in saying that aesthetic judgments have
subjective, not objective, universality, and in holding that the beautiful is
the object of a necessary satisfaction, Kant also seems to take the middle
position which recognizes the subjectivity of the aesthetic judgment without
denying that beauty is somehow an intrinsic property of objects.”[45]
In such-wise also, Crispin
Sartwell, in his book Six Names of Beauty,
attributes beauty neither exclusively to the subject nor to the object, but
to the relation between them, and even more widely also to the situation or environment
in which they are both embedded....”[46] Hence, beauty emerges in situations in which SUBJECT AND OBJECT are juxtaposed and
connected!
Further philosophical examination
of the concept of beauty may lead one to quickly pose these questions: What is
the relationship between beauty and goodness? Is beauty synonymous with
goodness? Can a woman who is beautiful be said to be good? In answer to this, Aristotle
and some other ancient thinkers claimed that beauty and goodness are
fundamentally identical. But, contrary to this view, beauty and goodness
logically differ judging from the reality before us. The reason for this is
because some who are beautiful are not good, while some others who are good are
ugly. Also, another subtle difference between beauty and goodness is that “goodness relates to the appetite …
[whereas] beauty relates to a
cognitive power.”[47] In
other words, “the beautiful satisfies the apprehension, whereas the good
itself, properly speaking, satisfies desire….”[48]
This explanation, in a way, proves the dichotomy between beauty and goodness. Another
answer that can be given on this dichotomy is gotten from Kant who argues that
Beauty in Itself cannot be known. What we see is a mere phenomenon, as such, it deceives. Therefore, not all who are
beautiful are good!
Additionally, beauty is often
confused with truth. The questions remain: Does beauty refer to the truth? Can
one who is beautiful be said to be truthful? According to Joyce Stephen, “truth
is not beauty, but the true and the beautiful are akin….”[49]
In differentiating between them, she says that “truth is beheld by the
intellect which is appeased by the most satisfying relations of the
intelligible: [whereas] beauty is beheld by the imagination which is appeased
by the most satisfying relations of the sensible.”[50]
In other words, truth depends on conformity between what is in the mind and
what exists in reality independent of the mind, while beauty depends on fitness
of parts.[51] Therefore,
not all who are beautiful are truthful!
Going further in our examination
of the concept of beauty, Plato argued that beauty is in the world of Forms and
that all beautiful things participate in the Ultimate Beauty Itself. Thus, just
like Kant, ideal Beauty cannot be known. I solidly disagree with them here
because if the ideal Beauty exists in the world of forms and cannot be known, how
then did they know that there is an ideal Beauty? Therefore, they did not tell
us how we are to know something that is beautiful. The implication of Plato’s and
Kantian notion of beauty, hence, culminates in dualism.
9.0. CONCLUSION:
Ab initio, this paper dwelt on
the concept of beauty. It did this by first of all clarifying the term
‘beauty.’ From this, it delved into the nature and properties of beauty which
gave rise to the theories of beauty. Here, philosophers were divergent in their
views. Some supported that beauty is objective while others refuted it. From
our examination, nevertheless, it is obvious that every form of subjectivity as regards beauty is
consistent with objectivity. Beauty involves
both the subject who has a certain attitude
and pre-understanding as well as the object
of beauty. Therefore, I stand on the note that beauty is neither exclusively
objective nor is it exclusively subjective since every ascription of beauty to
a thing (subjectivity) presupposes that there is something about the thing
which makes it beautiful (objectivity). So, all beautiful things share some
elements of subjectivity and objectivity in common, and a thing or a person
appears to differ in beauty only in terms of degree.
ENDNOTES:
[1] J.I.
Omoregbe, A Simplified History of Western
Philosophy, Vol. One (Ikeja: Joja Educational Research and Publishers
Limited, 1991; repr. 2011), p. 9.
[2] W. Tatarkiewicz:
“Form in the History of Aesthetics,” in P. P. Wiener
(Editor-in-Chief), Dictionary of the
History of Ideas, Vol II (United States of America & Canada: Charles
Scriber’s Sons, 1973), pp. 216-217.
[3] C. Putnam: “Beauty,” in W.J.
McDonald (Editor-in-Chief), New Catholic
Encyclopedia, Vol. II (New York…Sydney: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1967), p. 202.
[4] J. Owens, An Elementary Christian Metaphysics (Mikwauukee:
The Bruce Publishing Company, 1963), p.122.
[5] M.J. Adler: “Beauty,”
in M.J. Adler (Editor-in-Chief), Great
Books of the Western World, Vol. I
(Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc., 1952), p. 89.
[6] S.L. Feagin: “Beauty,”
in R. Audi (ed.), The Cambridge
Dictionary of Philosophy, 2nd ed. (United Kingdom: Cambridge
University Press, 1995), p. 66 (bold &
italics are mine, as emphasis).
[7] A.S. Hornby, Oxford Advanced
Learner’s Dictionary, 7th ed. (New York: Oxford University
Press, 2006), p. 116.
[8] New World
Encyclopedia Contributors: “Beauty” (January 2013). http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Beauty (access 02.12.2015).
(bold is mine, as emphasis).
[13] H. Dieckmann:
“Theories of Beauty to the Mid-Nineteenth Century,” in P.P. Wiener (Editor-in-Chief), Dictionary
of the History of Ideas, Vol. I (United States of America & Canada:
Charles Scriber’s Sons, 1973), p. 206.
[15] J. Stolnitz: “Beauty,” in P. Edwards (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol. I (New
York: The Macmillan Company and The Free Press, 1967), p. 265 (bold & italics are mine, as emphasis).
[16] C. Sartwell: “Beauty”
(September 2012). http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/beauty/ (access 02.12.2015).
[17] H. Dieckmann: “Theories of Beauty to the
Mid-Nineteenth Century,” in P.P. Wiener (Editor-in-Chief),
op.cit., p. 196.
[18] M.C. Beardsley:
“Theories of Beauty Since the Mid-Nineteenth Century,” in P.P. Wiener (Editor-in-Chief), op.cit., p. 211.
[19] B. Anetoh, Aesthetics
(Unpublished Lecture Note, Dept. of Philosophy, Pope John Paul II Major
Seminary, Okpuno-Awka, 2015), p. 3.
[20] H. Dieckmann: “Theories of Beauty to the
Mid-Nineteenth Century,” in P.P. Wiener (Editor-in-Chief),
op.cit., p. 203.
[21] W. Tatarkiewicz: “Form in the History of Aesthetics,” in P. P. Wiener (Editor-in-Chief), op.cit., p. 217.
[25] W.F. Lawhead, The Voyage of Discovery, 2nd ed. (Autralia…United
States: Eve Howard, 2002), p. 52.
[26] G.N. Udenabo, Beauty
in the Eyes of Reason: Theories of Beauty by Modern Philosophers
(Unpublished Bachelor’s Thesis, Dept. of Philosophy, Pope John Paul II Major
Seminary, Okpuno-Awka, 2007), p. 24.
[27] H. Dieckmann: “Theories of Beauty to the
Mid-Nineteenth Century,” in P.P. Wiener (Editor-in-Chief),
op.cit., p. 196.
[30] S.E. Stumpf, Philosophy: History and Problems, 5th ed. (United States
of America: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1994), p. 91.
[31] Aristotle, Metaphysics,
1078a 31-33, in R. McKeon (ed.), The Basic
Works of Aristotle (United States: Modern Library, 2001), p. 893.
[33] Aristotle, Theory of Poetry and Fine Art, transl.
by S.H. Butcher in S. Rosen (ed.), The
Philosopher’s Handbook (New York: Random House Inc., 2003), p. 225.
[35] D. Hume, Essays Moral, Political and Literary,
T.H. Green and T.H. Gose (eds.), Vol. II (London, n.p., 1882), p. 1; quoted in G.N.
Udenabo, loc.cit. (italics is mine, as emphasis).
[40] E. Osei-Tutu: “Rules & Criteria of the Miss African Queen
Switzerland Contest” (2013). http://www.panthers-geneva.com/index.php/en/rules-criteria (access 02.12.2015). (bold is mine, as emphasis).
[42] M.J. Adler: “Beauty,” in M.J. Adler
(Editor-in-Chief), op.cit., p. 91 (italics
is mine, as emphasis).
[47] C. Putnam: “Beauty,” in W.J.
McDonald (Editor-in-Chief), op.cit., p. 204 (bold is
mine, as emphasis).
[48] T. Aquinas, Summa
Theologica, 1.1.3.3.1.-1.2; in W.J. McDonald
(Editor-in-Chief), op.cit., p. 203.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
ADLER, M.J. (Editor-in-Chief), Great
Books of the Western World, Vol. I. Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc.,
1952.
ANETOH, B., Aesthetics. (Unpublished Lecture Note,
Dept. of Philosophy, Pope John Paul II Major Seminary, Okpuno-Awka, 2015).
AUDI, R. (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy,
2nd ed. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 1995, 66-66.
EDWARDS, P. (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol. I. New York: The Macmillan
Company and The Free Press, 1967, 263-266.
HORNBY, A.S., Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary,
7th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006.
LAWHEAD, W.F., The Voyage of Discovery, 2nd ed. United States: Eve Howard, 2002.
MCDONALD, W.J. (Editor-in-Chief), New
Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. II. New York…Sydney: McGraw-Hill Book Company,
1967, 202-208.
MCKEON, R. (ed.), The Basic Works of Aristotle. United States: Modern Library, 2001.
NEW WORLD ENCYCLOPEDIA
CONTRIBUTORS: “Beauty” (January 2013). http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Beauty (access 02.12.2015).
OMOREGBE, J.I., A Simplified History of Western Philosophy, Vol. One. Ikeja: Joja
Educational Research and Publishers Limited, 1991; repr. 2011.
OSEI-TUTU, E.: “Rules &
Criteria of the Miss African Queen Switzerland Contest” (2013). http://www.panthers-geneva.com/index.php/en/rules-criteria
(access 02.12.2015).
OWENS, J., An Elementary Christian Metaphysics.
Mikwauukee: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1963.
ROSEN, S. (ed.), The Philosopher’s Handbook. New York:
Random House Inc., 2003.
SARTWELL, C.: “Beauty”
(September 2012). http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/beauty/ (access 02.12.2015).
STUMPF, S.E., Philosophy: History and Problems, 5th
ed. United States of America: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1994.
UDENABO, G.N., Beauty in the Eyes of Reason: Theories of
Beauty by Modern Philosophers. (Unpublished Bachelor’s Thesis, Dept. of
Philosophy, Pope John Paul II Major Seminary, Okpuno-Awka, 2007).
WIENER, P.P. (Editor-in-Chief), Dictionary
of the History of Ideas, Vol. I. United States of America & Canada:
Charles Scriber’s Sons, 1973, 195-214.
Dictionary
of the History of Ideas, Vol II. United States of America & Canada:
Charles Scriber’s Sons, 1973, 216-225.
No comments:
Post a Comment