But curiously, things that are sad are not beautiful
Therefore, beauty must be a subset of sadness.
Is beauty something that is harmonious with nature, it has a mimetic effect? If so, then what is nature, and what does it mean to be harmonious with nature? This would like Plato stating that music has a mimetic effect on our 'manners' because it copies something that we see and affects us accordingly.
Or, it could be something that is perfectly harmonious, in art, the must harmonious things combine rationally and sensually, or it could be just the 'perfection' of one of these factors which overwhelmes the senses. This supports the variety and unity argument.
Or is something beautiful because we strive to find something beautiful in it, for example a work of art which inspires people to think or try and understand it?
Is beauty something that supports evolution? landscapes that are beautiful etc. Is this why we are attracted to certain landscapes?
Or is beauty simply incomprehensible and is a spiritual aspect of our lives?
| “ | Aesthetics is for the artist as Ornithology is for the birds. | ” |
This raises another question, why do we enjoy tragedies? Stories that have sad endings that we want to read/watch/listen even if we know the tragic ending?
Is it because they provide some sort of beauty which gives us satisfaction? If that is katharsis, then where does this self-fulfillment come from?
