The lovers of sounds and sights delight in beautiful tones and colors and shapes and in everything that art fashions out of these, but their thought is incapable of apprehending and taking delight in the nature of the beautiful in itself.
Plato, Republic 476b
We are defined by language, and we define language. We can see what is beautiful, we can describe beautiful things, but we cannot define beauty. It is a problem that often comes up in the science of aesthetics, the study of beauty. How can one study something that is essentially a subjective assessment of an object's qualities? By connecting it to philosophy[1].
“The limits of my language mean the limits of my world” L. Wittgenstein
Language is a tool. It is a tool that we use to describe the world. We have a plethora of languages that serve different tasks - the language of mathematics, algebra, computing, communication - and even more that serve the same. It is difficult to explain Finnish to a computer, as is teaching algebra to an infant. As is difficult to describe complicated formulae in plain English. The deeper we attempt to explain what we've described, the more complicated our language needs to be. And that is a problem when we attempt to explain something we perceive but cannot prove. To put it in plain terms, you can say gravitation is a term that says that all things pull all other things closer to it and can be demonstrated by showing that a big thing (the Earth) pulls small things (apples) towards itself. With beauty it is more difficult, for you can say something contains a property of beauty and is therefore beautiful, but you cannot really explain what it is or where it comes from. The best you can do is explain beauty as the ability to be appreciated aesthetically.
But that says very little. Especially when you consider that beauty is not only skin-deep. It is pretty much universally accepted that most people are somewhat in possession of inner beauty. That would seem to suggest that beauty is quantifiable as some people are more beautiful on the inside than on the outside and vice versa. Some would say a mechanismus of sorts can have inner beauty in the sense that it looks horrendous, but works in a fashion that can be called beautiful. Some would even go so far as to say a random rock on the street has inner and outer beauty. Sentimental value complicated things even further.
So what do we know? We know that beauty is akin to energy in that whatever exists, has beauty, and can be perceived as beautiful to some extent or other. We know it is somewhat quantifiable as we find some things more beautiful than others. We can confidently claim beauty plays an integral part in attraction. Yet we know that beauty is relative to the eyes of the beholder. For some people a mathematical proof can be more beautiful than a red rose just come into bloom. We know there are some generally accepted connections between symmetry and beauty. We know there is some correllation between repetition and beauty. But we cannot explain why. We cannot explain what it is that makes something more beautiful that others. If we did, it would at the very least explain modern art.
No matter how we approach the problem, we end up with the issue of explanation. And that can be achieved in only one way - with language. The deeper we delve into defining beauty and other subjective attributes the more we see that language in itself insofar is inadequate to do so. After thousands of years of philosophical trains of thought we have yet to reach a point where we can turn a subjective attribute to an objective assessment via the opportunities language itself provides. And that is oddly comforting, to know there are still mysteries we have not yet fully explained or understood, that these issues remain relevant and unsolved for thousands of years. Being controversial and inexplicable is an essential part of being human. And that is just fine.
Just remember, "gravity is not responsible for people falling in love."
