A Defense of the Objectivity of Beauty

Our website: www.justandsinn...
This talk was given at the Cornell Political Union on the subject of the objectivity of beauty. In this talk, I present the case that beauty is, indeed, objective.

[@kjhg323]

Aquinas: "Beauty and goodness in a thing are identical fundamentally; for they are based upon the same thing, namely, the form; and consequently goodness is praised as beauty. But they differ logically, for goodness properly relates to the appetite (goodness being what all things desire); and therefore it has the aspect of an end (the appetite being a kind of movement towards a thing). On the other hand, beauty relates to the cognitive faculty; for beautiful things are those which please when seen." Goodness and beauty are the same thing. We just think about "goodness" when thinking about a purpose or final cause, and "beauty" when something is experienced and understood. People who reject the objectivity of beauty are also rejecting the objectivity of goodness. Any sane person recognizes the absurdity of rejecting the objectivity of goodness, but for some reason people often reject the objectivity of beauty.

[@jeffb1275]

Wow, a very thought-provoking argument indeed. As confused as our society may be, Dr. Cooper persuades me that we are even more ignorant of beauty than we are of truth or goodness. Unrelated: I watched a year-old Just and Sinner video in which Dr Cooper explained his reluctance to discuss his personal life and past, rather than issues. I support that decision. This isn't about being Facebook "friends". We do not have to like each other or know much about each other. But we do need to think clearly if we're going to be relevant, and he can help us get there.

[@chowyee5049]

Just a thought about the high vs pop culture dichotomy here. The Chosen thrives exactly because it was conceived quite blatantly as pop culture. The characters talk like modern people and crack jokes that only work in English. But that's exactly what makes the show so relatable and accessible. Pop culture simply works as an evangelization tool in ways that high culture doesn't.

[@vngelicath1580]

I think that's true generally, but part of that is due to consumerist populism. Pop culture has wider reach (whether or not it should is another question entirely). Pop is great bc it targets the lowest common denominator and thus the broadest possible reach. Folk culture would achieve a similar result if it wasn't for the fact that pop is flashier.

[@anyanyanyanyanyany3551]

Great talk, Dr. Cooper. Wished you would have touched more on music, since it affects not only our normal lives, but also the way we worship. I still wonder what make classical music compositions like Handel's Messiah, Beethoven's Ode to Joy, or Mozart's Eine kleine Nachtmusik, to mention a few, so pleasing and angelic compared to contemporary music.

[@sieko775]

There is literature on this within the classical music fields (as I'm somewhat within these areas if study). One must take into account the very real religious aspect of music as all of the great conposers were in some way religious (with few exceptions). Men like Mozart, Handel, Bach, monterverdi, Palestrina, etc. A philosophy has been brought to popularity, and it goes something like this: music is an extension of the soul, the universal language that we all speak. It expresses things that words can't entirely encapsulate and thus is seen in a much more powerful manner than mere words.

[@mariapiano6745]

​@@sieko775 Could you suggest books on this subject? I'm a professional musician and I'm currently exploring matters of faith.

[@collettewhitney2141]

@dr jorden Cooper. I really enjoyed this speech. And excellent talking points ✝️🙏

[@aleckim9337]

The Heros Jurney I believe to be one of the greatest examples of objective beauty there is

[@dubbelkastrull]

33:26 bookmark

[@pat1442]

I think there is a problem with this argument. I think someone could rebut that this distinction between personal taste and "objective" beauty is actually a distinction between personal taste and socially constructed standards of beauty, and /or a recognition of collective taste. I'd have to think about it more but I think that critique would stick, and I think the reason is that you are still grounding beauty in being aesthetically pleasing to the senses. It seems all your appeals are to things that can be recognized as aesthetically pleasing on a collective or societal level, despite personal taste. I reject any definition of beauty tied to aesthetic appeal. Jesus being stripped naked, maimed, and hung on a cross to die a miserable death. Is not aesthetically pleasing, it's the opposite, its painful to look at, but it's the single most beautiful display that ever took place in creation. Separating it a degree from Christ, imagine the scene of Mother Theresa in the slums of India feeding beans or something to a poor starving dirty homeless Indian child. It's not anywhere near as aesthetically pleasing as a performance of the nutcracker, or a royal wedding, but so much more beautiful. Another degree from Christianity would be a sleep deprived mother breastfeeding her child at 3am. Not as pleasing a sight as an actress on the red carpet showcasing her dress, but more beautiful. Into the realm of art, a fathers day card from your daughter featuring a picture she spent an hour drawing for you is much more beautiful than if she commissioned a classically trained artist to paint the same scene. This is all because beauty has nothing to do with a aesthetics, which are in fact subjective, and everything to do with a sensory experience of the Good. Which is love. Which is sacrificial by nature and as a result often unpleasant on a surface level. Only when one comes to appreciate the good as such can they then experience a sensory pleasure. If a stranger saw your daughter's drawing on your fathers day card out of context they would be right to critique it for its lack of skill, and lack of universal aesthetic appeal. However, if they came to understand the drawing was made out of love, and that your daughter sacrificed an hour of her time to try her best to draw you a picture for Father's day they would rightly call it beautiful. Many of the Romans would have seen the crucifixion as a grotesque and unpleasant scene. In fact, part of the motivation of a public crucifixion is people's natural aversion to it as an unpleasant sight to act as a deterrent from crime. There was no universal objective aesthetic appeal of the crucifixion, if anything it's the opposite. Only in the context of Christ's sacrificial act of love does the scene become beautiful, while not becoming any less aesthetically unpleasant. This is why the most expertly crafted pieces of blasphemous art are ugly despite their otherwise objective universal aesthetic appeal. I'm sure we all have the experience of enjoying a song, or even going as far as to compliment the objective skill of the artist or composer, until we find out about the blasphemous undertones and rightly recognize the song as ugly. A similar thing with porn. These are expert videographers, actors, make up artists, models, with immense skill crafting a piece of art which has a universal and objective sensory appeal, yet we rightly call it ugly.

[@jeffb1275]

Your view of beauty seems to focus on contrast and meaning, perhaps even irony, while Dr Cooper focuses on harmony and aesthetics. You see beauty in sacrifice and goodness, whereas Dr Cooper differentiates beauty from goodness and truth (at least, he apparently does, based on his book title). Maybe you say that goodness is beauty? It's a different understanding of beauty, and it's hard to wrap my head around the difference. To borrow your phrase, I'd have to think about it more. And it might be worth it to do so.

[@pat1442]

@@jeffb1275 Yeah, in my view, beauty and goodness consist in the same object, and what is good is beautiful, and what is beautiful is good. However the two terms differ not in what they describe, but what their function is, how they describe the object, and/or what my response is. The good relates to the will or the moral nature of a thing, and beauty relates to the sensory or cognitive experience of a thing. So, Mother Theresa feeding the hungry is good because it's a moral action, it is a part of the will of God, and my will desires the good in some way, whether to experience, celebrate, participate, reverence, bring about more of it etc. Mother Theresa feeding the hungry is beautiful insofar as the goodness of it is manifest or experienced in the senses and cognition. St. Thomas has an article on it, if you want to read more from someone smarter and more eloquent and precise than me. I am sharing his view more or less, despite having a slightly different view of the good and the will from St. Thomas. I think the only way Dr. Cooper could make his case is saying that what is beautiful is what reflects some aspect of God, who is goodness and beauty itself, and to which mankind universally and objectively enjoys instinctively. That's where I thought he was going when he was talking about setting things in threes, the importance of unity etc. But he didnt take it there. Maybe this was meant to be a secular argument, and maybe he would take it there if it wasnt. However, I think rounding out the argument in that way still doesnt work. I don't think threeness has an objective beauty, I think the threeness of God is beautiful as a result of being a part of the goodness of God, and being a cognitively intelligible as pect of God's goodness we can experience. So threes, harmony, unity, etc. Still wouldnt be objectively beautiful, because they arent intrinsically beautiful, only beautiful as they are a apart of the goodness of God. The argument would also not be satisfactory for the same reasons I gave before about these aspects of God, like the Cruxifiction, or reflections of Gods love like the fathers day card being by any objective measure being aesthetically unpleasant.

[@thefuckinglindo]

Que mané problema, meu caro. O argumento do mano jordera da barba ruiva foi perfeito.

[@scythermantis]

I actually completely agree with you and I think Dr. Cooper's Conservatism influences him quite a bit.

[@pat1442]

@@scythermantis yeah I agree. I think a lot of JBC type conservatives see modernity as not only an attack on Christianity but also an attack on Classical thought and culture, and feel a need to defend Aristotle and Plato along with defending Christ from modernity. I think modernity doesnt have to be a full scale attack on tradition, we can just see it as an attack on Christianity and concede that modern philosophical ideas of aesthetics for example are better than Plato and Aristotle's, without conceding that a beauty transcendent of aesthetics is still objective. I see a similar thing with epistemology. As Christians We dont have to lay down the hammer on anything that isnt classical foundationalism. We can recognize Hume, Kant, Husserel, Nitcheze etc. had some accurate and important things to say we can nuance our epistemology with.

[@sammuhho8632]

I disagree. Consider sexual attraction. Some individuals may not be appealing to some but mesmerizing to others. Beauty is not inherently objective as its own distinct entity but a particular manifestation of subjectivity derived from an objective, transcendent reality which is love.

[@MeanBeanComedy]

You didn't even watch the video. 🙄🙄🙄

[@thefuckinglindo]

Boa jordera, defende aí essa parada, tamo junto meu camarada

[@aleckim9337]

Br aq q foda