that which we subjectively describe as ugly may simply be an emotional and/or visceral response, which by communicating that response requires definition. beauty is no different and just cos they're at opposite ends of a qualitative spectrum doesn't indicate comparison.
by 'purely subjective rhetoric', i mean that i took bk's question to be rhetorical and made without objectivity. why shouldn't a response be considered purely subjective? an imagined apple is an object visualised, but the qualities of our experiences are quite abstract and i say they can be purely subjective. otherwise art would be very boring.
just cos you mention it, by the by, some folk seem to think that there wasn't a word for the colour blue until quite recently. radiolab did a nice thing.
but you probably knew that, too. :)
(,
Wed 12 Aug 2020, 14:15,
archived)
by 'purely subjective rhetoric', i mean that i took bk's question to be rhetorical and made without objectivity. why shouldn't a response be considered purely subjective? an imagined apple is an object visualised, but the qualities of our experiences are quite abstract and i say they can be purely subjective. otherwise art would be very boring.
just cos you mention it, by the by, some folk seem to think that there wasn't a word for the colour blue until quite recently. radiolab did a nice thing.
but you probably knew that, too. :)
Yes, our perception of ugliness might manifest as an emotional and/or visceral response. But such a response is wordless, in the gut. To communicate that response in words does usually require definition, and in naming the response we reveal the truth of the situation: I communicate the visceral feeling in terms which we all know and accept to be relative. “Looking at this gave me a bad feeling” necessarily requires knowledge of being able to look at something and get a good feeling, in order for it to make any sense.
(,
Wed 12 Aug 2020, 14:26,
archived)