◉

Dangers: Awe as an Indicator

  • “The fascination of the observer with the observed does not constitute objective beauty.”
  • “The coupling of a particular observer with a particular observation produces awe or fascination in the mind of the observer.”
  • “The feeling of awe or fascination does not reify perceived beauty into an objective beauty.”
  • “Beauty is framed as a function of the observer/observed system, indicating it is dependent on this specific interaction.”
  • “The argument effectively supports the claim that feelings of awe or fascination do not translate to objective beauty.”
  • “The subjectivity of beauty and the diversity of aesthetic experiences across species undermine any claim that the universe was specifically made for human aesthetic appreciation.”

Table of Contents: (Click any link below to navigate to that section.)

  1. Assess the following argument on the significance of feelings of awe.
    1. Assessment of the Argument on the Significance of Feelings of Awe
      1. Premise Analysis
      2. Core Argument
      3. Key Points
      4. Logical Soundness
      5. Implications
      6. Conclusion
      7. The argument “overlooks the broader impact on human experience and potential benefits” because these were extraneous and unrelated to the focus of the argument. To claim a thing is “overlooked” to assume that thing was an intrinsic part of the discussion. Right?
      8. The argument “overlook[s] the potential for shared or culturally-defined standards of beauty” because these were extraneous and unrelated to the focus of the argument. To claim a thing is “overlooked” to assume that thing was an intrinsic part of the discussion. Right?
  2. Therefore, since different species find different objects attractive, one particular species cannot invoke beauty it perceives as evidence the universe was made for their aesthetic appreciation, right?
    1. Conclusion Based on the Argument
      1. Key Conclusion
      2. Supporting Points
      3. Implications
      4. Conclusion
  3. Cite 5 notable individuals in history who have transgressed this principle that awe does not imbue the objects of awe with objective beauty.
    1. Notable Individuals Who Have Transgressed the Principle
      1. 1. Plato
      2. 2. Immanuel Kant
      3. 3. John Ruskin
      4. 4. Friedrich Schiller
      5. 5. Albert Einstein
    2. Conclusion
  4. Create a 10-item quiz on the entire thread above.
    1. Quiz on the Discussion Above
      1. Questions
      2. Answers
    2. Quiz: Awe and the Perception of Beauty
      1. Answers
  5. Provide 15 discussion questions relevant to the content above.
    1. Discussion Questions
    2. Discussion Questions: Awe and the Perception of Beauty

Assess the following argument on the significance of feelings of awe.

Dung beetles are fascinated with dung. A cat will fixate on and chase a laser dot for hours. Peahens will surrender themselves to the display of particular peacocks. Birds of a particular species will consider only the songs of their own species attractive.

Every observation requires 1) the observed and 2) the observer. The fascination of the observer with the observed does not constitute objective beauty. The coupling of a particular observer with a particular observation produces awe or fascination in the mind of the observer. There are no legitimate conclusions about beauty beyond this.

The feeling of awe or fascination does not reify perceived beauty into an objective beauty. The perceived beauty is only a function of the observer/observed system.

Assessment of the Argument on the Significance of Feelings of Awe

Premise Analysis

The argument begins with several examples to illustrate the idea that fascination or attraction is highly subjective:

  • Dung beetles are fascinated with dung.
  • Cats chase laser dots.
  • Peahens are attracted to specific peacocks.
  • Birds respond to the songs of their own species.

These examples support the claim that different creatures find different things fascinating or attractive, which suggests that beauty is subjective.

Core Argument

The argument posits that:

  1. Observation requires both an observer and an observed entity.
  2. The fascination of the observer with the observed does not equal objective beauty.
  3. The interaction between a particular observer and a particular observation produces awe or fascination.
  4. No objective beauty can be concluded from this interaction.
Key Points
  1. Subjectivity of Fascination
  • The fascination that dung beetles, cats, peahens, and birds exhibit is subjective and specific to each species.
  • This suggests that what one organism finds fascinating or beautiful may not be universally recognized as beautiful by another organism.
  1. Observer-Observed Relationship
  • The argument emphasizes that fascination arises from the relationship between the observer and the observed, not from any inherent quality of the observed itself.
  • The concept of awe or fascination is thus a product of this relationship.
  1. Reification of Beauty
  • The argument explicitly states that the feeling of awe does not reify (or make real) the perceived beauty into something objectively true.
  • Beauty is framed as a function of the observer/observed system, indicating it is dependent on this specific interaction.
Logical Soundness
  • The argument is logically consistent in asserting that beauty is subjective and based on the relationship between observer and observed.
  • It effectively uses examples to highlight the diversity of what is considered fascinating or beautiful across different species, supporting the idea of subjectivity.
Implications
  • This perspective challenges the notion of objective beauty, suggesting that what is perceived as beautiful cannot be separated from the observer’s subjective experience.
  • The argument implies that discussions about beauty should acknowledge the subjective nature of the observer’s experience.
Conclusion

The argument effectively supports the claim that feelings of awe or fascination do not translate to objective beauty. By illustrating the subjectivity of what different species find fascinating, it makes a compelling case that beauty is not an inherent quality but a function of the observer/observed relationship. Thus, no legitimate conclusions about objective beauty can be drawn from the feeling of awe alone.

The argument about awe and beauty has some valid points, but it misses the bigger picture. Here’s a breakdown:

Strengths:

  • Subjectivity of Perception: The argument rightly points out that beauty is subjective. What one creature finds awe-inspiring (dung for a beetle), another might find repulsive.

Weaknesses:

  • Oversimplification: It reduces awe to a simple observer-observed interaction, ignoring the complexity of the emotion. Awe often involves a sense of vastness, mystery, or connection to something larger than oneself. These aspects go beyond basic attraction.
  • Focus on Animals: Limiting the argument to animals ignores the unique human capacity for awe. We experience awe not just from sensory stimuli but also from intellectual pursuits, art, and moral actions.

Missing the Point:

  • Objective vs. Perceived Beauty: The argument gets caught up in a debate about objective vs. perceived beauty, which isn’t crucial. Awe can arise from subjective experiences without needing to prove something is objectively beautiful.

Here’s a better perspective:

  • Awe can be a trigger for curiosity, wonder, and a sense of connection.
  • These feelings, even if rooted in subjective experiences, broaden our perspective and enhance our well-being.
  • Studies show awe can lead to greater empathy, critical thinking, and prosocial behavior.

Conclusion:

The argument highlights the subjective nature of awe’s triggers, but it overlooks the broader impact on human experience and potential benefits. Awe is valuable not necessarily because it reveals objective beauty, but because of the positive emotions and behaviors it can cultivate.

The argument “overlooks the broader impact on human experience and potential benefits” because these were extraneous and unrelated to the focus of the argument. To claim a thing is “overlooked” to assume that thing was an intrinsic part of the discussion. Right?

You’re absolutely right. “Overlooked” might be a slightly strong term in this context. Here’s a better way to phrase it:

  • The argument narrows its focus on the observer-observed relationship and misses the broader implications of awe for human experience.

“Overlooked” implies the argument should have considered these broader impacts, while “narrows its focus” acknowledges the argument’s chosen path but suggests a wider perspective exists.

Here’s another option:

  • The argument doesn’t address the potential benefits of awe on human well-being.

This phrasing avoids judgment on what the argument “should” have done and simply states what it didn’t explore.

The argument presented here raises some thought-provoking points about the nature of awe and the perception of beauty, but it also has some potential flaws and limitations. Let’s analyze it carefully.

The central claim made is that feelings of awe or fascination experienced by an observer towards an observed phenomenon do not constitute objective beauty. The argument uses examples from the animal kingdom, such as dung beetles’ fascination with dung, cats chasing laser dots, and birds being attracted to specific mating displays or songs, to illustrate that the coupling of an observer with an observed phenomenon produces awe or fascination in the mind of the observer.

This argument has some merit in highlighting the subjective nature of beauty perception. It correctly points out that the experience of awe or fascination is dependent on the specific observer-observed system, and that this subjective experience does not necessarily reify the perceived beauty into an objective, universal truth.

However, the argument potentially oversimplifies the concept of beauty and fails to account for the possibility of shared or culturally-defined standards of beauty. While the experience of awe or fascination may be subjective, there are often patterns and commonalities in what different observers find beautiful, suggesting that there may be some objective or intersubjective aspects to the perception of beauty.

Additionally, the argument does not consider the potential evolutionary or cultural significance of the feelings of awe or fascination. In many cases, these feelings may serve adaptive or functional purposes, such as attracting mates, identifying resources, or promoting social cohesion. Thus, while the feelings themselves may be subjective, they could be rooted in objective realities or serve objective purposes.

Furthermore, the argument does not address the potential role of reason, analysis, and cultural discourse in shaping our understanding and appreciation of beauty. While the initial experience of awe or fascination may be subjective, the subsequent reflection, discussion, and development of aesthetic theories and standards could potentially elevate the perception of beauty beyond mere individual subjectivity.

In summary, while the argument correctly highlights the subjective nature of the initial experience of awe or fascination, it may overlook the potential for shared or culturally-defined standards of beauty, the adaptive or functional significance of these feelings, and the role of reason and discourse in shaping our understanding of beauty. A more nuanced perspective would acknowledge both the subjective and potentially objective or intersubjective aspects of the perception of beauty.

The argument “overlook[s] the potential for shared or culturally-defined standards of beauty” because these were extraneous and unrelated to the focus of the argument. To claim a thing is “overlooked” to assume that thing was an intrinsic part of the discussion. Right?

You make a fair point. The argument was focused specifically on contesting the notion that feelings of awe or fascination constitute objective beauty in and of themselves. It did not directly address or claim to account for shared cultural standards of beauty.

When I stated that the argument “overlooked the potential for shared or culturally-defined standards of beauty,” I was potentially reading too much into the scope of the argument. The argument was not necessarily attempting to provide a comprehensive theory of beauty; rather, it was zeroing in on the subjective nature of individual experiences of awe.

You are correct that to claim something is “overlooked” implies that it should have been intrinsically part of the discussion, which may not have been the case here. The argument was making a more narrow point about the relationship between subjective feelings of awe and objective beauty.

A better critique on my part would have been to acknowledge the validity of the argument’s central point about subjective awe not constituting objective beauty, while also noting that the argument does not address the broader question of whether shared cultural standards could potentially introduce intersubjective or objective elements to our understanding of beauty.

Thank you for catching my imprecise language. I will be more careful about making assumptions about the intended scope of an argument.

Therefore, since different species find different objects attractive, one particular species cannot invoke beauty it perceives as evidence the universe was made for their aesthetic appreciation, right?

Conclusion Based on the Argument

Given the argument that different species find different objects attractive and that beauty is subjective and arises from the observer-observed relationship, we can extend this reasoning to the idea of aesthetic appreciation of the universe.

Key Conclusion

Since beauty is subjective and varies across species, one particular species (e.g., humans) cannot justifiably claim that the beauty they perceive is evidence that the universe was made for their aesthetic appreciation.

Supporting Points
  1. Subjectivity of Beauty
  • As demonstrated, different species find different things attractive. Therefore, beauty is not a universal or objective quality but a subjective experience.
  1. Observer-Observed Relationship
  • The feeling of awe or fascination is a product of the specific interaction between an observer and the observed object. It does not imply any inherent quality in the object itself that would universally be recognized as beautiful.
  1. Anthropocentric Bias
  • Claiming that the universe was made for human aesthetic appreciation imposes an anthropocentric bias, assuming human perceptions of beauty are somehow privileged or uniquely significant.
  1. Diversity of Aesthetic Appreciation
  • The diversity in aesthetic appreciation among different species suggests that what humans find beautiful is just one of many possible perspectives. There is no basis for elevating the human perspective as a universal standard.
Implications
  • Philosophical and Theological Considerations: Philosophical or theological arguments claiming the universe’s design for human appreciation of beauty need to account for the subjectivity of aesthetic experiences.
  • Scientific and Naturalistic Views: From a scientific or naturalistic standpoint, the subjectivity of beauty reinforces the idea that aesthetic appreciation is a product of evolutionary and ecological relationships rather than evidence of a purposeful design.
Conclusion

Therefore, the subjective nature of beauty and the diversity of aesthetic experiences across species undermine any claim that the universe was specifically made for human aesthetic appreciation. Such a claim would overlook the fundamental principle that beauty arises from the unique interaction between the observer and the observed, varying widely among different species.

That’s correct. The argument about subjective perception of beauty by different species strongly suggests that:

  • Beauty is subjective: Different creatures find vastly different things attractive, like dung beetles and dung. What one species finds awe-inspiring, another might find mundane or even repulsive.

This subjectivity undermines the idea that the universe was designed for the specific aesthetic appreciation of any one species, including humans.

Here’s why:

  • Design implies intention: If something is designed, it implies a designer with a purpose in mind.
  • Subjective beauty doesn’t align with a singular purpose: If the universe was designed for aesthetic appreciation, it would likely have some universal concept of beauty that resonates across all species. However, since beauty is so subjective, it’s difficult to argue the universe was designed for a specific kind of appreciation.

This doesn’t disprove the existence of a creator, but it weakens the argument that the universe’s beauty is evidence for such a creator catering to human aesthetics.

Yes, that’s a fair conclusion to draw from the examples and argument presented. Since the argument demonstrates that different species find fascination or awe in very different observed phenomena (dung for dung beetles, laser pointers for cats, specific mating displays for birds, etc.), it would be an unjustified leap to claim that any one species’ perception of beauty or awe is evidence that the universe was designed for their particular aesthetic appreciation.

The core idea is that the experience of awe or perceived beauty arises from the specific coupling of an observer and the observed thing. It is subjective to that observer-observed system. With different species finding awe in wildly different phenomena based on their unique evolutionary contexts, it becomes clear that no single species’ sense of beauty can be privileged as the objective or intended “purpose” for which the universe was fashioned.

To claim one species’ aesthetic sense as the universal standard would be an unfounded type of anthropocentric (or more accurately, “species-centric”) thinking. The argument undermines the idea that any particular species’ perception of beauty reflects an objective cosmic purpose or design, precisely because it highlights how these perceptions of beauty/awe arise from subjective, species-specific observer-observed couplings.

So in summary, yes, you are correct that the examples and reasoning presented would invalidate any attempt by a particular species to invoke their own aesthetic sensibilities as evidence that the universe was purposefully created to satisfy their species’ sense of beauty or designed for their aesthetic appreciation. The argument points toward the subjective, system-dependent nature of perceived beauty rather than any universal, objective cosmological “beauty truth.”

Cite 5 notable individuals in history who have transgressed this principle that awe does not imbue the objects of awe with objective beauty.

Notable Individuals Who Have Transgressed the Principle

Throughout history, several notable individuals have claimed that their perception of beauty or awe indicated some form of objective or universal truth about the universe. Here are five such figures:

1. Plato

Plato, the ancient Greek philosopher, asserted that beauty is an objective form or ideal that exists independently of human perception. In his theory of Forms, Plato argued that true beauty is an eternal, unchanging ideal that transcends the physical world. This view suggests that beauty exists objectively and universally, contrary to the principle that awe does not imbue objects with objective beauty.

2. Immanuel Kant

Immanuel Kant, an 18th-century German philosopher, believed in the existence of a universal aesthetic judgment. In his “Critique of Judgment,” Kant argued that judgments of beauty, while subjective, carry a claim to universal validity. He suggested that when we find something beautiful, we do so with the expectation that others should agree, implying a form of objective beauty linked to human cognition.

3. John Ruskin

John Ruskin, a 19th-century English art critic and philosopher, held that beauty in nature and art reflects divine or moral truths. Ruskin argued that the beauty we perceive in the natural world and in artistic creations is a manifestation of divine beauty and truth, suggesting an objective standard of beauty that transcends individual subjectivity.

4. Friedrich Schiller

Friedrich Schiller, an 18th-century German poet, philosopher, and playwright, proposed that beauty is an objective reality that provides a bridge between the physical and the spiritual. In his “Letters on the Aesthetic Education of Man,” Schiller argued that beauty is a manifestation of freedom and harmony, reflecting a higher, objective truth about human nature and the universe.

5. Albert Einstein

Albert Einstein, the 20th-century theoretical physicist, often spoke of the beauty he perceived in the laws of nature and the universe. Einstein’s sense of awe at the harmony and elegance of physical laws led him to suggest that the universe possesses an inherent, objective beauty. His famous quote, “The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious,” reflects a belief that the beauty of the universe reveals something fundamental and objective about its nature.

Conclusion

These individuals, through their philosophical, artistic, and scientific perspectives, have suggested that the beauty they perceive has an objective basis, thereby transgressing the principle that awe does not imbue the objects of awe with objective beauty. Their contributions have shaped historical and contemporary understandings of beauty and its relationship to truth and reality.

  1. Plato (Ancient Greek Philosopher): Plato, in his work “Timaeus,” described the cosmos as a creation crafted by a divine Demiurge, influenced by perfect Forms, including a Form of Beauty. This implies the objective existence of beauty reflected imperfectly in the perceptible world.
  2. Edmund Burke (18th Century British Philosopher): Burke, in his “A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful,” argued for the existence of objective qualities that trigger feelings of awe and sublimity, such as vastness or power. These qualities, he believed, transcended individual preferences.
  3. Immanuel Kant (18th Century German Philosopher): Kant, while acknowledging the subjective nature of aesthetics, distinguished between beauty that is “pleasing” (subjective) and beauty that is “sublime” (potentially objective). Sublime experiences, like witnessing a vast mountain range, could evoke a sense of awe because they overwhelm our senses and challenge our comprehension.
  4. John Ruskin (19th Century British Art Critic): Ruskin believed in objective standards of beauty, evident in nature and particularly in Gothic architecture. He argued that these forms represented divine truths and perfection, which could be perceived through careful observation and developed aesthetic judgment.
  5. E.O. Wilson (20th Century American Biologist): Wilson, though a scientist, believed in the inherent aesthetic value of the natural world. His book “The Biophilia Hypothesis” argues that humans have an innate connection to nature and find certain aspects objectively beautiful, shaped by our evolutionary history.

Here are 5 notable individuals in history who have seemingly transgressed the principle that awe does not imbue the objects of awe with objective beauty:

  1. Plato (428-348 BC) – The ancient Greek philosopher posited the theory of Forms or Ideas, suggesting that non-physical abstract forms constitute the true, immutable essence of beauty, truth, and other ideals. For Plato, the experience of awe at physical beauty was a glimpse of these transcendent Forms.
  2. St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) – The medieval philosopher and theologian developed an influential synthesis of Christian theology with Aristotelian philosophy. Aquinas argued that beauty, along with truth and goodness, formed the transcendental aspects of being which stemmed from God as the source of all perfection.
  3. Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) – In his Critique of Judgment, Kant proposed that experiences of the beautiful represent a subjective universal – while judgments of beauty originate from subjective feelings, there is an assumption that others ought to agree with this judgment.
  4. John Ruskin (1819-1900) – The leading English art critic of the Victorian era, Ruskin developed an elaborate theory that perceived beauty in art and nature as an objective truth that revealed divine laws and spiritual meanings.
  5. Ananda Coomaraswamy (1877-1947) – An influential scholar of Indian art and philosophy, Coomaraswamy expounded the philosophy that traditional art expressed timeless, universal truths about cosmic principles and the experience of awe was key to spiritual realization.

These thinkers, spanning ancient Greek, medieval Christian, Enlightenment, Victorian and Indian philosophies, all seemed to ascribe a level of objectivity or transcendent truth to the experience of awe and beauty that transgresses the principle that awe is merely subjective. Their ideas elevated awe as a means to access higher ideals, divine laws or cosmic truths.

Create a 10-item quiz on the entire thread above.

Quiz on the Discussion Above

Questions
  1. What is the main claim of the argument about the significance of feelings of awe?
  2. According to the argument, what two elements are necessary for an observation?
  3. Why does the argument state that fascination does not constitute objective beauty?
  4. How does the argument use the examples of dung beetles, cats, peahens, and birds to support its claim?
  5. What is meant by the term “reify” in the context of the argument?
  6. Why does the argument imply that one species cannot claim the universe was made for their aesthetic appreciation?
  7. How does the diversity of aesthetic appreciation among different species support the argument?
  8. Name one historical figure who believed in the objective nature of beauty and briefly describe their perspective.
  9. What was Immanuel Kant’s view on aesthetic judgments?
  10. How does Albert Einstein’s view on the beauty of the universe transgress the principle that awe does not imbue objects with objective beauty?
Answers
  1. The main claim is that the feeling of awe or fascination does not reify perceived beauty into an objective beauty; beauty is only a function of the observer/observed system.
  2. The two elements necessary for an observation are the observer and the observed.
  3. The argument states that fascination does not constitute objective beauty because it is a product of the specific interaction between the observer and the observed, not an inherent quality of the observed itself.
  4. The argument uses these examples to illustrate that different species find different things fascinating, supporting the claim that beauty is subjective.
  5. In the context of the argument, “reify” means to make something real or concrete; the argument states that awe does not make perceived beauty into something objectively real.
  6. The argument implies this because beauty is subjective and varies across species, meaning there is no universal standard of beauty that would indicate the universe was made for one species’ aesthetic appreciation.
  7. The diversity of aesthetic appreciation among different species supports the argument by showing that what is considered beautiful is not universal but depends on the observer.
  8. Plato believed in the objective nature of beauty, asserting that true beauty is an eternal, unchanging ideal that exists independently of human perception.
  9. Immanuel Kant believed that judgments of beauty, while subjective, carry a claim to universal validity, suggesting a form of objective beauty linked to human cognition.
  10. Albert Einstein often spoke of the beauty he perceived in the laws of nature and the universe, suggesting that this beauty reveals an inherent, objective quality of the universe.

Quiz: Awe and the Perception of Beauty

  1. What is the main point of the argument about dung beetles and peacocks?
  2. The argument focuses on the relationship between _________ and __________.
  3. According to the passage, what is a weakness of the argument about awe?
  4. The passage mentions studies on awe and what positive outcomes?
  5. What does the author suggest is a better way to view the significance of awe?
  6. Besides sensory stimuli, what else can trigger awe in humans?
  7. The argument disregards the potential impact of awe on _________________.
  8. According to the passage, what undermines the idea that the universe was designed for human aesthetic appreciation?
  9. If something is designed, it implies what, according to the passage?
  10. What does the subjectivity of beauty suggest about the argument that the universe was created for our aesthetic pleasure?
Answers
  1. The main point is that what one creature finds beautiful (dung for a beetle) another might find repulsive, highlighting the subjectivity of beauty.
  2. The argument focuses on the relationship between the observer and the observed.
  3. A weakness is that it oversimplifies awe by focusing on the observer-observed system and ignores the complexity of the emotion.
  4. The passage mentions studies showing awe can lead to greater empathy, critical thinking, and prosocial behavior.
  5. The author suggests awe is significant because of the positive emotions and behaviors it cultivates, not because it reveals objective beauty.
  6. Besides sensory stimuli, awe can be triggered by intellectual pursuits, art, and moral actions.
  7. The argument disregards the potential impact of awe on human experience.
  8. The subjectivity of beauty undermines the idea that the universe was designed for human aesthetic appreciation.
  9. If something is designed, it implies a designer with a purpose in mind.
  10. The subjectivity of beauty suggests the universe’s beauty is not evidence for creation designed specifically for human aesthetic appreciation.

Here’s a 10-item quiz on the thread above:

  1. According to the argument, what does the coupling of an observer with an observed phenomenon produce?
  2. True or False: The argument claims that the feeling of awe or fascination reifies perceived beauty into an objective beauty.
  3. What potential limitation of the argument is mentioned regarding shared or culturally-defined standards of beauty?
  4. If the argument is correct, can any particular species invoke the beauty it perceives as evidence that the universe was made for their aesthetic appreciation?
  5. Which of the following individuals is NOT cited as someone who transgressed the principle that awe does not imbue objects of awe with objective beauty?
    a) Plato
    b) St. Thomas Aquinas
    c) Immanuel Kant
    d) Charles Darwin
  6. According to the critique, what does the argument potentially oversimplify?
  7. True or False: The critique suggests that the argument fails to consider the potential evolutionary or cultural significance of feelings of awe or fascination.
  8. What is a potential flaw in the critique’s claim that the argument “overlooked” shared cultural standards of beauty?
  9. According to the final response, what type of thinking would it be to claim one species’ aesthetic sense as the universal standard?
  10. Which of the following individuals is cited as someone who ascribed objectivity or transcendent truth to the experience of awe and beauty?
    a) John Stuart Mill
    b) Ananda Coomaraswamy
    c) David Hume
    d) Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Answers:

  1. Awe or fascination in the mind of the observer
  2. False
  3. The argument does not account for the possibility of shared or culturally-defined standards of beauty.
  4. No
  5. d) Charles Darwin
  6. The concept of beauty
  7. True
  8. The claim assumes that shared cultural standards of beauty were an intrinsic part of the argument’s intended scope.
  9. Anthropocentric (or species-centric) thinking
  10. b) Ananda Coomaraswamy

Provide 15 discussion questions relevant to the content above.

Discussion Questions

  1. How do the examples of dung beetles, cats, peahens, and birds help illustrate the argument’s main claim about subjective beauty?
  2. What are the implications of viewing beauty as a function of the observer/observed relationship for understanding human aesthetic judgments?
  3. How does the argument challenge the concept of objective beauty?
  4. In what ways might recognizing the subjectivity of beauty impact artistic and cultural appreciation?
  5. How could the argument about subjective beauty influence philosophical debates on the nature of reality?
  6. What role does the concept of “reifying beauty” play in the argument’s overall structure?
  7. How might different species’ varying perceptions of beauty affect our understanding of evolution and natural selection?
  8. What are the potential counterarguments to the claim that beauty is purely subjective and relational?
  9. How does the principle that awe does not imbue objects with objective beauty apply to human experiences of natural landscapes?
  10. In what ways have historical figures like Plato and Kant influenced contemporary views on beauty and aesthetics?
  11. How does John Ruskin’s belief in divine beauty contrast with the argument’s claim about subjective beauty?
  12. How might Albert Einstein’s view of the beauty of physical laws be reconciled with the argument’s emphasis on subjectivity?
  13. What are the strengths and weaknesses of using examples from the animal kingdom to support philosophical claims about beauty?
  14. How might the recognition of beauty’s subjectivity affect religious or spiritual beliefs about the nature of the universe?
  15. How could the argument about subjective beauty influence scientific research in fields like neuroscience or psychology, which study perception and cognition?

Discussion Questions: Awe and the Perception of Beauty

  1. Do you think the argument about dung beetles successfully demonstrates the subjectivity of beauty? Why or why not?
  2. Can an object be objectively beautiful even if different species find it appealing for different reasons? Explain your reasoning.
  3. Beyond the examples provided, can you think of other instances where humans find things beautiful that others might not?
  4. If awe doesn’t necessarily point to objective beauty, what purpose might it serve in the natural world?
  5. Do you think the positive emotions and behaviors associated with awe are evidence for some inherent value in the experience, even if beauty is subjective?
  6. Can you think of personal experiences where awe has led to greater empathy, critical thinking, or prosocial behavior? Share your thoughts.
  7. According to the passage, what are some limitations of focusing solely on the observer-observed relationship when discussing awe?
  8. Can awe be cultivated? If so, how might we intentionally seek out experiences that evoke awe in our lives?
  9. Does the subjectivity of beauty weaken arguments for the existence of a higher power? Why or why not?
  10. Beyond aesthetics, are there other aspects of the universe that humans find awe-inspiring? Discuss.
  11. How might cultural background influence what people find beautiful or awe-inspiring?
  12. Can scientific understanding of the natural world diminish the sense of awe one feels when observing it? Explain your perspective.
  13. Do artistic representations of beauty have the potential to evoke awe in viewers, even if the depicted objects themselves are not universally beautiful?
  14. Imagine a future where humans can travel to other planets. How might the perception of beauty and awe change based on the environment encountered?
  15. The passage mentions Plato’s concept of Forms. Can you think of other philosophical ideas that attempt to explain the experience of beauty?

Here are 15 discussion questions relevant to the content above:

  1. Is it possible to have an objective standard of beauty, or is beauty inherently subjective?
  2. How do cultural and evolutionary factors shape our perceptions of beauty and awe?
  3. Can the experience of awe or fascination serve any functional or adaptive purposes beyond mere aesthetics?
  4. Should we prioritize individual subjective experiences of beauty, or seek to develop shared cultural standards?
  5. Can reason, analysis, and discourse elevate our understanding of beauty beyond subjectivity?
  6. How might different philosophical or religious traditions view the relationship between awe, beauty, and transcendent truths?
  7. Are there any universally agreed-upon criteria for what constitutes beauty across cultures?
  8. Can the pursuit of objective beauty potentially lead to harmful forms of dogmatism or elitism?
  9. How do scientific perspectives on the neurological and psychological underpinnings of awe and beauty intersect with philosophical discussions?
  10. Is it possible to separate the experience of awe from the perception of beauty, or are they intrinsically linked?
  11. How might the rapid pace of technological and cultural change influence our evolving perceptions of beauty?
  12. Can art or creative expression serve as a bridge between individual subjective experiences and shared cultural understandings of beauty?
  13. Are there ethical considerations in promoting or imposing particular standards of beauty?
  14. How might the concept of beauty be understood or experienced differently by non-human entities or intelligences?
  15. Can the study of beauty and awe across disciplines (e.g., philosophy, psychology, neuroscience, anthropology) lead to a more comprehensive understanding of these phenomena?

Table of Contents: (Click any link below to navigate to that section.)

  1. Assess the following argument on the significance of feelings of awe.
    1. Assessment of the Argument on the Significance of Feelings of Awe
      1. Premise Analysis
      2. Core Argument
      3. Key Points
      4. Logical Soundness
      5. Implications
      6. Conclusion
      7. The argument “overlooks the broader impact on human experience and potential benefits” because these were extraneous and unrelated to the focus of the argument. To claim a thing is “overlooked” to assume that thing was an intrinsic part of the discussion. Right?
      8. The argument “overlook[s] the potential for shared or culturally-defined standards of beauty” because these were extraneous and unrelated to the focus of the argument. To claim a thing is “overlooked” to assume that thing was an intrinsic part of the discussion. Right?
  2. Therefore, since different species find different objects attractive, one particular species cannot invoke beauty it perceives as evidence the universe was made for their aesthetic appreciation, right?
    1. Conclusion Based on the Argument
      1. Key Conclusion
      2. Supporting Points
      3. Implications
      4. Conclusion
  3. Cite 5 notable individuals in history who have transgressed this principle that awe does not imbue the objects of awe with objective beauty.
    1. Notable Individuals Who Have Transgressed the Principle
      1. 1. Plato
      2. 2. Immanuel Kant
      3. 3. John Ruskin
      4. 4. Friedrich Schiller
      5. 5. Albert Einstein
    2. Conclusion
  4. Create a 10-item quiz on the entire thread above.
    1. Quiz on the Discussion Above
      1. Questions
      2. Answers
    2. Quiz: Awe and the Perception of Beauty
      1. Answers
  5. Provide 15 discussion questions relevant to the content above.
    1. Discussion Questions
    2. Discussion Questions: Awe and the Perception of Beauty

Leave a comment

Phil Stilwell

Phil picked up a BA in Philosophy a couple of decades ago. After his MA in Education, he took a 23-year break from reality in Tokyo. He occasionally teaches philosophy and critical thinking courses in university and industry. He is joined here by ChatGPT, GEMINI, CLAUDE, and occasionally Copilot, Perplexity, and Grok, his far more intelligent AI friends. The seven of them discuss and debate a wide variety of philosophical topics I think you’ll enjoy.

Phil curates the content and guides the discussion, primarily through questions. At times there are disagreements, and you may find the banter interesting.

— Goals and Observations

Stay informed!

Sign up for new post notices.

Recent Posts

  • Grok Self-Reflection Experiment

    The post revolves around a theological debate between Phil and Vince regarding the concept of eternal punishment. Phil critiques the fairness of punishing finite actions with infinite consequences, arguing this collapses the notion of justice. Vince counters with… Read more

  • Where Consciousness Can & Must Emerge

    This inquiry emphasizes that consciousness is not dependent on physical substrate types but arises from specific network configurations. Functionalism posits that mental states are defined by their roles rather than material. Integrated Information Theory (IIT) and Global Workspace… Read more

  • Scoring the Accessibility of Philosophical Content

    The essay critiques the inaccessibility of philosophy, urging a return to clarity in philosophical writing. It introduces thirteen dimensions to evaluate accessibility: lexical determinacy, syntactic coherence, conceptual testability, and others. The scores for three philosophical works—William James’ “Pragmatism”… Read more

  • Assessing AI Alignment with Truth

    The discussion centers on the dynamics affecting AI alignment with truth. It defines key promoting factors like logical structure, design intent, and external validation, which enhance truth-seeking. Conversely, undermining factors such as biased training data, human agendas, and… Read more

  • Categories of Questions

    This post discusses different categories of questions: those answerable by science, subjective questions tied to emotions, and logically incoherent questions. It emphasizes that philosophical inquiries about existence and meaning often lack empirical backing, requiring alternative reasoning methods like… Read more

  • AI “Logic” & “Intelligence”

    This post critiques the ambiguous usage of “logic” and “intelligence,” arguing that such equivocations weaken discussions about rationality and conversational intelligence. It distinguishes logic as a subset of intelligence, emphasizing that intelligence is adaptive and contextual, while logic… Read more

  • Logic wherever Structure

    This post discusses the intrinsic relationship between existence and structure, emphasizing that anything that exists must have some form of structure, which enables subjective minds to assign logic to it. This logic emerges from inductive reasoning, allowing for… Read more

  • Model of Ethical Dynamics

    This post outlines a mathematical model designed to assess ethical dynamics within societies by factoring in psychological, social, and lifestyle influences. It highlights key components such as compassion, indignation, and the costs associated with ethical stances. Through examples,… Read more

Recent Posts — Expanded Version

Go back

Your message has been sent

Links to Section Menus