To understand true beauty is sometimes difficult although choosing an artistic way of thinking can help understand beauty where consideration is on item of interest. This brings the sense that to feel beauty, it should exist in thought or theory that does not always involve the body through sight and sound hence disembodied. If beauty takes an abstract form where it is just for the sake of whatever is in consideration, there is no mutual benefits to derive from experiencing beauty. However, contradictions arise when there is concern about experiencing beauty because not only the people who can see and hear can experience beauty, but also the deaf and blind meaning they can experience it through their thoughts (non-perceivable experiences) (Parsons 35). In addition, beauty is subjective and its interpretation will depend on different people where the mental analysis works to create a reliable description of the complicated consciousness and many abilities to perceive. Therefore, this paper shows that beauty as a disinterested, disembodied pleasure, it fails to distinguish between beautiful things and jokes.
From the definition of beauty as a disinterested, disembodied pleasure, beauty is nothing more than just abstract perspective because the item on consideration cannot offer more than the practical favorable factors meaning such a consideration about beauty exclude a lot about the reality of beauty. The fact that sight and sound provides much information people perceive does not mean if they are lost, a person cannot experience beauty, nature takes its course and the victims has alternative way to experience beauty such as through smell that takes its course naturally with time.
The past of an object constitutes a lot to its beauty therefore it is important to understand the history of an object to clearly understand and experience its beauty and it is obviously that failing to put consideration on how the constitution of an object is, then one fails to narrow down to the true beauty about an object. It is the way that different people experience beauty, which determines how they understand beauty. Beauty has a written past and each person has a unique thinking and interpreting about the history of the object.
Considering beauty in abstract perspective, this fails to consider the distinct rights and wrongs of an object. It is thus important to understand the advantages and disadvantages of an object to determine whether it is beautiful or not and thus some people can dismiss something beautiful by taking an abstract perspective that eliminates the basis of its advantages and a disadvantage eventually concluding the object is not beautiful. Another person considering the finer details about advantages and disadvantages of an object can better understand its beauty. People experience beauty in disinterested disembodied satisfaction do “irrespective of any feeling to prefer it” (Mills, “Mills test for the relative quality of pleasure”) fail to consider the good or the bad characters of the object. In addition, comparisons help perfection about the way people experience beauty thus, perfection through comparison helps distinguish the true meaning about beauty. “Comparison gives… a more just estimation of the merits of any particular thing” (Parsons 42). Observing the way things/objects differ will allow experiencing beauty in more uniquely manner narrowed down to the good and bad aspects of an object.
Truth describes beauty, thus if beauty as disinterested, disembodied pleasure, displays a casual description that does not value the reality of an object. The undertaking of object relations offers different methods that help to understand more about what lies beyond the abstract figure: the truth and worth. It is obviously then that “beautiful and beauty are distinguished with respect to participation and participants” (Eco and Bredin 27) interaction to express the way an object compares to the divine beauty. The participation of an object will present the beauty found in it, which is much more than being solely reproduced by just the eye and the mind.
The definition is broad because not everything that people perceive through seeing, hearing is always beautiful. Whatever is beautiful to one person might not be beautiful to someone else who can neither see nor hear. To different people, the mutual benefit about something is what describes beauty to their instinctive individual experiences. People feel pleased sometimes not because of that the object looks beautiful but because it means a lot to their souls (Parsons 32). When experiencing a certain difficulty, whatever relieves such difficult might not be beautiful at a first glance to other people like might appear to the victim. Some people consider something is beautiful without putting all aspects of senses in to question showing how description of beauty as with disinterest and disembodied satisfaction, just for the sake of it and not the significance of the feeling to come fails to distinguish the beautiful things from those that are of unreasonable beauty. Thus, not all-pleasing experience is beautiful but an agreeable experience or pleasantness can be beautiful.
Lack of experience about something means that one cannot distinguish what beautiful is like because they are not true judges who have the capacity better than the ordinary person on a particular aspect to considering a wide variety of things from which such comparisons narrows down to what is beautiful about a certain object: aim and purpose of the object. This brings thee prior subject of history where comparisons of the past and the current distinguishes the advantages and disadvantages about the aspects of an object to justify its beauty.
Jokes are pleasing to the ear showing a way of appreciating beauty. Disinterested, disembodiment satisfaction beauty does not consider such feelings as beautiful but as peculiar. Such a generous description fails to consider the sensitivity of beauty. Whatever is beautiful is worthy having considering the good objects. It has its distinct characteristics such as ratio that show the universal appeal displaying and helping to perceive beauty. Therefore, “judgment of beauty must be based on a universal feature of the mind, as no personal concerns are involved” (Gaut and Lopes 232). There should be specifics about the object and nature that forms a compatible experience about beauty.
Beauty as disinterested, disembodied pleasure is a narrow definition because it excludes the perception of the mind about beauty: the non-perceptual acquaintance of facts about the object. This includes observation of beauty by other ways rather than through sight, sound or even physical conduct. For example, reading about a certain theory that brings sense to the mind. This shows that one can see the beauty of the theory from the description on a book by non-perception without the physical perception. Our senses have qualities we treasure through sight, sound and physical conduct, but a theory is a collection of specified concepts with a purpose about ideas that neither people can see, hear nor smell but understanding the logical aspects of the theory, they can see beauty (Parsons 33). Such beauty illustrates the fact about the moral excellence acquaintance about the subject matter.
Despite sight and sound providing the lots of knowledge we acquire, the other senses like smell and taste can provide the other form of beauty experience. Describing these as minors shows that the definition is narrow and fails to capture the minor/specific aspects through which people can differently experience beauty. As a disembodied character rather than beauty experienced through the pleasure in all body parts, this definition localizes beauty where the lower senses like smell and taste offer agreeableness but not beauty.
It is important to practice what we experience and perceive to be true beauty and have interest in it to perfect the judgment and justification about beauty. Taking everything to be abstract when establishing its beauty does not offer the opportunity to understand and judge beauty as it should be hence a failure to being the accurate judges who should prove to be keen perceivers than the ordinary people with the normality of what they should regard as perfect. People who do not experience the comparable pleasure do not have the capacity to justify beauty at higher degree than the ordinary people who has nor perfections on what they consider beautiful. This describes that beauty is much more than the abstract figure of an object.
Taking away the reality of an object means the object simply has no value. The energy to offer satisfaction is unique to every one and no one has the right to object ones feeling/opinion about an object. Such description is moderate enough to account for many aspects that can describe beauty such as comparative ratio, agreement and opinion of people. As Parsons describes in Dialogues on the Beautiful that definition of beauty as a disinterested, disembodied pleasure is narrow because it fails to capture “beauty obtained through non-perceptual experiences” (31). This shows the lack of appeal to the object meaning its not good looking hence the definition does not illustrate the beautiful things, it broadly suggests about what beauty can be (Kirwan 42). The fact about disinterested shows the lack of concern about the personal benefits of the presentation of beauty of an object out of consideration of the establishment of its beauty hence lack of worth on the object.
From the above discussion, beauty as a disinterested, disembodied pleasure generalizes the entire subject of beauty such that it fails to distinguish what beautiful things should be like and what peculiar things should be. Therefore to establish true beauty there should be considerations of the practical benefits of the object rather than the abstract look, the basics/finer details of the object that does not generalize much or rob a lot of true aspects of beauty, and the value of the object. It is however hard to establish true judges who have the perfection about beauty on every thing or object of interest because “some qualities in a work will appeal to certain true judges, but not to others” (Parsons 44) irrespective of their agreement in their submissions. Thus, there can be adequate responses of beauty distinguishing beautiful things on if the involved parties have logical perceptions about beauty, as it is subjective.