We got to the last step this way:
If you say the vase you put in this box that I have not seen is made of clay I will accept that the vase has the inherent property of being made of clay. A certain, shall we say, clay-i-ness. Unless I'm being annoying there is no reason for me to question your judgement on this matter even though I have not seen the vase.
However, if you say the vase is beautiful I won't accept that it has an inherent property called beauty until I have actually seen it. I might think that you have good taste in vases and give the vase the benefit of the doubt, but I will not 100% accept what you say until I have seen the vase with my own eyes and made my own judgement.
If we follow this logic then nothing is inherently beautiful.
1 comment:
The logic doesn't really fit the problem. Everyone knows that beauty is not a standard judgement like, 'how deep is that river?' or 'how tall is he?'.
I think your problem is that you're trying to combine logic with aestetics. It's a bit like saying that the sound of a guitar is a bit like a matchbox. Philosophically interesting, but really quite pointless. Why don't you go and learn some fancy scales on your guitar. At least then you'd be able to play a wanky guitar solo!
R (of RBB)
Post a Comment