Chapter 1: The Dichotomy of Truth and Opinion

In Western philosophy, a common stance is to view aesthetic values as purely subjective. We often recognize our varied preferences in areas such as food, art, and fashion. For instance, there is no definitive answer to whether Italian cuisine surpasses Japanese, or whether jazz is superior to rock. These evaluations are fundamentally personal.

Aesthetics is often perceived as distinct from disciplines like mathematics or science. While art exists in the tangible world, its value is largely a mental construct. In contrast, mathematical patterns and natural phenomena are typically assessed through more objective methods.

The appreciation of aesthetics, such as a preference for specific types of cuisine or literary genres, can be likened to sensory experiences—sight, sound, or smell—that rely on our sensory organs. Without an audience to appreciate art, aesthetic values would not exist.

Interestingly, the same argument applies to what we consider objective truths. Without human cognition, mathematical and scientific truths would not be recognized. For example, we claim astronomy is objective, asserting that stars and planets would exist even without life. However, once we define "stars" and "planets," the hypothetical scenario of a universe devoid of life becomes meaningless.

In this context, stars and planets would vanish if understood solely through human frameworks. Instead, what remains is an undefined totality of existence, which cannot be classified as either "star" or "planet."

Therefore, the appreciation of art and food is just as subjective as our so-called objective truths. The primary difference lies in the contexts from which these judgments arise. Aesthetic values are designed to evoke personal growth and foster individual expression, thus promoting a diverse range of opinions in a liberal society.

Conversely, when it comes to objective truths, the aim is often to achieve consensus to enhance collective progress. Objectivity involves employing our reasoning abilities and scientific methodologies, rigorously examining subjects with our senses, formulating hypotheses, and integrating our findings with existing knowledge, culture, and society.

This process, however, inevitably simplifies our understanding of the world. Our sensory perceptions and conceptual frameworks exclude aspects that are either beyond our comprehension or outside our interests.

For example, when studying an animal's behavior, we define the species in the present moment. Although we acknowledge that species evolve over time, we rarely consider them in a broader historical context. Our perception of bats, for instance, is confined to our temporal and spatial understanding, while in a larger, nonhuman reality, bats are part of an extensive biological continuum spanning billions of years.

Another factor contributing to this arbitrariness is the "progressive" agenda underpinning scientific objectivity. The pursuit of knowledge often aims to control nature by predicting its behavior. Implicitly, to understand a phenomenon is to gain an advantage over it, yet the universe remains indifferent to this desire for temporary superiority.

The same applies to other natural entities, including stars and planets. These celestial bodies exist within a solar system, undergoing various transformations. If we consider the Sun only in its current state, we still adopt an anthropocentric perspective.

The scene in The Matrix where the boy tells Neo there is no spoon resonates here; similarly, stars and bats are constructs shaped by our choices in how we perceive and interpret existence. While these concepts serve practical purposes, their subjectivity cannot be overlooked.

We may label the concept of a bat as objective because it is universally accepted by our species. The standard definition of a bat, as a flying mammal with modified forelimbs, contrasts with a child's whimsical interpretation, which is just as subjective as an adult's musical preferences.

The distinction between subjective and objective truths is better framed as a difference between individual and collective perspectives. Aesthetics is more subjective than science as it relates to personal growth, while science focuses on the collective advancement of humanity.

The lack of consensus in artistic appreciation reflects a liberal ideology and the way art is consumed in a nihilistic late-modern culture. We have become so influenced by social media that we often view our opinions as paramount, neglecting the possibility that our tastes might not be refined. The liberal principle of tolerance leads us to assert that all opinions are equally valid.

In this neoliberal context, aesthetic values also become trivialized, as art is seen as disposable, paving the way for new consumer products. This commodification aligns with the corporate cynicism that produces these goods.

Nonetheless, there exists an alternative, illiberal approach to art appreciation, exemplified by the insular cultures of medieval Europe or modern authoritarian regimes like China or Iran. The argument here is not that these aesthetic evaluations are superior to liberal ones, but that universal aesthetic values are possible by prioritizing collective over individual perspectives.

Moreover, as I discuss elsewhere, aesthetics can intersect with scientific objectivity, leading to a pantheistic view of nature where aesthetic values extend beyond the constraints of totalitarian regimes. While the state's artistic preferences may dominate in oppressive environments, the universe's journey from the Big Bang to its eventual demise shapes the intrinsic value of all natural phenomena.

The first video titled "The Science of Art and The Art of Science: Albert Frantz at TEDxVienna" explores the intricate relationship between scientific inquiry and artistic expression, highlighting how both domains inform and enrich each other.

In the second video, "SCIENCE COAST S2 Ep 12 – Is Art and Science Really That Different?", the discussion delves into the differences and similarities between art and science, questioning the boundaries that separate these two fields.

Chapter 2: The Interplay of Aesthetics and Objectivity