[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 91 KB, 1000x750, 43727f8ccfb3eb638dae4083ea13ea4e.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15224132 No.15224132 [Reply] [Original]

Despite the fact that people usually agree that certain phenomena, such as blooming flowers, flowing rivers, sunsets, or mountains are beautiful, it is also extremely common to hear people claim that "beauty is subjective", as if there were no aesthetic qualities which could be in-themselves positive and therefore also be agreed upon by any person.
Has anybody in recent times tried to compose any arguments worth of notice in favour of the idea of objective beauty?

>> No.15224148

Hegel

>> No.15224190

Beauty is subjective in the sense that there are many different variations of beauty that can't all be appreciated universally at any single moment.

>> No.15224192

Beauty is a word, a word of a notion, and in every head there’s no clear lines to draw. Some beauty is found outside the lines. Beauty is generally found a all the flowering of life, but some will find it in the the decaying autumnal leaves, the skeletons of the dead.
It is subjective

>> No.15224200

>>15224192
based

>> No.15224209

>>15224200
simp

>> No.15224213

>>15224209
I just agree with the idea, couldn't give two shits about the person, you normifag.

>> No.15224219

>>15224213
then explain the idea, simp

>> No.15224222
File: 51 KB, 500x500, 93705E7B-8489-431D-B368-48FD251E2387.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15224222

>>15224209
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_OHV2Syrjg

>> No.15224470

>>15224219
shitposter asking for me effort, lel

>> No.15224839

>>15224192
Except that the exact qualia that the word 'beauty' is applied to is not subjective - its is objective - and exists in everyone. Everyone somewhere in their body, even if they deny it, finds the same things truly beautiful, and that feeling is what the word 'beauty' is applied to. Even things like the sun shining on a piece of concrete is still in part attached to the objective notion of beauty, since the concrete is illuminated by our sun that we find beautiful. Finding something ugly beautiful could be indicative of a twisted mind or it could just be 'informed' by context, perhaps it appears ugly on the surface yet its meaning is beautiful. So it is not in fact subjective at all. Yes, people might say that they find the flowering of life disgusting and the rotting of carcasses beautiful, but their opinion is informed and twisted, maybe sick or maybe contextually correct.

>> No.15224849

>>15224132
>the idea of objective beauty?
An absurd standard like objective morality or objective truth.
EVERYTHING is subjective.

>> No.15224913

>>15224839
There is an aesthetic sense built into our DNA. For example, most people will find a verdant valley to be beautiful because it is a hospitable environment and being attracted to it would improve chance of survival.

But all that line of thinking does is broaden the subject from an individual to the human species. It's still subjective in nature. Mike thinks flowers are pretty becomes humans think flowers are pretty. Something is only objective if it remains true when you remove ALL subjects from the equation.

>> No.15224920

>>15224209
HE AGREED WITH A WOMAN WHAT A FAG

>> No.15225076

>>15224849
is the idea of subjectivity subjective? if so, even the definition os subjectivity is different from everyone and therefor i can choose to be obejctive just like that?
ez
thanks bro you just overcomed Kant

>> No.15225094
File: 244 KB, 1036x1154, 646E6648-941D-467F-A877-74591BE37A5E.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15225094

>>15224192
> Beauty is a word, a word of a notion, and in every head there’s no clear lines to draw. Some beauty is found outside the lines. Beauty is generally found a all the flowering of life, but some will find it in the the decaying autumnal leaves, the skeletons of the dead. It is subjective

>> No.15225145

>>15224839
you are explaining why beauty is subjective. if somebody can see beauty in the ugly is because is subjective. what you are trying to say is that everyone have a sense of beauty. which i agree. but that is totally different from "beauty is objective", bro.

>> No.15225180

>>15224839
>Except that the exact qualia that the word 'beauty' is applied to is not subjective - its is objective - and exists in everyone.
cringe. brainlet tier.

>> No.15225192

>>15225180
does your mom know you gay?

>> No.15225204

>>15225192
I'll tell mine when you tell yours. Ladies first.

>> No.15225235

>>15225145
All humans base their ideals of beauty from the same principles. Nobody would sincerely proclaim anything outside those principles to be beautiful - even if they did, they would just be spouting empty words. Within those rules, of course things aren't clone like, there are many subsets of 'beauty', like how colors are based off RGB. How is that saying beauty is subjective? how you would define objective beauty?
>if someone can see beauty in the ugly that is because beauty is objective
No, that would mean that ugly thing would have to be objectively beautiful.

>> No.15225239

>>15225180
empty words to cope with the pain of reality

>> No.15225246

>>15225204
You’ll tell your parents you’re a faggot once I tell my parents youre gay?

>> No.15225250

>>15225235
He already explained it well enough:

>>15224913

>> No.15225251

>>15225235
>All humans base their ideals of beauty from the same principles.
But those principles are subjective. That's why here, when they post a photo of a woman some faggots say she's ugly, some say she's beautiful, some say she's alright. Each one has different values on what constitutes beauty for them. What's the phrase? "One man's garbage is another man's treasure." Same goes for beauty.

>> No.15225254

>>15224839
Beauty isn't fully objective in the sense that all subjects perceive reality differently. Different cultures are a testament to the variety of perception towards the outer world. Beauty is dependent upon the perceiver, there is no objective consensus to absolute aesthetic excellence. Beauty is personal, and that's part of the beauty of beauty

>> No.15225255

>>15225246
I'll tell them I'm gay after you tell your parents that you're gay. I'm only being considerate here, not really gay. Like shaving one's head to sympathize with cancer patients.

>> No.15225261

>>15225239
Not quite where I'm coming from. An abstract concept such as beauty simply can't be objective nor exist identically in every person.

>> No.15225297

>>15225235
>No, that would mean that ugly thing would have to be objectively beautiful.
you mean that everything that a man feel as beauty is objective beauty?.

>> No.15225300
File: 101 KB, 785x731, 1574917980573.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15225300

>>15224209
>simp

>> No.15225303

>>15224132
The problem is that the Culture Wars have drawn one of their battle lines across the divide between "objective" and "subjective" as though they were equivalent to "truth" and "opinion" respectively, which simply isn't true. The terms have a long history in the field of hermeneutics and all they denote is toe relation between the object and the knower. That is why we hear Kierkegaard saying that truth is "subjective" and affirm the Christian God without contradiction, because he knows that "subjective" doesn't mean opinion, it only means that the site of knowing is the subject (the knower), not the object. The question is not whether there is such a thing as truth, because material facts are accepted as such. The question is whether values can be facts, and that is difficult to prove, but it is even harder to deny.

>> No.15225308

>>15225255
So you’re a gay faggot?

>> No.15225311

>>15224132
Maybe a partners in crime argument like the moral realists have. You're thinking about it the wrong way though. Consensus isn't necessary for something to be a matter of fact.

>> No.15225321

>>15225308
No, you most likely are, that's why you brought this gay thing out of nowhere. Projection is very telling. But we'll help you, mate, don't worry. It's 2020, just come out. Nobody really cares.

>> No.15225326

>>15225321
So your gay?

>> No.15225336

>>15225326
no u

>> No.15225339

>>15225297
Yeah but the man could be lying or misrepresenting what he thinks is beautiful.

>> No.15225344

charles lalo "introduction à l'esthétique"
Good luck

>> No.15225371

>>15225336
penis. Does that word make u hot

>> No.15225384

>>15225371
kind of sounds like peanuts, and I've an allergy to those just like I'm allergic to homosex. Checkmate, faggot.

>> No.15225388

>>15224839
>Exact qualia that the word 'beauty' is applied to is not subjective
There's about a century worth of linguistic philosophy that disagrees with this premise

>> No.15225405

>>15225384
>penis sounds like peanuts
like when a penis is in your mouth or because you associate penis with things you put in your mouth because you’re a homosexual

>> No.15225419

>>15225388
can you list some so I can read them anon

>> No.15225421

>>15225405
I don't put either of those things in my mouth because I'm allergic to both. On the other hand you seem quite thrilled about penises in mouths and such. Good look with your sexual exploration.

>> No.15225455

>>15225419
Charles Sanders Pierce, John Searle, Jacques Derrida, Ferdinand De Saussure, to name a few. Honestly there are few that work from the premise that words are necessarily attached to real things or that real phenomena necessarily influence concepts, you can probably pick up just about anybody.

>> No.15225460

>>15225421
Gaaay

>> No.15225545

>>15224913
>Something is only objective if it remains true when you remove ALL subjects from the equation
No

>> No.15225562

>>15225545
Great argument!

>> No.15225577
File: 9 KB, 290x174, 2423423423.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15225577

>>15225460
>Gaaay

>> No.15225593

>>15224913
So then something like, ‘beauty for humans’ is objective? Even if all humans were to go, the qualities which would make humans perceive beauty would still be the same

>> No.15225601

>>15224913
tell me what you find beautiful

>> No.15225606
File: 175 KB, 1360x868, 7955CFF3-098E-4833-AD8F-83111838D1B7.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15225606

>>15225577

>> No.15225611

>>15225593
No because there is no definition of beauty

>> No.15225626

>>15225606
kek nice wojak, gay boy.

>> No.15225636

>>15225626
does thinking I’m gay make you horny faggot

>> No.15225648

>>15225636
I never thought you were gay until you brought it up out of nowhere.

>> No.15225656

>>15225648
Do you like penis in your mouth?

>> No.15225662
File: 136 KB, 640x622, 1586104679824.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15225662

>>15225339
ok. i put it like this. beauty as a "feeling" more or less is the same in everyone. as a feeling. but the expressions of that feeling are infinite and not concrete.
your objective beauty is something ineffable and ethereal. is something inexpressible because the subject is the one who are expressing it.

>> No.15225711

>>15225662
Even without the subject to express it, that beauty ideal would still 'exist'. If humans became extinct and somehow rose up again from a single cell, even if all the records of history were obliterated, the same ideals of beauty, and the same feelings would arise again. To me, subjective beauty is used by people often to justify their liking for something - to me it means that anyone can choose what they want to find beautiful, which is not possible since there is a set limit on what beauty could possibly be 'beautiful', like a stem or a tree, spawning off into branches that are all informed by what came before, but ultimately all part of the same whole. The whole 'idea' of beauty would then be objective. There is no singular subject in this reality either, so there can be no subjective beauty. It doesn't really matter if people act like it is subjective anyway, just like free will.

>> No.15225768

>>15225711
> If humans became extinct and somehow rose up again from a single cell, even if all the records of history were obliterated, the same ideals of beauty, and the same feelings would arise again.
What makes you think that?

>> No.15225774

>>15225656
No, but I like my penis in a mouth.

>> No.15225796

>>15225711
>If humans became extinct and somehow rose up again from a single cell, even if all the records of history were obliterated, the same ideals of beauty, and the same feelings would arise again.
i disagree with this. we are fragile and delicate, our conscience is fragile and delicate too. a little tiny thing can change it all. you maybe want to say... "if we die and we born again and we live the exact same way as we lived until now then we feel the same as now". but that is stupid. if we born again everything would be open and unwritten. but that is not the point of the matter. i know.
beauty. beauty is just a feeling. is just a concept. we differentiate it from joy or happiness because we evolve our expression but we can put it toghether and not so much would change.

>> No.15225828
File: 36 KB, 1200x612, bouba_kiki.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15225828

>>15225455
>Honestly there are few that work from the premise that words are necessarily attached to real things or that real phenomena necessarily influence concepts, you can probably pick up just about anybody.
>casually destroys a century of sophism with two drawings