philosophical question- beauty & intelligence

[evespikey]

*boom* New topic. The question?

Are people with highly developed senses (sight, hearing, touch, taste, smell AND intelligence- a highly developed brain) able to appreciate a wider range of aesthetics than those people who lack slightly any of these senses?

And- yes, aesthetics are subjective.
(The word aesthetic= "concerning the appreciation of beauty"- dictionary.com)
However, what I would like to argue is that people with higher intellience have the capacity to appreciate a wider range of aesthetics. It really doesn't matter what we personally believe aesthetics are. An example of this would be a professor in a university and someone who is mentally disabled (with a medical condition) watching a sunrise. They both agree it is beautiful. Then they are handed Hamlet by Shakespeare. The professor reads it, and waxes at great length about how Shakespeare was an intelligent man, how the play is profound, how it is enjoyed in society today. The other person, with the mental disability, cannot even read the play.

Discussion, anyone?

EDIT: Dix Infernal gets a cookie because she requested it. *throws cookies at this thread*

 

[Dix Infernal]

Sadly, philosophy is not my forte, but...

Personally, I believe that both can appreciate aesthetics equally. It doesn't matter how intellectual you are or how disabled you may be.
Take your sunset scenario- The professor could see it and say that it is beautiful. He could describe the colors, the positioning of the sun, and wax on the beauty of the sky. The mentally disabled man could see it, and though he may not be able to speak as eloquently as the professor, he could still feel/sense the beauty behind it.
The disabled man is just as able to appreciate beauty as the intelligent one- he may not be able to read Hamlet or understand its depth, but if he was shown beauty in a different media, he could see/understand it. If a severely disabled man sees a flower, he may not be able to describe the color, the petals, or the part of life it represents. Yet, he can still feel and understand the aesthetics of it- he just would not be able to verbally express it like the professor could.

In short, my opinion is that the appreciation of aethetics is a very basic thing- it is something that all living beings have. Some may be able to recite sonnets about it and others may only be able to say that it's 'pretty.' Either way, the appreciation of beauty is something that, no matter what level of refinement, we all share. No matter what you may term 'beauty' to be- we can all appreciate it equally, no matter what it is. A professor and a disabled man have the same range or appreciation.

Ooo... I typed an intelligent post. Do I get a cookie?

 

[Seventh Arm]

Your original example was with more or less educated people - not disabled/fully functioning people. I think the wording is quite important with this question.

In this new instance you're probably right - the disabled person can't read shakespere, and therefore can't really appreciate it (unless he or she watches the numerous shitty films) but that's not so much of a philosophical question to me...

 

[flowersofnight]

Some types of aesthetics are more specialized than others. Often the appreciation of the workmanship or technique in something is as important as just seeing it.

Example: in mathematics, a particularly clever or efficient proof is often considered beautiful. But if you don't understand what it's about or how the techniques used make it special, it'll mean nothing to you.

 

[Kyuketsuki]

I have the, I don't know if you'd call it a gift, but the ability to hear things in a higher range than most other people. It's usually electricity-related, though. For instance, if I'm down stairs in my house, cut off from all noises, I can hear if a TV is turned on upstairs because I can hear the power surge it gives when someone turns it on. It's actually a big nuisance, because some of the sounds are so piercing that I just want to go dig a hole in the ground and bury myself in it to try and filter it out. We've got a really bad tv in a room next to mine, and I hate it when someone gets up in the middle of the night and turns it on because it *always* wakes me up.

As far as apprieciation for the aesthetic goes in the uber-senses department, I'd have to say that it doesn't make a bit of difference, other than that things, such as sounds, might be a little easier to focus on as far as individual parts of the instruments goes. It's really just annoying, to tell the truth.

~ketsu

 

[evespikey]

the appreciation of aethetics is a very basic thing- it is something that all living beings have

Yes, I agree with you on that, and so did the philosopher F.R.Tennant (1800s).
However, this might sound a little harsh but I think people with hightened senses can appreciate beauty more because they can appreciate it in more ways than a person with less hightened senses can. Of course this stands upon the premise that you appreciate something more if you can experience it in different ways. In the values of western society today this premise seems to be becoming more and more important.

Your original example was with more or less educated people - not disabled/fully functioning people. I think the wording is quite important with this question.

Yes, I changed the wording because it wasn't conveying quite what I meant, sorry about that. It's a different discussion I suppose, which I would quite like to also participate in.

Example: in mathematics, a particularly clever or efficient proof is often considered beautiful. But if you don't understand what it's about or how the techniques used make it special, it'll mean nothing to you.

Yes, exactly. Therefore people who do understand it are able to appreciate a different type of beauty that people who don't understand it can't. (Bad sentance wording there). They can appreciate something beautiful that other people can't.

 

[flowersofnight]

On the other hand, I'd also argue that being able to sense something with your physical senses isn't so important as long as you can understand it. After all, your understanding is all that remains after you're no longer physically experiencing something.

If it was a matter of having an "extra" sense I would give it more importance, but "heightened" senses, not so much. Would it really make that much difference if you could hear sounds a few kilohertz higher than most humans, or if you could see wavelengths slightly deeper into infrared or ultraviolet? You could still get the general point of art using those features, or even create a version that would help you to understand it using the senses you have.

 

[Kyuketsuki]

Would it really make that much difference if you could hear sounds a few kilohertz higher than most humans, or if you could see wavelengths slightly deeper into infrared or ultraviolet? You could still get the general point of art using those features, or even create a version that would help you to understand it using the senses you have.

Right. If anything, it could possibly distract from the art itself by adding an element that isn't intended to be there, thus taking away the original intent of the art.

~ketsu

 

[Wandering_Fox]

And also, there is a certain beauty in discovery. Say you are learning a new language, and you run across the phrase 今日は雨ですね。 If it's at the begining, you might be very frustrated looking at it because you don't understand how to read it, and even if you knew it said "kyou wa ame desu ne", what good does that do you if you don't know what any of the words mean? But as soon as you know the words and grammer and how it's all put together, you realize it just says "Today is rainy, isn't it?" and there's a certain satisfaction in the discovery of something like that.

 

[evespikey]

On the other hand, I'd also argue that being able to sense something with your physical senses isn't so important as long as you can understand it. After all, your understanding is all that remains after you're no longer physically experiencing something.

Are you saying physical experience isn't important unless you can express your understanding of the experience afterwards?
So people who are able to express experiences are superior than people who aren't able to?

Would it really make that much difference if you could hear sounds a few kilohertz higher than most humans, or if you could see wavelengths slightly deeper into infrared or ultraviolet? You could still get the general point of art using those features, or even create a version that would help you to understand it using the senses you have.

Well, no, I guess it wouldn't make that much difference, like Ketsu said. I guess it depends how heigtened your senses are.

 

[flowersofnight]

Are you saying physical experience isn't important unless you can express your understanding of the experience afterwards?
So people who are able to express experiences are superior than people who aren't able to?

Doesn't matter if you can express it, just if you can understand it. Your experience of things comes from the understanding you get from the senses, not the actual act of sensing. So if you can 'get the gist of it' one way or another, I think that's good enough.

Well, no, I guess it wouldn't make that much difference, like Ketsu said. I guess it depends how heigtened your senses are.

I think it wouldn't make a difference unless it really was a totally different kind of sense.

 

[faith]

....I think there's a higher correlation between creativity and aesthetic appreciation, and since there seems to be a higher instance of creative, intelligent people than not, I do think intelligence factors into appreciation of beauty.

Since aesthetics is so subjective, maybe the only way to be more attuned is to see it in more things (as you've said). Someone who can look at a hallway and go, "oooooh....that shadow over there is pretty!" is going to see more beauty in the world then someone who sees it and goes, "hallway."

But I dunno. It might make an interesting study, if anyone could actually ever define who's more aesthetically tuned to begin with.

EDT: There's also exposure. I find "William's Mix" beautiful now. 3 months ago I considered it useless noise.

 

[ambient]

I was goin g to say yes to the question..But...
Look at the mind of a child. Look at how in awe they can be when they look at something..Wide eyes and in awe. so.. I would say both could be.. I think we all could be if we took the time to appreciate things..

 

[navate]

I'm not up to a hardcore philosophical discussion at the present because I have a raging headache, but in short: yes, I think people with education have a wider range of aesthetic sense. Anyone can appreciate beauty, but it requires training to appreciate other types of beauty and skill.

I'm saying this because I'm a painter, but I have a lot of photographer friends. I'm not talking casual photography--this is intense. professional stuff they do. Even with my training as a 2D artist, I am unable to appreciate some of the things they do with their cameras because I don't understand how it works. There is an incredible distance between what the photographers can appreciate in other people's photos and what the causal onlooker--such as myself--can appreciate. I'll look through their threads and be impressed with colors, composition, that sort of thing. But then I'll the other photographers come in and ALL pick out one photo I had completely bypassed and rave over it, demanding to know what the lighting setup was, what the exposure length was, the lens used, the metering... it's so intense how much stuff is involved in photography I can't understand because I'm not a photographer. Lately I've been tried to understand why things are so much more impressive than others. It's been very interesting, stepping out of my drawing/painting niche.

So, I guess what I'm getting at is that someone without educational background/specific training can casually appreciate things on an aesthetic level, but it takes being familiar with whatever the subject it to be able to appreciate the technique and work that went into it. This, of course, assumes that being able to appreciate something on a technical level enhances its aesthetic appeal... which for me, it does. It's the difference between something being pretty, and knowing why it's pretty and what was done to make it pretty. It's not to say people without training can't enjoy things… but those with training being able to appreciate things on a different level.

Resident art snob signing out.

 

[Orchid]

I think people with education have a wider range of aesthetic sense. Anyone can appreciate beauty, but it requires training to appreciate other types of beauty and skill.

I'm not in any position to think of much to say, either; I've got a nasty cold, and that's why I've been staying out of this thread, but...I'd like to just comment on the above statement, negating everything else: Education and intelligence are two entirely separate things. Maybe when we're both feeling better, we can debate a little. XD

 

[Seventh Arm]

I'm not entirely sure that's true. Take a newborn child - could it appreciate art of any sort? I'd argue no. But with education we acquire the skills necessary to contextualise our experience.

Education doesn't have to be formal - in a school or university, it happens through basic human interaction.

I also am in no fit state to be here - having just spent the last two days in a very heated debate about animals level of awareness and if animals can 'suffer'. I came here to get a break, since I'm kidn of burned out. I just can't stop myself.

 

[faith]

...babies are stupid. But I think anyone can appreciate colors (or varying degrees of black and white) as long as they're sentient beings.

navate:...but that sounds like constructed aestheticism. By the same stroke, you could say ability to refer back to certain things in a genre creates beauty then.

For example, in E-typ (Dada's 1st band), I'm pretty sure the composer used Steve Reight's "Electronic Counterpoint" in the beginning of Lady Meister. If not, he at least copied it. And I, knowing that he was actually serious about electronic music, somehow saw the song on a completely different aesthetic level and started taking him seriously. (the 4th sound sample)

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00000 ... l&v=glance

I also appreciate those flash things for the same reason.

I'm a little confused now as to what, exactly, we mean by "aesthetics"

 

[Seventh Arm]

...babies are stupid.

I love you.
What I was getting at is the fact that one does....

I have no idea what I was saying. I'm sorry, I think my brain fell out. I really shouldn't be here right now.

But I think anyone can appreciate colors (or varying degrees of black and white) as long as they're sentient beings.

Do you differentiate between sentience and self-awareness?

 

[navate]

I think people with education have a wider range of aesthetic sense. Anyone can appreciate beauty, but it requires training to appreciate other types of beauty and skill.

I'm not in any position to think of much to say, either; I've got a nasty cold, and that's why I've been staying out of this thread, but...I'd like to just comment on the above statement, negating everything else: Education and intelligence are two entirely separate things. Maybe when we're both feeling better, we can debate a little. XD

Well, I thought it sort of went without saying that to be educated, one must have intelligence... and the more intelligence one possessed, the more education one can acquire, and therefore the more they can appreciate these things. And also there are different kinds of intelligence which vary--and limit--different people. I, for instance, would never be able to appreciate the beauty of a mathematical proof because my mathematic intelligence is terrible. For whatever reason, I am unable to grasp numerically based logic. So I also believe it works the other way around: some people might simply lack the capacity/intelligence to appreciate painting, music, design. Doesn't mean they are all-over stupid or uneducated, but it's still a limit based on one's ability of comprehension--and thus, aesthetic appreciation.

Of course there is the matter of being born with different or inferior or heightened senses... a colorblind person can appreciate beauty, but not at the same level as someone who can see the full spectrum. (Not to say they have a lesser level of appreciation--just different.) Another point goes into what Flowers brought up about ultraviolet and infrared. Some people can see parts of these spectrums because their eyes were built differently. They live in a very different world, able to see a person's "aura"/heat energy. Whether that makes things more or less beautiful is entirely subjective; the fact that is alters their degree of appreciation in some way, however, is undeniable.

In any case, I interperted the question to be whether aesthetics were universally appreciated or if training/comprehension/familiarity was required to appreciate things on different levels. To which I say yes. If the point of thread has completely bypassed me, I apologize. I'll stay out until my brain is less mushy.

 

[Jursie]

Are people with highly developed senses (sight, hearing, touch, taste, smell AND intelligence- a highly developed brain) able to appreciate a wider range of aesthetics than those people who lack slightly any of these senses?

Probably, because the amount of sensory input is much greater than those who have weakened senses / intelligence.

The only place I see that there is a problem are those people who HAVE those senses developed and the INTELLIGENCE, but are not articulate enough in order to get their point across.