30 Nov 07
Originally posted by vistesd“Beauty is as relative as light and dark. Thus, there exists no beautiful woman, none at all, because you are never certain that a still far more beautiful woman will not appear and completely shame the supposed beauty of the first.” Paul Klee
My wife is the most beautiful woman in the world.
30 Nov 07
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageAnd even then it only applies to one observer.(ie beauty is subjective as well as relative).
“Beauty is as relative as light and dark. Thus, there exists no beautiful woman, none at all, because you are never certain that a still far more beautiful woman will not appear and completely shame the supposed beauty of the first.” Paul Klee
In fact there is such a thing as absolute darkness, I am not so sure about absolute light. Washing powder advertisers claim to have got shirts 'whiter than white' and the next month they are 'whiter than ever' then 'twice as white' and so on.
And then there are different types of beauty......
30 Nov 07
Originally posted by epiphinehasFair enough, but regarding this question of the subjectiveness/objectiveness of truth and sticking with the theme of this thread... my wife's beauty cannot, I think, be said to be "objectively" true in the sense of their being a universal, agreed upon standard. However, through my own experience, I know the statement "My wife is beautiful" to be true, as strongly as I know anything. With this in mind, how can truth be purely objective?
If truth is subjectively arbitrary, then the beauty analogy would be accurate. But if truth is objective, then the beauty analogy falls short.
30 Nov 07
3 edits
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI'm not married, but I know a little something about hot babes. And I would say that it is important not to fall into the trap of thinking about beauty in terms of degrees. Just because we say that one woman is more beautiful than another doesn't imply that the two of them are on some sort of scale (there is no actual hotness thermometer). I'd say that there are entirely different types of beauty.
“Beauty is as relative as light and dark. Thus, there exists no beautiful woman, none at all, because you are never certain that a still far more beautiful woman will not appear and completely shame the supposed beauty of the first.” Paul Klee
I might say that one woman is beautiful because she has the bluest eyes. (You can use any other superlative adjective and noun combination.) But the second woman is beautiful perhaps because her brown hair looks perfect with her brown eyes. (Or any other combination of features.) These two Beauties are different. Why couldn't you, therefore, have more than one "most beautiful woman in the world"?
I also don't think that beauty is subjective, but more on that later if it comes up...
30 Nov 07
Originally posted by castlerookI disagree. The truth of Christianity is not in it's beauty but in it's objective factual basis. Christ will either come back one day to judge the world or he won't. He was ressurected or he wasn't. If Christianity is the truth then one day we will all know it and it will not be a matter of debate.
But, I think the whole point here (though some may disagree with it) is that the truth of religion is much more like the truth of your wife's beauty than like an objective fact.
I quite agree with everything else you said in this post, though again I conceive of "Christianity's truth" as described above.
CS Lewis said that on that day there will be those who find God the most untterly beautiful thing imaginable and those who find him terrifying.
St Paul also pointed out that if Christ is not risen then we are fools to be christians. Christianity makes no sense at all if one just believes it is a bit more beautiful than another religion.
01 Dec 07
Epiphenehas and knightmeister have, I think, raised the bar here with moving to the question of objective truth. I think it raises two questions:
(1) Can any religion have an aesthetic validity, even, say, if one takes all its stories as metaphorical, allegorical, symbolical? (I’ll leave the question of defining that word “aesthetic” open, but basically I mean something like, can a religion be more like Beethoven that like biology, and accepted as such?)
(2) If there is objective truth, what are the objective criteria by which we can judge one another’s truth claims?
It seems to me that that second one is at the root of many of the arguments on here.
01 Dec 07
Originally posted by vistesdI took the analogy to refer to the personal experience or connection people have with their belief/faith. For example, [say] a Christian doesn't just believe because some books told him to do so; he feels that he has a personal relationship with Jesus.
Epiphenehas and knightmeister have, I think, raised the bar here with moving to the question of objective truth. I think it raises two questions:
(1) Can any religion have an aesthetic validity, even, say, if one takes all its stories as metaphorical, allegorical, symbolical? (I’ll leave the question of defining that word “aesthetic” open, but basicall ...[text shortened]... claims?
It seems to me that that second one is at the root of many of the arguments on here.
Your analogy reminded me of what KM said to me in another thread: If I knew the Jesus that he knew, I would not have given up my faith. His description of his experience was far more specific than anything found in the bible.
The closest experience I have to that is the feeling of liberation and freedom I felt when releasing myself from my former faith. It was like a great barrier between myself and reality was removed. But the difficulty in comparing our experiences is clear. If we are characters in your analogy, I married a brunette and he married a blonde. To add an analogy of my own, it's like arguing over the best music of all time when one likes rap and the other likes country.
01 Dec 07
Originally posted by SwissGambitYour analogy reminded me of what KM said to me in another thread: If I knew the Jesus that he knew, I would not have given up my faith. His description of his experience was far more specific than anything found in the bible.
I took the analogy to refer to the personal experience or connection people have with their belief/faith. For example, [say] a Christian doesn't just believe because some books told him to do so; he feels that he has a personal relationship with Jesus.
Your analogy reminded me of what KM said to me in another thread: If I knew the Jesus that he knew, ...[text shortened]... s like arguing over the best music of all time when one likes rap and the other likes country.
The closest experience I have to that is the feeling of liberation and freedom I felt when releasing myself from my former faith.
-------------swiss------------
I'm sure God was overjoyed when you left your "former faith" because it sounds like it was ensnaring you in guilt and fear.
As for the Bible and experiences , Paul does talk about the "length , breadth , and depth of the love that is in Christ Jesus" but you are right. There's no substitute for personal experience.
01 Dec 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterAs I said, some may disagree... I respect your position and can only say that my own experience differs.
I disagree. The truth of Christianity is not in it's beauty but in it's objective factual basis. Christ will either come back one day to judge the world or he won't. He was ressurected or he wasn't. If Christianity is the truth then one day we will all know it and it will not be a matter of debate.
CS Lewis said that on that day there will be those ...[text shortened]... makes no sense at all if one just believes it is a bit more beautiful than another religion.
"Beauty is truth, truth beauty,—that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know."
--John Keats, "Ode on a Grecian Urn"
01 Dec 07
Originally posted by vistesdI'll speak only to the first question and say, in my experience, yes.
Epiphenehas and knightmeister have, I think, raised the bar here with moving to the question of objective truth. I think it raises two questions:
(1) Can any religion have an aesthetic validity, even, say, if one takes all its stories as metaphorical, allegorical, symbolical? (I’ll leave the question of defining that word “aesthetic” open, but basicall ...[text shortened]... claims?
It seems to me that that second one is at the root of many of the arguments on here.