Is Beauty Subjective? w/ Fr. Gregory Pine, OP

In this video, Fr. Gregory answers the question, "Is beauty in the eye of the beholder?"

🔴 SPONSORS

🔴 GIVING

This show (and all the plans we have in store) wouldn't be possible without you. I can't thank those of you who support me enough. Seriously! Thanks for essentially being a co-producer co-producer of the show.

🔴 LINKS



🔴 SOCIAL

[egggmann]

Thank you! I’m an aspiring Catholic artist. It’s encouraging to finally hear a discussion on objective beauty.

[RachelRichards]

You just inspired me to try to make my home and plant arrangements more beautiful. Beauty brings a satisfaction and soothing feeling that nothing can replicate.

[MyMy-tvfd]

objective beauty is subjectively received, I said that

[mattharazin]

Beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder, since human eyes are objectively beautiful

[SeekLuminousThings]

I think mathematics offers promising grounds for establishing the objectivity of beauty: symmetry, the Golden Ratio, even Fibonacci numbers all seen to be recurring features.

[itazenin]

May Christ, the infinite and original source of beauty increase my objective beauty! Amen.

[charmendro]

dang ima need to re watch this a few times to understand but wow i learned so much

[xXXDeadlyHavocXXx]

What's the stunning Church/Cathedral in the thumbnail background of this video? 😮

[pawepalczynski]

Given the subject matter, could you perhaps talk more about the subjective/objective distinction? There is an implication in modern use of the "subjective" that it's arbitrary, a product of mind, somewhat detached from the rest of the world, as if observed by by an external observer. Meanwhile "objective" refers to the world itself, it's governed by rules, it's predictable and universal. But subjective experiences can share many of the characteristics of such defined "objective" and therefore not really arbitrary or just a whim. A feeling of hunger after a fast, a feeling of awe in the face of a view from atop a mountain, a fear response to an unexpected scare are quite predictable, universal and true like many truths about the natural world.

[christopherconey]

I feel sorry for the 3 legged deer by the name of Tripod.
But I do not feel sorry for the great French artist Toulouse-Lautrec who was nicknamed Tripod because his legs were both very very short, but his was not short at all :)

[santiagoandrespriegue]

Matt, please, i beg you to invite Dale alhquist to an interview

[theresaherfindahl]

If beauty is what "pleases me, " how is that not subjective? Or could I be mistaken in saying that something is beautiful if it Really isn't beautiful. So, how to figure out if I'm right or if I'm wrong....

[wierdpocket]

The first two conditions, wholeness and symmetry, don’t seem very convincing, as it is often precisely the asymmetry or lack or “surprise” you might call it that makes something both striking and beautiful. Similar to how a birthmark might function: one may see it as “out of place” or “disordered” but another may find it a mark of distinction, something special and unique and therefore beautiful. This is just one of the many reasons why beauty is thought of as subjective, something that really wasn’t addressed here: HOW a subject experiences a phenomenon seems to allow for totally different “rubrics” because the subject itself is just as unique as the object desired. A more fruitful line of thought seems to be thinking of a kind of “lowest common denominator” for beauty, or, what’s common amongst all beautiful things? I think the only answer here is that they are created by God, and thus extensions of His mind, and thus, beautiful. Every created thing is beautiful, but we don’t always have a sight to see it. If this is the case, I wonder if ugliness is just the phenomenon of not being able to see as God sees - or, more pointedly, maybe it’s just the “privation” of good. How to determine that, though, seems super difficult as finite beings. The deer that has a leg lost seems bad to one, but it is perhaps made more dear (and thus more beautiful) to another — so is it’s privation ugly or not?

[saizer]

It's pretty weird that some people still cling to this out dated idea that beauty is objectively real. There is so much disagreement about what is beautiful that it seems very likely that beauty is a social construct. Even if beauty is objectively real, it is clear that there is no good way to know the beautiful from the non-beautiful through any objective means. I get the sense that the ones who still push this archaic idea have never been outside of their bubble-- whether that bubble is a religious one or not-- and as a result they may sometimes find it unfathomable for people to not share their aesthetic feelings on a particular aspect of nature, or art, and so as a result they keep on believing in their primitive ideas.