On 30-Jan-07, at 11:23 PM, Miles Jackson wrote:
>> Not if, as Marx claims, "beauty" is objective and social
>> relations can be more or less successful in developing a "sense"
>> for it.
>> [snippage]
>> For not only the five senses but also the so-called mental
>> senses, the practical senses (will, love, etc.), in a word, human
>> sense, the human nature of the senses, comes to be by virtue of
>> its object, by virtue of humanised nature. The forming of the
>> five senses is a labour of the entire history of the world down
>> to the present.
>
> This passage directly contradicts your claim!
No it doesn't.
As is made clear in the rest of the passage, a "sense" for "the most beautiful music" and for "the finest play" "comes to be by virtue of its object" because the development of such "senses" requires experience of "the most beautiful music" and "the finest play". Such experience "awakens" the sense. Without such development, the individual has "no sense for the finest play" or for "the most beautiful music" i.e. no sense for the objectively beautiful.
Ted