The opposite! A subject/object’s beauty is an inherent trait by the fact that it exists.
For example we can think of a “good” apple (goodness being convertible with beauty) that is round, symmetrical, and seems ready for consumption. Whereas a “bad” (ugly) apple would be one that is deformed, rotting, pestilent, etc.
but is there beauty in the ugly apple? that's what I'm not getting
Oh I see what you’re saying. When I say beauty I meant it as the spectrum of “how beautiful”. So for example an ugly apple would have very very little beauty because it is created and creation is good. Just like how an evil human being is still a human being that deserves dignity by the very nature of being a human despite being evil.
that makes sense to me, but if you're not too tired to talk about it, I'll come with more thoughts.
it seems to me that you're talking about two different things. one of them is the value of beauty, that is present in every single thing and can't be less or more, it's just there unconditionally. and the other thing is related to how it looks individually and you can measure accordingly to some definitions made previously. is that so?
Hm, I’m not sure that I would say they’re “two different things” but I think I understand what you’re getting at. It seems like you’re leading into Plato’s Theory of forms?
