Can beauty save the world?

[tazz]

Very few people think/believe that objective truth exists. In the contemporary world truth is subjective - what works, or is true for you might/is not the same for someone else. Loss of objective truth . . . something that is fixed, unchangeable and reliable . . . is apparent in almost every facet of life - including art. If truth expresses beauty (and beauty expresses truth) . . . shouldn't art express beauty and truth? In a world overtaken by subjectivism, have the standards for art . . . truth and beauty . . . been discarded? I think the world will be better with objective truth, and art is an opportunity to reveal that truth and real beauty.

[arthunter]

The idea of objective truth sounds comforting, but who is to determine what is "true?" It seems very difficult to determine what beauty is. Think of many of the "grotesque" exhibits within the modern art community, and the associated claims of "beatuy" and validity. Who is the judge?

[tazz]

Plato's way of knowledge was "mythos," or knowing of the imagination . . . "Truth is beauty" and "Beauty is the glory of truth." Aristotle's way of knowledge was reason and experience . . . impericism and logic. These two ways of knowing are valid but have often competed for dominance through history. In contemporary society (the last 200 years or so) reason and logic have dominated. Philosophers and scientists . . . and most all of us have tried to reason our way to some objective truths (standards that are valid and always applicable) without much success. Most would agree that it's wrong to kill . . . then we make exceptions . . . then exceptions to the exceptions so that various "truths" exist about the subject, so many that we even begin to devalue the sanctity of human life. Since we can't reason our way to the truth (or so it seems), I've concluded that it must be given or revealed to us - I think . . . which is the beginning of a very long discussion.