2.1Reflection Paper (S)

Nancun Yu

PR. Kyle Grady

PHIL 330: Aesthetics

15^th, Sept. 2014

2.1Reflection Paper (S)

       The question was asked whether Beauty is a real property of objects or it is “in the eye of the beholder”. Albeit both side's arguments have their own truth values. I would hardly be fully convinced by either of them.

In that respect, there are several questions toward believing that Beauty is a real attribute of objects. Foremost of all, if we claim that Beauty as a real property, it seems to obviously declare that Beauty itself is an existed thing. Moreover, if we claim Beauty as real property towards an object, does that mean Beauty it is a physical thing? Furthermore, if it is physically existed, should Beauty be imitable and teachable? On the opposite, if we claim that Beauty is simply “in the eye of the beholder”. Does that mean Beauty itself is an unclear, unlimited quality that people would put on any subject they willing to be described with. Likewise, if Beauty does not have a clear form, how would people be able to discuss it with one another? In addition, if we allow people to think that everybody distinguish their own beliefs on Beauty. Will that bring the future possibility of allowing people distinguish other quality such as moral and ethics?

With previous intention. In my opinion, beauty is supposed to have a clear form as the form of Beauty. There are a few qualities I think the form of Beauty should contain. Foremost of all, the form of Beauty should contain several cleared definition. All the same, in different with other philosophical forms, Beauty as a strain should not be restrained by logic and statements for the intention of lifting a space allows the artist to express emotions freely. Furthermore, the form of Beauty should not be counted as “property” of any objects, even know many objects might share the “property” from the form of Beauty. The Beauty itself should be instituted as a form which can be abstract out from actual studies and it does not need to be really physically existed.

As much as the first claim, there are also truth values in the second claim. Personally, I prefer the second statement. Still, there are few details I would like to debate. Granted, everybody view artworks based on different judgments. However, in a previous discussion we had admitted that there is an essential function of artworks – to affect people on their emotions. It might create an illusion that beauty is behold under the viewer. But by viewing artworks, the viewer has learned the form of Beauty instead of practice their own beliefs on beautiful. The process of viewing allows the viewer to be more consciously involved with the discovery about the form of Beauty but they did not create or “hold” the form of Beauty “in” them.