/lit/ - Literature

>>20641172
>there are people on /lit/
Lol nerds

>>20641172
By some measures, they obviously are. Other’s, the technical, such as grammar and spelling, needs to have objective quality.

Oh silly chudsuckers. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. It’s always been true. It isn’t pomo to say it. Life is in flux, beauty fades, beauty transforms.
Ones quality is subjective.

>>20641186
>beholder
Boulder
>Beauty is in the eye of the beholder
Beauty is in the eye of the boulder.

>>20641172
It's true. Aesthetic properties aren't real.

>>20641186
>>20641206
wheter someone likes a book or not is independent of the writer technical skill
just because someone likes harry potter but dislikes the divine comedy it doesn't means that rowling is better writer than dante, those are their preferences
someone who knows about literature knows the skill and rational thought behind writing something like war and peace or grapes of wrath, wheter he likes it or not isn't going to have an effect on the quality the same way someone who is clueless about poetry isn't going to erase the skill behind four quartets just because he didn't enjoyed it or because t.s. eliot was antisemitic

>>20641172
the quality of a literary work is intersubjective by which I mean a single piece is ascribed its place in the canon through discourse in a culture

>>20641275
>T.S. Eliot was anti-semitic
Wait, really? I love Eliot and I've never heard about this before

I am the end-all be-all critic of literature. My interpretation of the quality of any given work is the objective, factual understanding that all others must adhere to or else be wrong.

>>20641186
if beauty is on the eye of the beholder it doesn't exist as no objects participate in it. only the subjective (and false) perception of beauty exists and that makes it akin to mass hallucination.

>>20641374
brainlet

objective is the collection of many subjective opinions and thoughts of the course of time

>>20641199
Kek

>>20641172
If x then y.
Given certain premises they have objective quality.

beauty is and forever will be objective and absolute
fuck you if you think otherwise

>>20641457
Are you now trying to disprove there being a beauty at all? That’s too pomo now.
Beauty remains in the eye.

>>20641457
That's just your subjective opinion.

>>20642948
The girl is more beautiful than the painting

>>20641172
Beauty is the ideal and the ideal differs for everyone

>>20642913
x and y need a true/false value (depending on the logic model you use sometimes more or something in between) which the complete premise will inherit
there's no quality in a premise because quality is unrelated to whether a premise is true or false

>>20642953
That's a man.

>>20642916
Even the apparently fundamental experience rests on goal oriented premises. As a whole beauty exists eternally but in each instance it has parts.
>>20642967
Does what would be the best ideal also differ? It differs depending on the premises you work from. If there's some common goal we would all want even if we can't define it or know about it then there's a best ideal.
>>20642986
Everything rests within a logical context. An apple is more beautiful to an animal than a turd because of underlying goal oriented premises. That things can experience such a feeling is a separate more fundamental thing, it's one of those parts we find if we deconstruct our perceived instances of beauty.

>>20641172
I guess they are the same "people" arguing one should not start with the greeks.

>>20642992
Exactly

>>20643039
I don’t think there is a common goal. Some say beauty is the truth. That doesn’t really give you much to chew on though.

>>20643039
>Everything rests within a logical context.
I don't think you know english or understand how formal logic works.
>An apple is more beautiful to an animal than a turd because of underlying goal oriented premises.
Kek, I was right.
An apple and a turd are two different objects whose only relation is that they they both come from (different) natural processes. Neither an apple or a turd have beauty. Certain animals eat apples because they need the nutrients, and some insects eat both apples and from the turd for the same reason. There's no beauty in eating an apple or the apple itself and animals certainly don't think "omg I'm gonna eat that apple because is beautiful", they do it out of instinct. The quality an apple has is based on color, taste, ripeness, etc. which are indicators of whether the apple is good to eat, it's rotten or it's still ripening.
You can't compare that to a book, a novel, a short story, etc. because there's a rational thought in the process of making and reading one.
I suggest you read a dictionary and look up what beauty and quality is.

>>20643142
>Some say beauty is the truth
Given that an animal likes the apple over the turd because evolution then your instincts about what is beautiful are evolved to help you navigate reality / know the truth.

>>20641172
Quality is not subjective
Enjoyment is
Still there are a myriad rules to apply subjectiveness

>>20643177
>because there's a rational thought in the process of making and reading one
>rational
So there are implied goals. A logical context in which you can judge the quality. A set of premises for how to make the piece of art / book and why you would.
The context in the case of the apple is not based on reasoned logic but both examples can still be represented using basic logic. Both rest in logical contexts, a set of axioms. Just like every idea you have about anything including beauty and quality.
>I don't think you know english or understand how formal logic works.
You claim you do but can't apply it. By logical context I mean a set of axioms, the thing I was already describing so I thought the meaning was pretty clear.
If I'm wrong, how do you propose to judge a book without any axioms about what constitutes a good one? How do you judge a thing without any context? What reasoning do you use to justify your judgment? You don't refer to anything? No premises given?

>>20643180
But what is more beautiful, a perfect apple or a perfect peach? It comes down to personal taste once again. Or what if Michaelangelo sculpted a turd into a work of art?

>>20643254
Liking apples is already sort of subjective but it's objectively true that given that you like calories and living etc apples are more desirable than turds.
Given that you appreciate the appearance of fruit due to that desirability related to survival then within the given context the objectively most beautiful fruit is the best one for your survival. Your subjective senses may not be refined enough so you might appreciate a random apple more. Then the trained axioms in your brain are different from what the training is "trying" to approach.

>>20643232
It's clear that you don't know what you are talking about. As I said, please learn english before posting, you are not impressing anyone by copy-pasting opinions from youtube videos.

>>20643319
What youtube videos? Why can't you help me out if you have this all so figured out? A simple hint even? Why are you apparently incapable of even applying basic logic? It doesn't matter how many times you repeat that you have it all figured out when you offer absolutely nothing.

>>20643286
But why is a flower considered more beautiful than an apple then?

>>20643364
It's not. Both can be images of perfection

>>20641172
>>20642916
>>20643199
>>20643232
So by what rules do we judge beauty on objective terms? This is the real question, not the inconsistent brainfarts of the subjectivists.

>>20643364
This is obviously speculative except I think the point about everything resting in some context. I can make objective statements within a given context but not absolutely with no context.

I would say the flower has stronger emotional associations. In short it represents more things with emotional impact than the apple, the apple is kind of included in the imagery of the blooming flower, it even is physically a flower. The flower is more fragile and fleeting which makes things precious.

>>20643394
So it’s subjective as everything has its perfection

>>20643409
We decide a set of rules but then the works become predictable and boring so everyone starts breaking the rules which also becomes boring so we decide a set of rules..

>>20643286
Pseud shit

>>20643443
Address it retard. Destroy the pseud with your immense galaxy brain.

>>20643425
flowers also more complex. has all colors and more shapes. apple more limited

>>20643409
>>20643439
>people claim there are objective rules to judging beauty
>they cant even name one

>>20643492
Yep. Both apples and flowers are evolved to advertise their caloric content. They spend energy on broadcasting how much energy they have. It makes sense that flowers which target more basic animals need complexity to represent that energy, the higher animals can understand more subtle cues.

>>20643516
flowers shapes and colors have nothing to do with advertising themselves. those have more to do with physical survival. bees see in uv and flowers have uv ranges to protect themselves from excess sunlight. flower colors are a coincidence from that, they are selectively bred for color because humans narcissisticly enjoy their limited color range.

>>20643502
Depends on the context. Chimp power displays which are kind of the first literature are judged by their emotional impact which is largely determined by how much power over the world the chimp can display. Shaking a large tree is a better piece of literature than shaking a small tree.
>>20643548
>flowers shapes and colors have nothing to do with advertising themselves
They only exist to advertise the nectar which is the price for spreading pollen. That's their only purpose. With human selection and care they can spend excessive amounts to advertise their energy through complexity and the visible color to humans becomes relevant. The flower is kind of a power display like the chimp does.

>>20643562
but then thats a result of flower-human selection
you said flowers need higher complexity to attract basic animals. humans are not basic animals. what you saids simply not true at all anon

>>20643614
>what you saids simply not true at all
The reality I referenced doesn't change if you make up work for yourself to avoid understanding it.
>then thats a result of flower-human selection
The part that I explicitly said was a result of flower-human selection? Yes.
The principles we exploit in flowers to make complex displays that we enjoy originally evolved for bees. To advertise to an ape/human you need mass, there's not enough energy in small flowers to entice them. The mass itself is mostly enough to advertise it to curious apes but color helps.

>>20643663
no you retarded tranny i said

>flowers also more complex. has all colors and more shapes
you said
>Yep [...] It makes sense that flowers which target more basic animals need complexity to represent that energy
you didnt specify that complexity, so what you said followed from my post
the most complex flowers are a result of human cultivation, and humans are not basic animals. flower shape and color has more to do with survivability against uv light, temperature, and and rain and wind resistance, which is why non bee evolved flowers are also as complex, so youre just wrong.

fucking idiot.

>>20643446
Subjectivity. You can never prove objectivity with art

>>20643741
>the most complex flowers are a result of human cultivation
Cultivating a phenomena evolved to entice bees. When we cultivated the phenomena that evolved to entice apes in apples we got bigger apples because the signal is about mass.
>flower shape and color has more to do with survivability
Survivability of what retard? The entire thing is completely shaped by the fact that it wants to advertise as place a pollinator wants to rub against.
>non bee evolved flowers
There are flowers that don't even need to advertise. It doesn't change the principles those that do advertise work by.
The structure should be big and conspicuous compared to the energy put into making it. That's a power display and your braindead autism about light structures with UV protection etc all follows from the principle.
An ape sees through the display, the flower the size of an apple doesn't have the mass of an apple and the ape finds the apple without it needing a big display.

>>20643785
Is this one of these sentences in English you were going on about me learning?
>prove objectivity with art
Is that what I was talking about? Do you think this incoherent absolute statement you made with no context or attempt to justify has value? Objectively or subjectively?
You can make an objective statement about anything given a set of premises. You did not imply any premises to work from, just stated a conclusion. In this case one that doesn't even mean anything.

>>20641186
>Beauty is in the eye of the beholder
Wrong. 90% of beauty is completely objective, having different taste does not make someone less beautiful.

>beauty is related to or is part of an object quality
between this and using modern to refer to the contemporary era I know this place is filled with brainlets who just use this place to fill and show their bookshelf with works they will never read

>>20643914
If there was no relationship at all two parties could never agree on the beauty of an object.
"Contemporary" takes a lot of buttons and the "wrong" way to use modern has been established enough so in certain context there's no confusion about the meaning.

>>20643828
Give me the metric for judging art objectively.

>>20643996
What have I been doing? I told you it depends on your premises, implied, evolved, conditioned or otherwise. Within the context of a given set of premises you can make objective statements. Without any context you have no basis to make any statement about anything including art.

>>20643802
you agreed with me ("yep") when i said color and shape make flowers more complex
those complex features make them more complex than apples. without them flower petals would come in only a few basic varieties, as few as apples do, but even wild flowers are complex to the extreme, even those not spread by pollinators. then you autisticly said that such complexity was chosen to make them targeted by basic animals. thats just wrong anon.

actual flower complexity is less the result of pollinator selection, but has by far more to do with the flowers environment. so your explanatory model was oversimplified and wrong. for example, high light zones result in broader flowers to absorb more light, also taller flowers that reach for more light against shorter flowers. and high rain zones kill off cup shape flowers that would drown and rot from lingering water. other shapes derive from different environments. that variety in shapes that are spread by bees didnt need bees to spread or be complex, and any additional minute selection thereafter is just an aftereffect, idiot.

>>20644028
All that is subjective. There is no way to quantify art

>>20644028
The premise is the world.

Your metric should hold objective without any further specific premises which aren't necessary. You should have realized that in your claim of art being objective, fucking retard.

>>20644047
>even those not spread by pollinators
There is no such thing. Flowers became a thing with pollinators.
>such complexity was chosen to make them targeted by basic animals. thats just wrong anon.
You're just stating it's wrong. You're wrong. The evolution of flowers is such a well established subject that it's commonly used as an example to work from.
>actual flower complexity is less the result of pollinator selection
It's the only reason they exist. Saying any other factor is more important is completely braindead.
>the flowers environment
Specific about how to maximize the signal. The goal doesn't change.
>high light zones result in broader flowers to absorb more light
See you're completely braindead. No idea. Flowers do not photosynthesize. Those are leaves.

>>20644073
>See you're completely braindead. No idea. Flowers do not photosynthesize. Those are leaves.
duh, the entire plant stupid.
note i didnt say petals. leaves are parts of flowers.
your autistic inability to use reading comprehension is why youre wrong on so many points.

>>20644073
>It's the only reason they exist. Saying any other factor is more important is completely braindead.
flowers initially developed to spread pollen by wind, not pollinators. things like petal shape and color were originally to protect pollen from the environment until the pollen could spread.

you clearly dont know what youre talking about

>>20644098
animal pollinators*

>>20644049
>All that is subjective
Then the categories don't exist because all examples given of the things in the category "objective" only objectively exist given a set of axioms.
>There is no way to quantify art
Your brain does it when it tells you something is beautiful.
>>20644056
>The premise is the world.
Which we don't have full knowledge of but we can infer the existence of things like reasons for common reaction to stimuli because otherwise the reaction would be random.
>Your metric should hold objective without any further specific premises
Why isn't that the requirement for math, circles and apples? Do circles objectively exist? Apples? Give an example of what fits your category. Something objective that you don't define through context.

>>20644110
So you're saying there aren't objective metrics to judge beauty?

>>20644092
>duh, the entire plant stupid.
He's right anon, if ambiguous. If he said can you pick some flowers for a vase, would you just pluck flower heads, and not the entire flowering plant?

>>20642948
I'm following your argument to its conclussions, either beauty doesn't exist or it's a form that objects participate in

>>20641172
Does it matter? I have read books that other people rated in the past and still rate as ''good'' yet I found them annoying, boring or sometimes infuriating for one reason or another. That mattered more to me. This doesn't even mean that there couldn't be objective rating of quality, but even if there was I just don't care for my own sake.

>>20644110
Then objectively compare Paradise Lost to Divine Comedy. No subjective metrics. Quantify them with a number in order to compare them with your criteria

>>20644092
>you're wrong
But you can't begin to explain how. You just rant over and over about how specifically flowers implement the principle I already described. You even fail at that and think the goal of the flower is to absorb light.
>high light zones result in broader flowers to absorb more light
And you're too dishonest to even acknowledge it. You actually lie to save face anonymously instead of sincerely trying to approach the truth.
>>20644098
>were originally
Not the things we call flowers. The things we selected to a new path existed to attract pollinators.

>>20644126
And you're ignoring
>high rain zones kill off cup shape flowers that would drown and rot from lingering water.
Which stands to reason and explains such kind of flower shape better than being the result of pollinators.

>>20644132
That I can't deconstruct the entire process doesn't mean there isn't an objective reproducible process. That two independent judges can judge a thing relatively similarly means there are some common objective metrics being used.

>>20644133
can a flower head exist without its stem? broad flower shape in general can include broader leaves. not necessarily petals you retard.

>>20644144
But you can’t name the objective metrics. Why is that?

>>20644153
Because the brain is complex.
I can give examples of ideas of the roots of some of them like why you might prefer images of apples to turds.
>>20644147
I am more than willing to act as if you aren't that retarded despite the evidence suggesting otherwise but none of this shit is even slightly relevant. The flowers humans cultivated for beauty were the ones that had already been evolving to signal to pollinators. We didn't go back to the fucking seed pods.

>>20644133
>>20644173
>The things we selected to a new path existed to attract pollinators.
no, youre putting the cart before the horse. primitive flowers didnt need animal pollinators to have variety in shape and color more complex than apples. and yes those primitive flowers had all the feature of flowers. if animals werent present, flowers would still have evolved and continued to evolve in competition with each other and the environment.

what i said is correct, you are the retard anon.

>>20644173
But preference is relative. You said beauty is objective. You're not making sense tranny.

If you have ideas about beauty don't mention them until you can actually defend them and not this cowardly reservation.

>>20644185
>primitive flowers didnt need animal pollinators to have variety in shape and color more complex than apples
Yes complexity also exists in other contexts. But that's not the context we were discussing. Everything in evolution is built on a previous thing. We call the change from seed pods into advertisers to animal pollinators the evolution of flowers.
The principle of maximizing apparent size with least amount of energy is the same one you want to get sunlight. That creates complex structures but not like in flowers where the complexity is specifically there because of an arms race to signal to pollinators.

>>20644192
>You said beauty is objective
I said if two people can independently and reliably make the same judgement about the beauty of a thing they at least partially used some objective, definable metrics.

>>20644205
>the complexity is specifically there because of an arms race to signal to pollinators.
thats only part of the complexity and not the fundamental reason the complexity is there in the first place. animal pollinators arent absolutely necessary for fundamental flower evolution

>>20644210
So what's the most broadly applicable objective metric or metrics that people can use to agree? Which was our basic question to you in the first place? You haven't been able to answer because you haven't thought about it enough before. Don't act so mysterious about it.

>>20644221
Same goes for apples but even before human selection the animals inflate the apple into what would have previously been unsustainably expensive.
Without the pollinator the flower has no reason to expend energy into making more elaborate displays or larger pedals.

>>20644229
Displays of power but not "power" in a limited sense. The flower is displaying its power, so is the chimp and the writer. The structure of a song displays power over abstract reality like a song bird is demonstrating its fitness.

>>20644234
good were getting somewhere in your thick midwit textbook parroting skull
yes the fundamental complexity could. without pollinators,
-flowers would attempt to become taller to reach more light and their shade would weaken shorter flowers
-selection to grow bigger stamen groups would increase their yield rate to wind
-larger stamens would necessitate larger petals to protect stamens from rain and wind, just light enough to not weight it down
-different shapes would result due to different conditions. hotter climates would result in thinner skinnier petals to disperse heat
-different colors would result due to variations in light dispersal across the globe. brighter petals would reflect more light, darker climates would use different colors to absorb more light.

does this hold to reason?

>>20644277
How are you this braindead?
>does this hold to reason?
You're just describing pre-pollinator plants. They didn't have elaborate displays. End of "discussion".

>>20644282
>displays
the variation in petal variety follows from stamen mutation
this is essentially the same as display variation
your strict premises dont change the self evident fact that flowers would have elaborate variety
youre just a midwit afraid to admit theyre wrong

>>20644282
>pre-pollinator plants
those were also flowers. name things you think primitive flowers didnt have that modern flowers do, and ill tell you why youre wrong.

>>20644295
>would have elaborate variety
>would have
You don't have to work in hypotheticals, this experiment was done over millions of years and nowhere did anything like the explosion of flowers that happened after pollinators caused the pressure to create displays to attract pollinators. This is not controversial.
>>20644304
>name things you think primitive flowers didnt have that modern flowers do
Displays to attract pollinators.

>>20644282
>displays
flower,blossom,manifestation,array,etc
and if youre going to get autisticly stuck on this, ask yourself if computer monitor displays evolved to attract pollinators

>>20644332
>autism
This post is the definition of autism.
The thing that holds the pollen up had no pressure to advertise its existence.
When pollinators arrived it did. So what is your counter claim? That despite the obvious evolutionary pressure and the timing of variety exploding when pollinators arrived it was all a coincidence?

>>20644355
>the division of the five most recent of the eight main groups occurred around 140 million years ago.

>New research by scientists from the USA and China has pushed back the earliest evidence of insect pollination to 99 million years ago, when pterosaurs still soared in the skies.

flowers developed their essential complexity independent of pollinators, which is what i said all along. up to now youve been too thick to see it.

>the division of the five most recent of the eight main groups occurred around 140 million years ago.
this refers to flower species radiation if that wasnt clear

and like i said pollinators are only contingent to that complexity

so the basic clades appear to have developed without animal pollinators. no new main clades have appeared since then. this indicates the basic complexity was due to inter plant competition and evolution in the environment. pollinators are secondary to that.

>>20644363
>their essential complexity
But not displays. We already went over this. Without the "essential complexity" they wouldn't have the tools to create displays.
There's plenty to read if you care about finding things out instead of arguing about things you haven't even glanced at.

Here's one of the first google results.
>"Petals didn't evolve until between 90 and 100 million years ago," said Else Marie Friis, head of paleobotany at the Swedish Natural History Museum on the outskirts of Stockholm. "Even then, they were very, very small.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/big-bloom

You are autistic. You know who you are. I’m not replying anymore

>>20644471
>this indicates
You're not engaging. This is what's called desperately coping. What it indicates doesn't contradict any of my claims.

>>20644486
It's probably best if you never post again.

i said pollinators werent necessary for for flowers basic complexity in color and shape. that happened 140 mln years ago, when the most important species radiation occurred.

hepaticas some lilies and other pseudo petaled flowers have wide variety in shape and color. what i said holds to reason, because flower evolution would have taken a similar path for color and shape without animals.

you said
>The entire thing is completely shaped by the fact that it wants to advertise as place a pollinator wants to rub against.
which is clearly wrong by the fossil record since insects only got involved later. if pollinators completely shaped flower evolution, then why did the great radiation occur without them

even without pollinators flowers would have evolved into many showy varieties (basically the same as your narrow understanding of displays) simply because it forms a lighter head, allowing flowers to make new spatial varieties

>>20644633
>if pollinators completely shaped flower evolution, then why did the great radiation occur without them
Not a single flower pedal before them.
>even without pollinators flowers would have evolved into many showy varieties
No. Are you really trying to say that despite the clear and heavy evolutionary pressure to advertise they never did and the fact that pedals evolved within the same breath as pollinators started pollinating is a coincidence? Why would you make such retarded claims? What motivates you here? You're not trying to sincerely understand my point of view or constructively criticize it. You're just sperging like a retard about things I addressed many times over.
I made plenty of claims early on that you could have criticized but instead you attacked the established model of flower evolution. What are you trying to accomplish? Just generally undermining evolution as a theory because of some braindead political motive? Do you have some retarded point about how nobody should try to draw any conclusions from evolutionary theory because you're too dumb to grasp any of it? What?

but given enough time some species would have developed lighter tepals and even petal-equivalents without pollinators, because lighter heads allow more evolutionary variety for inner organ evolution, and that kind of inner organ evolution was inevitable with or without pollinators. are you saying in the race for taller flowers, they never would have evolved lighter heads to make growing taller an easier task?

>Are you really trying to say that despite the clear and heavy evolutionary pressure to advertise they never did
no, nor did i say that greentext was wrong. but your points were post hoc to the principles i laid out. obviously in our timeline the greentext by itself is what happened. and if you havent wrapped your head around my actual arguments youre not a very good evolutionist

>since insects only got involved later.
this just says insects were only part of our timelines flowers. i never said they were never involved at all.
but to say
>The entire thing is completely shaped by the fact that it wants to advertise as place a pollinator wants to rub against.
is simply wrong

people ive dealt with like you are generally in the 120 iq range. midwit range.

this is like the regular appearance of retards who think only reddit scientism is suitable as a model of reality, and that anything that doesnt hold up to muh empiricism is to be disregarded.

This nigga retarded but think he smart. Kek

>>20644839
rebut the points or ur a coward

>>20644844
You tryin to prove art is objective. Shit retarded. I dont need to rebut anything bc you rebut yourself by not being able to prove shit

>>20644732
It is possible that all kinds of things could have happened. None of that is the specific thing that we're talking about, that is flowers that evolved to signal pollinators.
>>20644738
>is simply wrong
The only purpose of what we call flowers is to advertise. This is the established model that explains why flowers are like they are. The only reason pedals and flowers as we know them actually exist. It's irrelevant that you can imagine situations where it could also have evolved due to other reasons unless it's part of a model with more predictive power. You're presenting a model with less predictive power and glaring problems like pretending the pressure to create displays doesn't exist.
>>20644828
Why are you so obsessed with this idea of who is a midwit? Why can't you simply discuss the actual subject reasonably without injecting your braindead ego horseshit into everything?
>this is like the regular appearance of retards who think only reddit scientism is suitable as a model of reality
But I'm not saying that. Why can't you actually engage with any of the ideas I present? When you're not repeating your conclusions over and over without justification you're making entire posts just saying "ur dumb".
>>20644879
>You tryin to prove art is objective.
I already proved that and it doesn't rest on any specifics about flowers. Yet you keep sperging about a subject you know nothing about to disprove an unrelated idea you have no grasp on.

>>20644879
oh then youre not referring to my posts

its still an open question of whether art can be judged with objective metrics. but everyone itt for either stance turned out to be a pseud

>>20644904
Give the formula for judging art objectively

>>20644904
>The only purpose of what we call flowers is to advertise.
no it isnt, the main purpose is to reproduce and protect those means, which is the main function of petals, to shield the inner organs. you clearly havent thought things out, just like you cant think of objective metrics for judging art, instead pussyfooting like a dollar store socrates.

>>20644909
It's empirically proven that people use objective metrics that exist to evaluate beauty but we don't know the specifics.

>>20644927
no u dont know the specifics bc ur not knowledgeable enough
do u believe the universe and man are the source of objectivity
man is definitely finite and the universe probably so, so objectivity deriving from either is most likely illusory

>>20644927
But everyone judges differently. Some like a thick Latina girl. Some like a skinny white bitch. Some like a Cezanne landscape and some like a Constable landscape. If you say some have better taste than others, that means it’s subjective because everyone has different tastes

>>20644924
>which is the main function of petals
Proto-flowers existed for 40 million years without anything resembling pedals.
The reason you were so insistent about this originally was because you didn't want to acknowledge any objective utility for the appearance of the flower. As long as there is any pressure to advertise there is utility in the appearance and an objective reason partly contributes to why we appreciate it.
>>20644943
>>20644944
Why not glance at the earlier parts of the thread? I repeated it many times. It's very fucking simple. You can make objective statements about anything within a given context but not absolutely with no context. All statements work this way, not just statements about the quality of art.
The fact that two people can independently, reliably make value judgments means they were at least partially using some objective metric.

>>20644969
>Proto-flowers existed for 40 million years without anything resembling pedals.
back up this statement. contemporary science has alternate guesses, not just me

>>20644969
>but not absolutely with no context.
Then provide that context yourself

Pick a work of literature you like, then provide the best reasons for why its good that would be most agreeable to rational people, and not >>20644944 this idiot, who confuses taste and preference for higher standards of beauty.

>>20644943
The prototypical examples of objective facts are examples from math. Examples defined by giving a context through a set of axioms and exploring the conclusions like the objective fact that circles exist within a given context.
>>20644982
>back up this statement
It's the only sourced statement in this thread.
Else Marie Friis, head of paleobotany at the Swedish Natural History Museum
A statement about an irrelevant tangent you demanded we go on because you're absolutely braindead and completely incapable of maintaining any sort of train of thought.

>>20644996
she didnt produce an airtight case

>The prototypical examples of objective facts are examples from math. Examples defined by giving a context through a set of axioms and exploring the conclusions like the objective fact that circles exist within a given context.
this is getting somewhere but doesnt tell anything new except to faggots like >>20644944

>>20644994
>Then provide that context yourself
I don't need to even though I already did in this thread.
I don't need to know the specific metrics to prove empirically that objective metrics are being used.

My idea is the principle you can apply to explain all beauty is power displays but if I'm wrong thatt doesn't change the fact that objective metrics are being used.

>>20644994
Trifling ass retard

>>20644969
Your mom cheated on your dad with niggers. Sometimes two at one time

>>20645006
>she didnt produce an airtight case
You didn't provide any case for anything. You rambled on about shit that doesn't even contradict any of my claims. Proto-flowers existed. There are complex things that exist that were not caused by the mechanism that caused the flower displays.
>>20645006
>this is getting somewhere
How about you try to fucking get somewhere? Say something you mindless subhuman?

Thank you guys for the laughs. Pseuds flock to lit like flies to shit. Kek at the autist trying to sound like Goethe

>>20645019
u were proven wrong about early flower variety not being influenced by non-pollinator causes, but ill leave that to the side


you made the claims there are objective metrics for beauty, so the onus is on u to back it retard

you havent said anything smart people didnt already realize by college
"some judgments involve metrics that appear to be objective"
"math has show some objective observations"
groundbreaking stuff

>>20645033
ur dumber than anyone itt who actually stepped up

>>20645014
Projection. Since there have never been any niggers anywhere close to my or my mom I can know with relative certainty this is false while you can not.
>>20645045
>you havent said anything smart people didnt already realize by college
It's incredibly basic yes but then why do you argue with it using poor attempts at logic? Basic premises need to be established to even begin but you sperged out at the very beginning and devolved the thread into arguing against the established model of flower evolution.
You can't claim the metrics are subjective, they're proven to be objective. The next step is speculating on what they may be to construct a model you can test, not continue to argue about the proven facts.

What's basic is usually basic for a reason, it's more important, more fundamental than the cloud castles of a million premises retards like you call philosophy. One basic logic gate repeated is all you need to construct a computer that can model anything.

>>20644994
>>20645009
Anon what work of literature do you like, and what makes it good in your view?

>>20645084
>The next step is speculating on what they may be to construct a model you can test, not continue to argue about the proven facts.
then take the next step retard, the onus is heavy on u for ur claims

>>20645065
Obviously not

I don't really care for thinking about this

>>20645111
then challenge the current anons or ull show urself a sheepish coward

>>20645131
for example if ur so smart u can obviously push the argument past >>20645084 by going in the direction he laid out, or a better one

>>20645090
Scrooge comics by Don Rosa is better than other Donald Duck comics. The art is better because it demonstrates skill/power, the content is better because it's based on history with interesting basic philosophical points that widen the worldview of a child / gives it power over the world.
Why don't you try using the premise I gave you instead of demanding spoonfeeding? Try applying the idea of display of power as defined by the many examples already given as the main abstract thing behind the metrics beauty is judged on.
>>20645097
>hen take the next step
You're still arguing about autistic details of things I considered basic like the fucking birds and the bees.

>Getting so BTFO'd from the previous thread he had to make a new one to drown it in an echo chamber
Fucking lol

>>20641172
eat bugs

>>20645139
>demonstrates skill/power
this is closer to objectivity. but still not wholly true. if i compared a famous painting of a landscape to a modern photo of that landscape, its not clear which is default more beautiful, as the photo is more real, but the painting requiring more skill
>because it's based on history
why is being based on history an objective standard? are you out of your mind? is math less objective because its not grounded on history? no wonder you pussyfooted so much before this. youre still green anon
>philosophical
training the mind puts things at a higher standard than other kids books so this is closer to objectivity. there arent much higher pursuits than philosophy

>>20645176
>its not clear which is default more beautiful, as the photo is more real, but the painting requiring more skill
The real landscape required more power. The landscape is the most beautiful, the photo can transport you there but the painting is still more objectively beautiful than the photo itself. The monetary value of all three things reflects the principle.
>why is being based on history
It's the same standard. Presenting you knowledge gives you power, the display is not just about showing off but allowing the viewer to imitate. The ratio of art and text to information gives it power and therefore beauty. A longer text that conveys the same amount of history is not as good.
That you think presenting information about philosophy is completely categorically different than presenting information about history is a good demonstration of how incoherent your mind has become from being conditioned by so called "philosophers".

>>20645221
no its not. philosophy has better methods to test if ideas are true or not. much of what we know in history is just hearsay and narrative, usually from just one account, and we werent even able to test history with modern archaeology until 200 years ago. like i said, history is a far cry from use as objectivity

anon you are naive but i will continue talking with you.

>>20645131
I’m not challenging anyone. It’s a bunch of pseuds arguing an autist. I’m just letting you guys know you make people cringe. I know beauty when I see it and is relative to me. By arguing what makes beauty, you cheapen it

>>20645248
ur cringe bc u have a womans definition of beauty

women know what they consider beautiful when they see it too, and thats why the extremely hypersexual modern female sexual market made society so great today

faggot

>>20645247
>philosophy is better
Doesn't matter in this context. The principle is power, knowledge gives power. Maybe getting knowledge about philosophy is better than history but that would be precisely because it gives you more power over the world.
I'm not adding new principles, these aren't exceptions but examples of the principle, teaching history and philosophy are both displays of power.

>>20645274
but its not even giving true knowledge or power, its giving an incomplete narrative. even 60 years ago things we thought we knew about history were totally upheaved

>>20645268
Ok. Fix your panties first though because they are in a bunch. Ironic post

>>20645280
idk what i was expecting when talking w someone who thinks childrens comics are a good source of history (ell to the em ay oh). theres nothing wrong with talking w a midwit like u tho, were at least making progress

>>20645280
>an incomplete narrative
Is better than no idea. A map is better than no map. In the context of evaluating how good the comic is, if you were right and it portrayed history very poorly then that would lower the quality of it, objectively.

>>20645291
It's really funny how many on this board like to do this kind of posturing. This is a true power display in the original meaning just like chimps do.

>>20645300
its more like its worse than an actually informed historians idea, one who makes as good a case as the evidence and logic can go for the period he has to work with.
>>20645306
i only postured bc im more right than you. when posturing is proportionate to understanding, its legitimate

>>20645322
>its more like its worse than an actually informed historians idea
Yes. We're making objective value judgments and using my metric still works. What a great example Scrooge turned out to be.

>>20645330
>using my metric still works.
no it doesnt, bc youve been shown ur wrong, so how much else would be wrong if we kept pursuing ur feeble opinions? i already showed why trying to tether objectivity to our understandings of history is illusory

>>20645322
>I am big dick monkey
But shouldn't you have demolished all my arguments already? I gave you an idea for an objective metric for beauty hours ago and none of you have made any real attempt to even critique it. It should be so easy, you have all the answers.
>>20645348
>no it doesnt, bc ur wrong
You haven't begin to try to show how I'm wrong. It should be so easy for the big boy monkey.
You appealed to my principle in the arguments you just gave for why teaching history is not good, in an attempt to criticize the principle I gave you appealed to it.

>>20645374
no, u didnt think things thru and attached ur poor argument to a principle thats good independent of u.

when called on it, u tried to defend ur position on history, but then were further proven wrong.

u just move goalposts like a faggot, claiming it was part of ur plan all along.

>>20645423
I brought up teaching history and philosophy specifically as examples of the principle. You know you are illiterate? I'm not even slightly joking, you are illiterate according to standard metrics. Not because of "bc" but because you're unable to grasp simple written text.

>>20645374
>>20645423
When are you faggots going to start kissing?

>>20645438
Give me a reason I'm wrong about my objective metric for evaluating beauty. All you retards pretend to be such hotshots but only the illiterate guy actually stepped up.
The most basic avenue of coherent criticism would be talking about how I define power since I haven't really, only given examples. Nobody did that, everyone just sperged like retards.

>>20645451
You need to jerk off or have a beer or something. You are trying way too hard

>the content is better because it's based on history
While history can make things better, that's not a good reason that specific work is better.

>>20645451
>>20645490
Anon he's right, you're a tryhard. Also a pseud. Everyone can see it.

>>20645545
It's an example of the principle in action. The claim is not that good art is art that contains history. Why can't you separate the claims conceptually?
History is an example of knowledge which an example of power, condensing much knowledge or insight into little imagery or few words is good art because it displays and allows you to imitate something with power. The artist displaying hard to train skills is another example of the same principle.
>>20645548
What does it say about you that you can't demolish the simple arguments of such a pseud in a short concise post?

>>20643409
beauty has nothing to do with quality, I dunno why retards are still arguing over this

>>20641172
Objective beauty would be a metaphysical principle like the sublime or something. But since these things don’t exist, there is only subjective beauty. Universal beauty would be too common, and everything common is disgusting (to me).

>>20641206
>>20641172
Aesthetic properties are real and as such *can only be subjective* insofar as something that qualifies as real must have an observer, thus, any object has the predicate of being recognized by a subject. A real thing cannot exist without observation because it would be objective (objectively not there). Objectivity requires subjectivity to make itself true. Subjectivity gives rise to the object.

>>20645913
I can make predictions about what is beautiful. Even though I'm not 100% accurate you refuse to even try. I win every time.

>>20645945
I don’t care to try to predict what is beautiful because I don’t recognize any beauty outside of myself. If I find something beautiful, it is beautiful. If I find something ugly, it is ugly. Simple as.

>>20645959
So the subjectivefags admit their position is born out of reverence of ignorance? The proudly identify as idiots? You'll find it difficult to create beautiful things.

>>20645968
You’re a slave to beauty and mob opinion. I consecrate the things I create as either beautiful or ugly depending on how I feel about them. You are submissive, I am active.

>>20645981
Why are you incapable of consecrating a turd itself in such a way without changing it? Not a representation of it, the turd itself.

>>20645989
Because I don’t find them subjectively appealing.

>>20645998
I bet if I find a turd with the right objective, measurable attributes you would like it. See I can predict things including you, you are the submissive bitch in this relationship.

>>20646015
No, I’m not Mozart or Sade.

>>20646019
>no
See you're bad a predicting things. It's definitely possible to shape poop into something you would find aesthetically pleasing. You could be presented with it without knowing. It could be used in a painting.

>>20646027
Okay, go shape shit into a painting and I’ll tell you whether I enjoy it or not. Bitch.

>>20646033
After you present your collateral for the $100k bet.

The definition of art isn't even objective as it has many forms, how can there be objective measures of its quality? If there is objective beauty then you are speaking of beauty and not aesthetics.

>>20643502
It's also stupid to believe literature can share the same ideal of beauty as visual stimuli

>>20645545
That's generally why the academies placed history painting as the greatest genre of painting for 200 years

>>20646041
Art is an abstract concept that includes many disciplines. In each case we use different metrics to determine the quality, what those metrics are depend on different premises in each case but never some arbitrary definitive source that's fully contained in the observer with no reason behind it. If these metrics didn't have objective elements, independent of the viewer they would vary completely with the viewer. Even when you say stuff about cultural expectations or whatever those are just a set of premises. That the people of that culture evaluate quality based on them reliably means they're based on objective properties.

>>20646081
Even within different disciplines there are further divisions, and within those divisions different execution of the same style, school, genre, etc. Even the oeuvre of a single artist is divisible still. Art is as divisible as there are different works, and the fact there are different works should suggest a lack of objective metrics. At some point you might attempt an objective metric of apples and oranges.

>>20646098
The claim in that post is that there are objective metrics in each case not an overarching metric. We know for a fact the metrics are objective so the subjective / objective debate is over.
If there are overarching patterns to those metrics within categories as wide as "art" is a separate question. I think there are. All early examples of "art" as in animals making a thing for others to observe are power / fitness displays. Nothing changed.

Anything can be beautiful, just depends on the personality experiencing it


>Hurr durr big Italian statue
I don't give a fuck I've seen statues before - anime art on Twitter is more impressive than 'the classics' at this point

>plural Pomo or Pomos
>Definition of Pomo
>1: a member of a group of American Indian peoples of northern California
What are you guys trying to say

>>20646162
dullard ahhh nigga

>>20646182
Can you please speak like a white person

>>20641172
>>20641172
>>20641172
Awful thread. Always pseud bait

>>20646116
The subject/objective debate is over when we realise that art is a specifically human expression and not open to the universal laws of objectivity.

All art is supposed to be symphonic, a variety of different elements all working in tandem to make the material effective. It's not hard to judge if a story is lacking in how many inconsistencies are in the plot or if the dialogue doesn't amplify the other aspects of the work. Good writing is supposed to keep the audience engaged and make the story seem believable even though it's all fiction. When that illusion fails people can easily tell when something is written poorly. It's hardly subjective.

>>20646939
>art is a specifically human expression
It's defined within a context like everything else. The metrics we use to judge art exist independently of the mind.

>>20641186
ok then why the fuck I have no gf? surely women are not a single hivemind and someone would like me, no?

FUCK YOU RETARD

>>20641172
>>20646054
Don't be ridiculous.
It's called kerning.

>>20647619
And those metrics are merely an opinion manifested through organization and authoritarian worship.
Society itself is subjective.

>>20645930
Therefore dinosaurs never existed.

>>20641172
Stop being a fag.

>>20648277
>those metrics are merely an opinion
Doesn't matter. The opinions exist independently of a human mind the same way a circle does. Within the context given by a set of axioms.
On top of that when you analyze all the variations of those opinions they end up having large common factors suggesting they're attempts to approach the same ideal. The fundamental principles remain the same like an apple is prettier than poop, the variations are about subtle differences in how to approach beauty like differences in what kind of proficiency is respectful due to being useful in the context you're used to.
Everything is rooted in subjective experience so in that context you can say everything is subjective but then the categories have no meaning. Objective means it exists independently of any observer so there really is only one subjective thing, the experience itself. All the inputs and mechanism it experiences are objective, only the act of experiencing itself is truly subjective.

>>20641172
Here's the truth:

>Schoenberg is better than Beatles
Completely subjective opinion!

>Schoenberg is more musically innovative compared to the tradition that preceded him, wrote works which are more structurally intricate, and gave a lot more thought to his compositions, rendering them much denser in terms of musical information, than the Beatles ever did; meanwhile, the Beatles wrote more pop songs than Schoenberg which resonated more among the youth
Completely correct objective facts.

That's all that can be said about it, whether you like it or not.
Same about morality.
It's objective that Hitler and Stalin were crooks, murderers, genociders, dictators, tyrants and maniacs, but that this is *morally bad* is a subjective opinion.

>>20648550
>that this is *morally bad* is a subjective opinion
Depends on the given context. In the latter example you gave a context that established a metric. In the former you gave none.
The common meaning of saying something is morally bad appeals to a long scholarly tradition attempting to navigate reality. The appeals are vague without setting any actual clear terms or really building on the established principles from the traditions, "it's bad because uh morality and stuff".
The vagueness of the statement is the problem, not some inherent subjectivity going on.

>>20641333
nice, checked

>>20647814
this is actually a good argument

>>20646054
have you never read poetry?