1. There is a casual, exclamatory use of "beautiful" which is almost entirely empty of meaning, amounting to no more than an expression of a favorable attitude. People exclaim "beautiful" meaning only "great" or "wonderful" or "I like that a lot." When I say it is empty I mean the kind of favor is left completely open. It could be aesthetic or it could be any other sort: moral, intellectual, economic, etc. We can use "beautiful" to express our relief when freed from a danger (it was beautiful when the police burst in to disarm the terrorists), the provision of shelter, news of a football victory or any other welcome event. This use of "beautiful" is jarring because the word is more properly restricted to aesthetic value. Thus people who regularly use it unselectively seem frivolous because they seem to have reduced all values to a single kind, and one which is the least weighty. The moral, the medical, the nutritional and the generally practical rightly claim priority over the aesthetic, which can be roughly equated with the delightful to contemplate when free from more pressing matters. To exclaim "beautiful" indiscriminately for welcome news seems not just undiscriminating but sappy.
By a principle of taste I mean a principle under the condition ofwhich we could subsume the concept of the object, and thus infer, bymeans of a syllogism, that the object is beautiful. But that isabsolutely impossible. For I must immediately feel the pleasure in therepresentation of the object, and of that I can be persuaded by nogrounds of proof whatever. Although, as Hume says, all critics canreason more plausibly than cooks, yet the same fate awaits them. Theycannot expect the determining ground of their judgment [to be derived]from the force of the proofs, but only from the reflection of thesubject upon its own proper state of pleasure or pain. (Kant 1790,section 34)
Some people think that beauty is not subjective.
Is beauty in the eye of the beholder? John defines beauty as that which brings enjoyment to the person who looks or contemplates. John defines subjective properties as properties that require subjects of the right sort to make a difference. When we say something is beautiful, are we recommending to others that they should take delight in it? Beauty may be intersubjective, but is it objective? Can we argue rationally about whether something is beautiful? Ken introduces Alexander Nehamas, professor at Princeton. Is beauty both skin deep and in the eye of the beholder? Nehamas distinguishes between surface beauty and deep beauty.
Debate Argument: Is beauty objective
Philosophers in the Kantian tradition identify the experience ofbeauty with disinterested pleasure, psychical distance, and the like,and contrast the aesthetic with the practical. “Tasteis the faculty of judging an object or mode of representing it by anentirely disinterested satisfaction or dissatisfaction. Theobject of such satisfaction is called beautiful” (Kant1790, 45). Edward Bullough distinguishes the beautiful from the merelyagreeable on the grounds that the former requires a distance frompractical concerns: “Distance is produced in the first instanceby putting the phenomenon, so to speak, out of gear with ourpractical, actual self; by allowing it to stand outside the context ofour personal needs and ends.“ (Bullough 1912, 244)
Beauty : a characteristic of a person, animal, place, object, ..
As a result of the hegemony of the modern male in society, the standards of beauty are often reflected and observed through the objectification of women.
What is Beauty? | Philosophy Talk
Tiredness is primarily caused by a lack of sleep, but there are many reasons why we may have trouble sleeping. For example, we may not be going to bed at a reasonable hour, we may lie awake worrying, exercise too close to bedtime, spend too much time staring at a screen before going to bed, …