[Ralath]

How does expressing yourself in poetry or prose uplift your spirit? How does drawing a picture of a human body circumscribed by a circle provide you with great ecstasy? How does it matter whether what you said is direct or described with a great variety of metaphors, allusions or anything?

Here's the difference:

• I am sad.
  
• My sadness is as deep as an ocean.

Because you like to quantify so much, I think that's as quantifiable as it's going to get. There is an inherent difference in direct speech and the world of metaphor and lyrical language. How do people understand emotion better if all you say is, "I am sad." or "I am very sad." I can't tell you what the exact differences are between the two above quotes because they aren't quantifiable. But there is an inherently different, and deeper meaning in the second one.

I think the part of the problem lies in the examples you give. You ask how a da Vinci's Vitruvian Man is supposed to get great ecstasy.

Well.

It doesn't.

Vitriuvian Man isn't famous because it conjures some amazing emotion in people. Rather, it was a study in human proportions.

However, I think if you look at other paintings, then there is (hopefully) something within them that causes emotion within you.

Can I suggest Goya's Saturn Devouring His Son? The painting is a LOT
more revolting than me just saying, "Saturn devouring his son."

And you're right. I don't like the Declaration of Independence, but that's because of the frequent references it makes to "the Creator" or "God", which are not definable objectively, but that's a different matter.

I think it's irrelevant whether you like the DoI or not. Disliking something doesn't mean it doesn't qualify as art. Or not "worthy of appreciation."

Law is meant to be objective. The moment it becomes subjective and open to interpretation, you get loopholes, "ways-out" and other such things.

I would agree that law is meant to be objective. But I would also say that it is always subjective. A lawyer's entire job is to argue about what a law "means." That's why there's a Supreme Court in the United States that tells people what the law means.

The language of the law is interpreted subjectively because it is not precise enough to be objective (and that's an inherent flaw that isn't so easy to change). For instance:

A law states that people cannot build 2-story houses anymore.

That seems like a fairly straightforward law. But does that mean that people can't build 3-story houses anymore because to build a 3-story house, you have to build a 2-story house first? What about 1-story houses that are as tall or taller than 2-story houses? What about 1-story houses with an attic? Do attics count as a story? What about one-and-a-half level houses?

So a law that appears to be objective, is challenged in court and it's in court where it's decided according to how the judge interprets the law (subjectivity).