/lit/ - Literature

Yes and no

Anything that you perceive as beautiful is only so to the extent that you can recall how much it partakes in the form of beauty itself.

>>5100336
Thats a pretty girl.

>>5100343
best answer

>>5100336
Why does it matter?

>>5100357
why does anything matter?

>>5100349
>this post

>>5100349
nah

>>5100349

>Metaphysics ever
8/8 gr8 b8

I'm taking it you mean beautiful in an attractive sense not in the direct dictionary meaning.

at what point of probability are you willing to make a decision?

nothing in life is sure. if you had a 95% chance of dying doing the only thing in life you ever wanted to do, would you do it?

how much is good enough for confirmation?
ultimately that is the choice i think, what kind of common consensus a person requires to agree with said common consensus.

there is not much in life that is truly certain. or is that what we reserve the word "objective" for?
i thought we called those things natural laws.

I don't want to be an autist or easily lead either. im happy with 75% and would prefer 85%.

three quarters is fairly reasonable you cant get everyone to agree and some people are stupid, their agreement is worthless.

umm so for me yes but it depends really on how much you value the opinions of others.

I would submit cameron diaz or johnny dep.
I would wager three quarters of people would agree they are beautiful / attractive.

I mean depp and diaz have been in tonnes of films, they are nice to look at that is part of why they get picked for those roles.

I am trying not to get caught up in the subjective/objective discussion killer and to just stop being such an autist...

>>5100379
>>>/highschool/

>>5100379
who are you quoting?

Beauty in nature is symmetry, beauty in species is whatever gender finds to be more masculine or vice versa in fertility

>>5100386
I am not quoting anyone?

I would have thought that would be painfully obvious.

>>5100391
what?

>>5100336
Sure there is, but it has to be very, very general.

For example, what one thinks to be good is beautiful in some sense.

Any starving human would find the sight of a delicious, nourishing meal beautiful in some sense, objectively speaking.

If you're talking about somebody's face being objectively attractive, that is, beautiful to all people... no, somebody will always disagree with you.

My dick.

No, not really.

Beauty is aesthetics and aesthetics is about perception, sensation and feeling. It is a form of subjective judgement and it can only be that. There is no such thing as something beautiful in itself, for it only exists through the lens of a subject that is involved in a cotext of memory.

So when something is beauty to you (or to others, or even to everyone) it is only because it reached into your feelings and, in juxtaposition with all of that you've experienced (and thus, culture, history), you can say it is pleasant.

However, you must not confuse this with an artificial or intellectual device. The sense of beauty happends to us, whether we like it or not and even though many ideologies and rationalizations may come up to justify, explain or judge a work by its aesthetic merits. Beauty is a sense beneath the hipocrisy. Picture a nazi finding a jew attractive, and upon finding that out, ceases to see the beauty. The initial beauty was just as real.

>>5100398
That has not to do with something being objective/subjective. This is not about consensus, agreement or disagreement. This is about whether beauty resides in objects or it is projected by subjects.

Even if everyone were to agree blue is better than green, that doesn't make it an objective truth. That's naive philosophy. You are looking at the examples and not seeing through the issue."Sure, there is that thing nobody can deny that it is great!" doesn't hold well, because the contrary argument is not for me to say that I don't like it (that would be going along into anedocte land) but that one could.

>>5100425
I'd say your conception of objectivity is naive philosophy.

>>5100387
>Beauty in nature is symmetry,
If no one could see a certain symmetry, would it still be beautiful?

There are many types of beauties in nature, including assymetry. The idea that symmetric things are more beautiful is absolutely cultural.

>beauty in species
In species? And are they not nature? What's up with this arbitrary category

>whatever gender finds to be more masculine or vice versa in fertility
It's not more, definitely. That there might be a certain level of balancing between the male/female dichotomy I can get behind. But here the problem is that the masculine/feminine comes after the beauty itself and is in itself a cultural thing. If a male peacock shows his tail in order to get laid and you notice that the biggest brightest tail gets to have more sex, you begin saying that the biggest brightest tail in the peacock is a sign of masculinity. There is no such thing as masculine/feminine outside of the signs that we use to describe them, which will naturally come from the sense of beauty of the particular animal, in that context, as a subject.

>>5100358
Exactly, the question of "Is there such a thing as objective beauty?" is pointless given beauty is a personal subjective opinion and therefore meaningless question.

There are objective standards to measure beauty.

>>5100425
well that is what I was getting at by defining beauty before I started

OP posted a picture of a girl.... I dont think he is exactly asking about the sum of parts.

I mean technically any person who isn't ill, winding pocket watches and permaculture systems are beautiful as they have the sum of their parts accomplishing their purpose in concert with nothing needing to be added or subtracted.

or whatever the specific definition of beauty is, i forget.

my post was entirely concerning beauty in terms of attraction which is yes mostly in the realm of subjectivity but as I was saying, you can actually find high levels of agreement concerning attraction.

or yes i could cop out autist style out and say this
>>5100462
and ignore all that

like what?

>>5100467
like what?

>>5100493
If I remember correctly most of the modeling done on that is around facial features.

High cheek bones, symmetrical eye positions, thin nose bridge, eye color, stuff like that. As well as other biologically beneficial traits like height.

of course

Beauty is the product of labor

>>5100486
So then your matter is not in terms of objectivity vs subjectivity, but rather which are the cultural standards in the leading role of our sense of beauty at this very place, at this very time.

>>5100514
I thought your point was different. I thought you have said that because there are objective standards to measure beauty, even though standards arise from subjective means anyway.

>>5100514
>height
i think it has more to do with a slim, tapered body rather than height, unless one is tragically tall or short

>>5100535
>So then your matter is not in terms of objectivity vs subjectivity, but rather which are the cultural standards

Inter-subjectivity - a framework to which we all contribute.

The objectively correct answer for the OP is that there is no such a thing as intrinsic value. As the saying goes, "beauty is in the eyes of the beholder", thus it is merely a symbolic perception determined by primary instincts and culture. The very condition we are in, limited by our senses, is enough of a reason to clearly demonstrate that everything is relative and subjective, given that what we see is a mere representation provided by our perceiving senses. The thing-in-itself is unreachable and far-fetched, as we would need to transcend our own condition in order to perceive it. One can't simply tell whether what stands before him is a dream or reality.

>>5100529
>>>/tv/

>>5100534
>Beauty is the product of labor
Go to bed, Ed Miliband.

>>5100541
/lit/ is /tv/ too

Why does /lit/ adore flailing away at objectivity and bashing 'scientism' so much?

When told that Lolita is better, superior (or any other word that demonstrates above) to Twilight, you guys scream about objectivity and 'opinion'. When given a specific, such as 'Nabokov's use of pronoun variation is better than Stephanie Meyer's', you start screaming that the use of 'better' is pushing opinion as objective fact. "There is no possible way to assert that Lolita is in anyway better than Twilight".

Why do you love the stagnation of relativism so much? If you truly believed that all aesthetic value judgements were merely opinion and equal, and all descriptive models of reality lacked objective verification so fall into a relativist equality, why do you choose the operating table over prayer every time?

When it becomes empirical, you guys are forced to stare down the idiocy of your views. Statements like "You cannot objectively prove that your airplane goes faster than my bicycle; that the television is switched on; that elephants exist" would have you ridiculed, and you wouldn't dare to utter them in public; you can't even utter them here, which is why you resort to the vague "all stupid STEMS believe in objectivity."

If you actually believed in your relativism, why did you buy a laptop whose existence you can't objectively prove? An internet connection that might not exist? Why are you on a website whose likelihood of existing is just as probable as it's non-existence because any method of verifying it's existence breaks down?

Within your relativist framework of stupidity, the statement "Lolita is better than Twilight" holds the same weight as "Rhino's are bigger than Ants" as the verification of which relies on an exponential amount of sub constructs - all of which reject bayesianism and wallow in relativism - and would both require the e-prime "it is my opinion that..."

The next time you bang on about objectivity to the unfortunate person you've trapped in the corner of a uni house party, stare the person dead in the eyes and say "I honestly do not know if Rhino's are bigger than Ant's".

Relativism is killing the creative arts. Everyone feels entitled to say "My finger painting is just as good as Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel ceiling" and expects a pat on the pack and plate of biscuits in their feel-good equality safe-space.

>>5100635
>Relativism is killing the creative arts. Everyone feels entitled to say "My finger painting is just as good as Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel ceiling" and expects a pat on the pack and plate of biscuits in their feel-good equality safe-space.

You cannot prove that Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel ceiling is better than my finger painting.

>>5100336
>objective
No

>clearly generalizable over the human population with great accuracy
Yes

>>5100349
Plato was so 500's...

Everything is relative to something. For something to be objective, it must be relative to some unchanging, absolute constant.

Think about what that means for a moment.

>>5100336
Yes.

>>5100635
You can't simply deny the impacts of culture and perception on how someone regards things. Would an animal be able to comprehend the meaning/importance of an important painting? Instead, the beast most likely would stomp on it. Relativism/phenomenology/transcendental idealism is blatantly obvious and should be common sense by now. THERE IS NO OBJECTIVITY IN THE ARTS, MUCH AS TOLSTOY PERFECTLY WORDED IT:

>"If only the spectators or auditors are infected by the feelings which the author has felt, it is art"

>When it becomes empirical, you guys are forced to stare down the idiocy of your views. Statements like "You cannot objectively prove that your airplane goes faster than my bicycle; that the television is switched on; that elephants exist" would have you ridiculed, and you wouldn't dare to utter them in public; you can't even utter them here, which is why you resort to the vague "all stupid STEMS believe in objectivity."

What you seem not to be able to grasp is that metaphysics complement materialism. Could you prove that what you see is exactly what it is? There's a difference in the THING-IN-ITSELF
and its REPRESENTATION. Were you to be color blind and unaware of it, you would never be able to perceive red and thus the world itself would be different in your delineation of things. MANKIND IS ENSLAVED TO ITS OWN CONDITION OF PERCEPTION, THUS ABSOLUTE TRUTH IN ITS ESSENCE IS UNREACHABLE, UNLESS ONE WERE TO BECOME A GOD.

>The next time you bang on about objectivity to the unfortunate person you've trapped in the corner of a uni house party, stare the person dead in the eyes and say "I honestly do not know if Rhino's are bigger than Ant's".

3 SECONDS IN GOOGLE PROVIDED ME THE INFORMATION TO DISMISS YOUR BLATANT REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM:

>How cattle perceive their world affects handling
http://articles.aberdeennews.com/2012-10-05/farmforum/34285454_1_cattle-feedlot-comfort-zone

>"Cattle really see the world differently[...] Due to their limitation in vertical vision and their lack of ability to focus quickly, a shadow on the ground appears to them to be a three-mile deep crevasse!"

So, depending on your vision, an ant could SEEM taller than a rhinos.

>Relativism is killing the creative arts. Everyone feels entitled to say "My finger painting is just as good as Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel ceiling" and expects a pat on the pack and plate of biscuits in their feel-good equality safe-space.

Just read What is art?. There is no intrinsic value to the Arts, as they are mere images or icons. Its meaning and importance are due to the feelings one may have or its cultural significance.

>>5100635
oh no how will the creative arts survive

>>5100635
>Not knowing what relativism is

>>5100635
Very well said. Reminds me of this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OX77Qv66qw

>>5100635
dat marvellous b8

>>5100336
that adagietto. I wonder if I would have liked the film as much as i do without it

>>5100336
where can i get that head of hair

>>5100403
*Muh dick.

>>5100462
>the question of "Is there such a thing as objective beauty?" is pointless given beauty is a personal subjective opinion and therefore meaningless question.
Wut? The answer to the question "Is there such a thing as objective beauty?" is "beauty is a personal subjective opinion". How does an answer make a question pointless?

>>5100542

I wouldn't say so. I've seen a few people say that Jeremy Meeks is ugly. There will always be people who don't find you attractive and there'll always be people that want to jump your bones.
>tfwnogf

>>5100336
>thats a dude
HOLY FUCKING SHIT

You can't oversimplify it that way. There will never be something 100% of all humans find beautiful. But there are general traits that people collectively find more appealing than others.

It's hilarious that people will recognize that the peacock with the brightest feathers or the turkey with the largest wattle are generally the most sexual desirable, but as soon asit comes to humans "EVERYONE IS BEAUTIFUL".

>>5100351
for you

Whatever I find beautiful is objectively beautiful. If you disagree with my taste you are filth and wrong. I, and I alone, decide what is beautiful and what isn't.

I'm serious by the way, you're all scum.

⇒Is there such a thing as objective beauty?

Yes, and I am its definition.

>>5101028
hes like 15 so yeah

those who talk about 'symmetry' being beautiful, imagine if someone told you about a perfectly symmetrical tree they saw on the way to work. would you, without seeing it, call it beautiful?

beauty is in the eye of the beholder. read some kant.

>>5101089
But If Everyone Had Eyes, How Could Eyes Be Real?

>>5100351
It´s a guy.

>>5101036
Pics?

>>5100635
Fight the good fight, soldier. Relativism is cancer.

It's a little thing called Kate Winslet.

Wisdom is objective beauty.

>>5101028

clearly you haven't been exposed to enough trap porn.

>>5100336
On a personal level, no. We all find different things acceptable.

In terms of social norms though, yes, at least to an extent. Society itself is based on subjective opinions though, so who cares?

>>5100635
Why can't finger paintings be as good or better than Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel?

>>5100336
group subjectivity is not objectivity

>>5103116
Because he got to use of those blowgun things with paint it in, and those are like way more cool than fingerprints. Doesn't your school let you use blowgun paint?

Dig this.
The notion "beautiful" came to you from hearing some kids or elders saying it back in the days that may or may not have ever happened (irrelevant, as I am supposing it none the less)
In exerting some sort opinion through writing or speech,
the notion of "democracy" is a load of shit.
Your "opinion" is what you say.
This is why you can always be objective and this "beauty" vessel that you for some reason always had, is brought out for various different things. You receive some sort of reaction to a girlies face because you are supposed to like girlies. You see a painting with a girlie on it, this is "beautiful". "Beauty" is also used in modern art, and in this form is, in my opinion, farce. The modern artist asks "what is beauty?" (not all, just being stereotypical, as to continue the "fun" of my comment) and is searching for some thing like that in to insanity and gives what ever images that may remind himself of assigned sexual fetish and describes that as "beautiful". This is then some thing that needs to be gotten and if not gotten then you may be removed from social opportunities or considered a philistine.

>>5103138

>this guy
>4 real

>>5103186
thank you for reopening this saga of my life

Yes. There is a Form of the Beautiful and it lives in the Realm of the Forms. All things we perceive as beautiful are imperfect reflections of the Form. We recognize things as beautiful because our souls dwelled in the Realm of the Forms before our birth, when we forgot it, but we remember it when we behold the beautiful in this world.

>>5103424
time2fap

>>5100336
tits

>>5103186
Rose
;_;

Beauty is a transcendental.

>>5100336
actually yes.

Oh god. The rose creepy people and now a trapfag. This couldn't get worse. Why don't you obsessed neckbeards fuck off back to /gif/?

>>5100387
gtfo elaine scarry

>>5103798
I don't find that beautiful.

>>5101029
>>5101029
>>5101029
/thread

>>5103490
2deep4/lit/