Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that The beauty attributed to material objects can be real even though material objects strictly speaking are never beautiful

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Locke's primary/secondary quality distinction entails that attributed properties lacking mind-independent instantiation are merely projected, not real.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If beauty resides only in minds and never in material objects, then calling such attributed beauty 'real' equivocates on 'real' between ontological and functional senses.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A property that is systematically absent from its ostensible subject cannot be coherently said to belong to that subject in any non-trivial sense.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Hutcheson's own account grounds beauty in a disinterested perceptual response to uniformity amidst variety in sensible objects themselves.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the original locus of beauty is mental perfection rather than sensible form, Hutcheson's internal sense theory becomes explanatorily redundant for material perception.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A theory that relocates beauty entirely to signified minds cannot explain why geometrically distinct material objects reliably produce differential aesthetic responses.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Beauty that belongs strictly to minds can be 'transferred' or 'communicated' to the material objects that signify those minds
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Material objects signify minds that possess mental perfections capable of grounding beauty
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.When beauty is communicated from mental signified to material sign, the beauty remains real though it belongs only to the minds
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.