/lit/ - Literature

>>16165767
Beauty is a basic human need, so we could discard the second.
The first isn't true though.

>>16165767
Jazz

>>16165767
There's no soul behind these eyes

>>16165767
Beauty obviously matters

>>16165767
Beauty matters and not all bodies are beautiful.

>>16165885
Choose between the two given options

All bodies are beautiful, doesn't mean that they are all equally beautiful

>>16165901
No kobiyashi Maru tic-tac-toe here

>>16165767
>brain like healthy looking women
>brain like nice hunting landscapes
>brain like tasty looking food
>brain need tell body look for more that brain like
>brain make juice body like when body find what brain like
>brain call it beauty

It "matters" but its importance is way overblown and art apologists rely on keeping the concept of beauty wrapped in mystique and vague feefees in order to make their works seem more significant, and also like a parasite having this symbiotic relation with pseudoscientific fields like spirituality and psychology and leeching off each other to fool the gullible middle class into giving them more attention and money than they deserve because they can just tell them "hey that thing you feel when you look at nice things is more than just your feefees come read my latest book on some interpretation of the idea of beauty I stole off a dead French dude".
Sure I like things that look nice and I also like food that tastes nice. Nothing more to it than that.

>>16165767
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. No exceptions. No false choices.

>>16165902
When in prison, would you rather be raped in the ass or the face?

>>16165767
This is the stupidest dichotomy I have been presented with in a long time.
Some stuff is beautiful, some stuff is ugly. In my experience pursuing beauty has been worthwhile.

>>16165948
>He hasn't transcended monke, let alone caveman
pathetic

>>16165767
They are one and the same.

>>16165948
>Evopsycho has the audacity to call regular psychos pseudoscience

Second one

>>16166255
ass

Not every body is beautiful, as this would negate the meaning of beauty. However you can argue every body is beautiful in certain ways. Someone may not be attractive, but you could describe how something so intricate and complicated as a human body works in tandem to function correctly. Beauty is however subjective and changes depending on time and culture, so you could say what we think is beautiful doesn’t really matter. So the second one.

>>16165767
Those mean the same thing. If everything is beautiful, nothing is. Same goes for all such properties: if everything is cold, nothing is, since there is no heat to compare the cold with, etc.

>>16167262
huh?

>>16165767
"Black bodies are not for the gratification of the white male gaze."

>>16166938
>in my experience

Can you even define what experience is? LMAO

>>16165767
Thankfully I am not of Jewish descent so I don't have to choose one of those. Beauty matters most and is reserved for the few elect.

>>16165767
more like "every living thing is fucking gross, dude" (except for trees and fungi, they're aight)

>>16165767
Almost all bodies are beautiful to somebody
Beauty matters selectivley

>>16165767
Physical beauty is the lowest tier of beauty. The more difficult a thing is to deny its compelling effect and the less changing is its form, the more beautiful. The beauty most people talk about is one of changing criteria and an accumulation. Good is the highest beauty.

Those aren't mutually exclusive statements

>>16166255
Why are you only capable of thinking in cliches?