UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AFRICA
College of Human Sciences
⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄⋄
THL1501: Introduction to Theory of Literature
Assignment 02 — Semester 1, 2026
⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄⋄
THL1501
Module Code:
Introduction to Theory of Literature
Module Name:
Assignment 02
Assignment:
657810
Unique Number:
24 April 2026
Due Date:
100
Total Marks:
Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for THL1501 — UNISA 2026
, UNISA | THL1501 Assignment 02 – Semester 1, 2026
Question 1: Arguing for the Objective Definition of Beauty and Aesthetics
Aesthetics has long been a contested field, with many scholars dismissing “beauty” as too
personal, too cultural, or too variable to define with any consistency. Marcia Eaton, in her 1998
work Basic Issues in Aesthetics (cited in the THL1501 Study Guide), acknowledges precisely
these difficulties; yet a closer reading of the debate shows that the challenge of definition
does not make objective aesthetic criteria impossible. This essay argues that “beauty” and
“aesthetics” can be defined with sufficient precision to function meaningfully as objective
terms, and that the objections commonly raised against such definitions can be answered.
1.1 The Problem and Why It Does Not Settle the Matter
Critics of objective aesthetics typically make two moves. First, they appeal to cultural vari-
ability: what one community regards as beautiful, another does not. Second, they appeal to
individual subjectivity: two people can stand before the same painting and leave with com-
pletely different reactions. Eaton records both of these worries carefully (UNISA, 2023:12–14).
But variability in judgment does not prove that no judgment is correct. People disagree about
whether a particular action is morally right, yet we do not conclude that ethics is therefore
beyond definition. The same logic applies here.
1.2 What Aesthetics Can Objectively Refer To
Aesthetics, at its most basic, is the philosophical study of sensory experience and how it pro-
duces the responses we call “beautiful”, “sublime”, “elegant”, or “ugly” (UNISA, 2023:10). This
definition is not culturally relative; it identifies a type of inquiry rather than a verdict. Defining
aesthetics as a field of study is no different from defining physics as the study of matter and
energy. Both definitions hold regardless of what any individual thinks about the conclusions
reached within the field.
When we move to “beauty” specifically, the objective case becomes richer. A useful starting
point is identifying structural properties that consistently produce aesthetic appreciation
across large populations. Eaton gives the example of symmetry: across many different cul-
tures and historical periods, symmetrical faces and forms have reliably been rated as more
beautiful than asymmetrical ones (UNISA, 2023:15). This cross-cultural pattern does not dis-
solve under subjectivist pressure. If beauty were purely personal, we would expect random,
Page 2 of 12
College of Human Sciences
⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄⋄
THL1501: Introduction to Theory of Literature
Assignment 02 — Semester 1, 2026
⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄⋄
THL1501
Module Code:
Introduction to Theory of Literature
Module Name:
Assignment 02
Assignment:
657810
Unique Number:
24 April 2026
Due Date:
100
Total Marks:
Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for THL1501 — UNISA 2026
, UNISA | THL1501 Assignment 02 – Semester 1, 2026
Question 1: Arguing for the Objective Definition of Beauty and Aesthetics
Aesthetics has long been a contested field, with many scholars dismissing “beauty” as too
personal, too cultural, or too variable to define with any consistency. Marcia Eaton, in her 1998
work Basic Issues in Aesthetics (cited in the THL1501 Study Guide), acknowledges precisely
these difficulties; yet a closer reading of the debate shows that the challenge of definition
does not make objective aesthetic criteria impossible. This essay argues that “beauty” and
“aesthetics” can be defined with sufficient precision to function meaningfully as objective
terms, and that the objections commonly raised against such definitions can be answered.
1.1 The Problem and Why It Does Not Settle the Matter
Critics of objective aesthetics typically make two moves. First, they appeal to cultural vari-
ability: what one community regards as beautiful, another does not. Second, they appeal to
individual subjectivity: two people can stand before the same painting and leave with com-
pletely different reactions. Eaton records both of these worries carefully (UNISA, 2023:12–14).
But variability in judgment does not prove that no judgment is correct. People disagree about
whether a particular action is morally right, yet we do not conclude that ethics is therefore
beyond definition. The same logic applies here.
1.2 What Aesthetics Can Objectively Refer To
Aesthetics, at its most basic, is the philosophical study of sensory experience and how it pro-
duces the responses we call “beautiful”, “sublime”, “elegant”, or “ugly” (UNISA, 2023:10). This
definition is not culturally relative; it identifies a type of inquiry rather than a verdict. Defining
aesthetics as a field of study is no different from defining physics as the study of matter and
energy. Both definitions hold regardless of what any individual thinks about the conclusions
reached within the field.
When we move to “beauty” specifically, the objective case becomes richer. A useful starting
point is identifying structural properties that consistently produce aesthetic appreciation
across large populations. Eaton gives the example of symmetry: across many different cul-
tures and historical periods, symmetrical faces and forms have reliably been rated as more
beautiful than asymmetrical ones (UNISA, 2023:15). This cross-cultural pattern does not dis-
solve under subjectivist pressure. If beauty were purely personal, we would expect random,
Page 2 of 12
