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

In this video, Fr. Gregory answers the question, "Is beauty in the eye of the beholder?"
🔴 PRE-ORDER FR. GREGORY'S NEW BOOK, "PRUDENCE": www.amazon.com...
🔴 GODSPLAINING SUMMER RETREATS: godsplaining.o...
🔴 SPONSORS
Hallow: hallow.app/matt...
STRIVE: www.strive21.com/
Exodus 90: Exoduslent.com/Matt
🔴 GIVING
Patreon or Directly: pintswithaquin...
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
Website: pintswithaquin...
Merch: teespring.com/stores/matt-fradd
FREE 21 Day Detox From Porn Course: www.strive21.com/
🔴 SOCIAL
Facebook: / mattfradd
Twitter: / mattfradd
Instagram: / mattfradd
Gab: gab.com/mattfradd

[@egggmann2000]

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

[@joshjonson2368]

If objective beauty is a thing why did God make certain races more beautiful than others?

[@wasumyon6147]

@@joshjonson2368 why not?

[@joshjonson2368]

@@wasumyon6147 that settles it then lol, god is a indo european supremacist and ensured them to be his finest creations of all time

[@MyMy-tv7fd]

objective beauty is subjectively received, I said that

[@xXXDeadlyHavocXXx]

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

[@xXXDeadlyHavocXXx]

After searching I think it might be "Monasterio de Nuestra Señora de la Asunción "La Cartuja" "

[@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.

[@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.

[@josephmccormick-qv9rs]

Yes. I studied these concepts in my undergrad and we addressed both Fibonacci's number and "Golden Mean" and, in fact, as a designer and photographer I remember my observance "it is difficult to activate a square". So, basically, if you are given a design problem in a square format, you already have a great challenge because it is difficult to "activate" (illuminate, create interest in a square format). The Golden Mean is represented in nature and, I think, in math through the visual of a nautilus shell. Can't recall the example exactly, but I think the proportion is demonstrated in a mathematical ratio. There are some others, as well. In visuals, I believe it is good to have awareness of what effectively seems to be intuitive. As an artist, I cautioned against using such rules as "a formula" to effectively calibrate or calculate ones way to good design. I think this kind of analysis without spontaneity or intuition can create a kind of "woodiness" or preconceived stiffness in producing great art. I feel as though you have to be aware, but you have to work with the muse, with the spirit, as they say "happy accidents". Desperately needing another cup of coffee. Thanks for taking me all the way back to '86 and my sophomore Intro to Design Class.

[@mattharazin5578]

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

[@beyond0077]

nicely said.

[@pawepalczynski5621]

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.

[@PattyBee]

This reminds me of the language that Jonathan Pageau uses to address this

[@christopherconey732]

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 :)

[@karenmcd333]

This was excellent!

[@RicardoGarcia-ib8ro]

@@TheVeganVicar Because connects beauty with being. As being is the basis of what it is, so any understanding has to incorporate a fundamental relationship with it. Do deny its "procession" from the good and being, is to deny its existence at all. Connects the role of the intellect in the contemplation of beauty and for this reason most pleasing things are seen.

[@RicardoGarcia-ib8ro]

@@TheVeganVicar That claim is kind of a dogmatic irrational statement, that it is self defeating. Look at this extension of your thought to another practical realm: "If things are relative let's torture animals, for the subjective pleasure of it, after all it is just relative. It's not objectively wrong anyways"

[@Tzimiskes3506]

@@TheVeganVicar your statement isn't...

[@jaroslavkorbel8385]

Good and bad, just as right and wrong, are not relative. What we call good and bad are morally and instinctively set axioms that exist independently of our reasoning. The actions that people take are then relative to the good and the bad, and the right and the wrong. This is the very same concept that fr Pine is explaining in this very video about beauty. Beauty exists independently of the observer, but then to the observer beauty may be relative to their experience or memories, to give examples.

[@Tzimiskes3506]

@@TheVeganVicar are you?

[@itazenin]

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

[@edinnm8212]

This was truly a beautiful video.

[@dynamic9016]

Really appreciate this video.

[@BlessedisShe]

Thank you!

[@charmendro]

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

[@josephmccormick-qv9rs]

Yes. My head hurts a little. Can we go back to the part just after "Hi, I'm Father Gregory Pine".

[@theresaherfindahl5781]

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....

[@gch8810]

What pleases you is not always what is beautiful. As sin can please, and is definitely not beautiful.

[@josephmccormick-qv9rs]

...but if something is sin it can not be good or true, therefore it also can not be beautiful. Pornography may involve bodies that would otherwise be spectacular or pleasing to view and observe, but if the body is engaged in something that is not good or wholesome or just, then it can not be viewed as beautiful and, in fact, it is the definition of "perversion", a thing which is otherwise good or true or beautiful, but used with false pretense.🤔

[@TheJmlew11]

This needs more views

[@1124spawn]

I'm in class rn

[@santiagoandrespriegue7033]

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

[@williamcabell142]

That’s a grey area! 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@antoniomoyal]

Very good summary

[@happiness9752]

Does God love me if I'm gay?

[@gch8810]

He loves you. But he does not love your sinful desires and actions. Homosexuality is a serious sin. Yet, there is freedom from it in Christ. But achieving that freedom is not necessarily easy.

[@clare-annfransen]

Well i know that God loves me even though i'm a sinner. I have no doubt He loves you too. More than you will ever know... Or at least not until you feel his loving embrace in heaven. One that he cant wait to give you. But he cant force his embrace on us if we choose to reject him. That's the thing... He loves us so much that he made us free... Free even to reject him

[@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?

[@watermelontreeofknowledge8682]

Wholeness and symmetry are prima facie beautiful, I think your rejection of them as beautiful are inauthentic. This is plainly an understanding of everyone’s lived experience. If you want to go deeper through epistemology to examine beauty and reject classicism on this subject, you have the burden of proof.

[@aclark903]

@@carolynkimberly4021 In the art market, some paintings are more valuable than others. I think most Catholics would have some issues with some modern art, but even some traditional art can be immodest. Some Popes collected or were patrons...

[@saizer8056]

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.

[@javajoe5124]

A historical view of beauty, which is totally comprised of social constructs of the past informing the present and future, holds many examples of objectivity. for example, architecturally you see hexagons used in the construction of beautiful buildings all over the world. In art, use of the natural world, whether its flowers or the human body, is universally exhibited in every culture. If subjectivity determined beauty, this consistency across cultures, religious or not, would not exist. Beauty is perceived order, and that order is objective, therefore beauty is too. When there are disputes on what is beautiful, it is actually one person not seeing the order that another sees. For example, mathematics definitely has an objective order. To a mathematician, or anyone with a mind open to see the order, it is beautiful because they perceive its order. To someone who hates math or is too lazy to study it, math is terrible and ugly. However, those two perceptions do not change the objectivity of mathematics.

[@gch8810]

It’s pretty weird that you think that beauty is subjective. Viewing beauty as objective might be “outdated,” but that doesn’t mean that it is not true.

[@gch8810]

Of course you like Hasan Piker.

[@saizer8056]

@@gch8810 It is an outdated view, but that is not the reason why I believe beauty is subjective.

[@gch8810]

@@saizer8056 Based on your response it seems like your primary objection to beauty being objective is because you think it is primitive and outdated. The fact of the matter is, many who think beauty is subjective, like yourself, have never been out of their 21st century, post-enlightenment, postmodern, secular bubble. This therefore causes many to never even consider that beauty is objective. Which it most surely is.