I once believed beauty was in the eye of the beholder. Which I could rewrite to actually say, “beauty is in the eye of your opinion.” And I don’t believe beauty is an opinion. My belief that something is beautiful doesn’t qualify something as beautiful. It’s beautiful in and of itself.
Is a sunset beautiful because I think so, or is it beautiful because I’m glimpsing the world in its ordered state?
It took me months to change my mind about this. I was a firm believer that beauty was in the eye of the beholder and I knew it because some people called things beautiful that I saw no beauty in.
My professor told me, “beauty is not subjective in the way that truth is not subjective.” And that’s when it clicked.
Before, I wasn’t a big fan of poetry. I didn’t think it was beautiful, I thought it was pointless. But poetry is beauty because of the way it’s written.
(What is “beauty” is another discussion, so I’m going to leave it at that)
I began to want to see the true beauty of the world and to understand it. So I began to read more and more and more poetry. It was kind of awful to my brain because I was use to a lower style of language. In Samuel Coleridge’s (paraphrased) words, “poetry is the best language, in the best order.” Or- the most elevated language you can reach for.
If you hadn’t guessed this change in my thinking also is the reason I’m always saying there are things that are ultimately better. It’s also why I caution reading too many “guilty pleasure” books. So blame my professor for making me a bit of a snob.
And all this is to say thank you to that professor who will never read this.
Because to elevate your mind to true beauty, goodness, and even truth is to be happier. I say this from personal experience. I mean, who doesn’t feel like a potato after watching some dumb television show for hours or reading something that only pulls at your base emotions?
Can you tell I went to a private liberal arts college?
I’m not here to change your mind, I’m here to cause you to think. If you agree with me, why? If you don’t, why?
Also, here’s to my professor and his poetry.
Viewed From the Keel of a Canoe
by J Matthew Boyleston
Memoir of a Writer 
Loved your thoughts and thanks for including “poetry is the best language, in the best order.” Immediate reaction – BINGO!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you!
LikeLike
Interesting post but not sure I agree. Truth is subjective. Everything depends on point of view. We experience the world through our individual minds and senses. There is no way to get at the ‘pure truth’ . Facts are always debatable. That’s why we end up having wars. Sadly…
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s kind of self defeating to say there’s no definite truth because by saying that you’re admitting even you statement isn’t true. But your view is interesting nonetheless 😊 thanks for sharing.
LikeLike
Exactly my point. My statement is what I believe, that doesn’t mean it’s necessarily true. Truth is a human construct not a reality. That’s why there are so many different religions in the world, each insisting they are the ‘truth’. So we will have to agree to disagree!
All the best with your blog!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Beauty, truth and facts: three very different things
1) Society dictates beauty – what is beautiful for a Japanese woman will be different for a Swahili man. Somethings will be shared, but many not.
2) Truth generally transcends societies, and there are ugly, grotesque, lovely and exquisite truths — many of them linked to facts, but some not.
3) Facts are indisputable and have nothing to do with beauty or truth. Facts do shift – through the application of the scientific method, but societies, although given their own beauties and (some) truths, must share a singular set of facts.
However, I understand your sentiment. Given any ultimate sentient they will all experience certain features of the Universe as being beautiful. The maths, the physics, the symmetry and the motions of matter and life may blend, at times, to create beautiful artifacts. I, though, know no ultimate sentients.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I don’t see how we can define truth and facts differently. A truth is a fact and a fact is a truth- unless we’re talking about truth being subjective, which has never made sense to me.
“Facts are indisputable…facts do shift” That’s a bit of a contradiction.
I think about it this way, facts are indisputable, but that doesn’t mean we’ve discovered the actual fact. Not having discovered something doesn’t mean something doesn’t exist, which is why science has changed throughout the years.
The color blue exists. And I would say science recognizes blue to exist. I would say the fact that the color blue exist is a truth…lol
Does blue exist to a blind man? He’ll never discover it, never understand it…but his experience doesn’t dictate reality.
Reality is and what is truth or facts aren’t dictated by what we as human bend them to be. Ah I recognize this can be called just my opinion.
As for beauty I think we may allow for separate definitions. Beauty as society dictates- traditions, etc. and beauty that is beautiful in and of itself like something in nature, or as you say, certain features of the universe.
I know I have more of the unpopular opinion when it comes to ultimates, but I just think it’s a bit crazy to say there’s no ultimate truth, like the existence of the color blue.
To be honest I have discussed these topics in almost a year so I feel a bit rusty.
LikeLiked by 2 people
At one point the world was flat. The universe was comprised of the four elementals. And you got sick because you had sinned. These — at their times — were facts. They correct themselves, over time, due to discovery.
A truth is more akin to a thread that laces together human consciousness… Unconditional love expects no reciprocal affection. Civilizations rise and fall. When my brother drinks too much he forgets we’re related. These are, in my mind, truths.
And beauty? Beauty, is of the “I” who beholds her. (I’m being silly, but, as you touched upon the blind, what of the deaf or mute? Do they know beauty? did Helen Keller ever experience beauty? I would hope so. I don’t know that that might have been, but I don’t doubt it was beautiful.)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Okay I understand your point better. I guess I was thinking something truly isn’t a fact unless it’s a truth.
I think they do experience beauty, but in a way we are unable. The way Helen Keller experienced I would presume was through the ability to communicate with others.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Here’s a radical interpretation of beauty.
I had a dog. I was her world.. When I went away on business, she would pine the entire time, resting on the couch, looking out the window, waiting for me — for days and days.
When I eventually showed up, and she hear my car and saw me through the window and knew I was home — was I not beautiful to her?
Am I a beautiful person? No, I would never, no one would ever say that. But to her, I was. So what of beauty now?
LikeLiked by 1 person
That interpretation sounds more like like adoration. I have a dog too, and he’s much the same way, but I don’t think I’m beautiful to him, I think he sees me and in a dog way, loves me, but to me we as humans see beauty because we have the ability to reason, animals don’t.
My radical interpatation of beauty is that it’s order. The order of language. The order of nature .. of math. I don’t think everything that is beautiful is beauty. I think real beauty is a farther reach than peeking out your window. It involves the mind and the eyes. Or sometimes just the mind.
It involves some other things that are more faith involved so I’ll leave it there 😊
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yeah, she adored me. That’s a better explanation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This was very interesting. I’m thinking your general feeling can be summarised with this line, ‘Is a sunset beautiful because I think so, or is it beautiful because I’m glimpsing the world in its ordered state?’ Beauty comes from orderliness. I don’t know if I agree, its an intriguing idea though. I think there are orderly things that are very ugly, I’m not sure where that fits in. Perhaps I’m misinterpreting you. Also, if beauty is like truth, then that means to say you can be wrong about something being beautiful, which seems kind of odd to say. Wouldn’t it feel odd to say to someone who told you they found something or someone beautiful that they were incorrect?
I do think there is objective beauty in the world, something beyond our subjective relationships to things, but pinning that down exactly is real difficult. It may have something to do with the word itself being some broad, beauty applying to collections of words, people, buildings, landscapes, animals, sounds…
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think it can get a bit confusing because of how broad the word can be. I am talking about a certain type of beauty that is more than thinking something is beautiful or someone because that’s an opinion and someone’s opinion of…lets says cheese fries being good can’t really be wrong just because I hate them.
It was explained to me using the example of music. Classical music isn’t popular, and I would say that some people would even say it’s not as good as what’s out now, or not as beautiful. But classical music is the best music and its beautiful.
That’s not my opinion, but it’s based on the definition of music itself. Classical music is composed of more elements that create ‘music,’ whereas most modern music focuses on the rythem and all the other stuff is used but it’s not as important.
So I would actually say the beauty I’m talking about is a sense of orderliness, or completeness that doesn’t necessarily mean attractive to the eye.
Personally I’m not a huge fan of modern art, but there are a few pieces I’ve studied that I’ve seen an ordered chaos in. It looks like no thought was put into it and the artist threw some paint up on a canvas…but if you study it you begin to see the order and the precision of the paint. (Granted I’ve really only seen this from one artist and his name escapes me.) But my point is that sometimes chaos is beautiful, but is it actually chaos or is it ordered to look that way and when we see it, we subconsciously see the order and therefore believe it to be beautiful?
Okayyy, sorry if I sound like a hippy, hope I make sense! 😊
LikeLike
Haha, actually, I don’t think you sound like a hippie. I don’t think too many hippies would hold the view that there is an objectively most beautiful style of music and that style is classical : P I appreciate your thoughts but your claim about classical music doesn’t sound that objective to me. I’ve been a music student and studied various contemporary, experimental, classical and avant garde artists and composers, so far I’ve found no real consensus on what constitutes beauty in music (apart from, perhaps, harmony). If we take your explanation of objective beauty, it also means that basically every culture besides the west makes ‘ugly’ music, by definition, because, for example, many musical cultures are based on rhythmic rather than melodic expression, which you seem not to rate, although there is much greater complexity and therefore potential for orderliness in rhythm than in melody. Anyway, I appreciate your thoughts and thought provoking conversation.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Haha okay that’s fair because I for for sure wasn’t a music student. 😂
LikeLike
Pah, don’t let me get away with that! An appeal to authority don’t mean a thing! Haha : )
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sure it does…when I don’t know as much about music. 😅
LikeLiked by 1 person
Okay this has been bothering me for days because a day after this I figured out I’d totally botched the music thing to fit into the idea of beauty when really when I said I had been taught to think about it that way it was really in reference to something else.
So there’s a run on sentence.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I get where you were coming from with the analogy. The conversation is an interesting one, although I don’t think I agree with your prof’s philosophy on this. I’m also pretty sure objective beauty does exist, but assessing it is difficult and multivariate.
LikeLiked by 1 person
As a homicide investigator for many years I have learned that facts and the truth are sometimes far from each other. The truth is an understanding of the facts and what they mean. And they don’t always mean what we think. You’ve got a great blog here. Thanks for stopping by my page. Will follow. Have a great writing week!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ve never heard it that way, which is interesting! And thanks I really appreciate it.
LikeLike
Love this blog and the discussions it open the doors to. I believe facts don’t always lead to the truth. Even scientist can’t agree on the truth while examining the same facts that they agree upon. World flat, world not flat for example. You have a beautiful mind. Is that a truth, fact or opinion…that some find to be a truth based on the fact that you wrote such a mindful stimulating blog. Thanks for the treat.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks I appreciate your feedback. I love hearing other people’s ideas!
LikeLike