Based or cringe?

[Anonymous No.22780085]

>Beauty is, in some way, boring. Even if its concept changes through the ages… a beautiful object must always follow certain rules. A beautiful nose shouldn’t be longer than that or shorter than that, on the contrary, an ugly nose can be as long as the one of Pinocchio, or as big as the trunk of an elephant, or like the beak of an eagle, and so ugliness is unpredictable, and offers an infinite range of possibility. Beauty is finite, ugliness is infinite like God. - Umberto Eco

[Anonymous No.22780108]

>>22780085
This charlatan has no idea what he's talking about.
>beauty changes throughout the ages
>except beauty must follow strict rules
it follows that the laws that dictate beauty therefore do not change throughout the ages
turd configuration, shape, size--what have you--is also unpredictable and offers an infinite range of possibility. i suppose a turd ought to be more glorious and brilliant than a sunflower, then?

[Anonymous No.22780118]

>>22780085
>Based or cringe?
Based nigga, cringe woman

[Anonymous No.22780125]

>>22780085
Beauty is not exclusively related to the body. Apparently there's an ideal form that we're trying to imitate like when we're practicing a skill. When we deviate from that ideal our music is a source of suffering instead of joy. Hence modern society.

[Anonymous No.22780161]

>>22780108
Consider a compromise: a highly skilled musician can make music sound incredibly good or incredibly evil because evil has an ideal form too. Even low skilled music, like songs for small children, can be beautiful. Some people can't play anything at all though. But then again look at goblins in Goblin Slayer: they are drawn so well, there's something aesthetic to these small, vile big nosed creatures.

[Anonymous No.22780179]

>>22780161
Physical beauty and artistic beauty are two highly distinct things. The uniquely and curiously grotesque is not, and can never be, beautiful. Conflating that means you've been subsumed by the lowliness of novelty and had wool drawn over your eyes.

[Anonymous No.22780195]

>>22780085
That’s retarded as fuck, beauty is inwardly infinite, ugliness outwardly. Only a fucking dipshit leftist incapable of appreciating beauty think it is simple. Beauty is incredibly complex and through subtle variations it takes infinite forms.

[Anonymous No.22780197]

The guy with the fedora tipping physiognomy actually wrote this.

[Anonymous No.22780199]

>>22780085
>ugly jewish troll copes about his hodeousness

[Anonymous No.22780204]

>>22780085
Ugly faggot cope

[Anonymous No.22780205]

>>22780085
How sterile.

[Anonymous No.22780208]

>>22780197
Le anti-fascist face

[Anonymous No.22780264]

>>22780179
It's true I've been indoctrinated by post-modern philosophy. What reading do you recommend to cure my extreme relativism?

[Anonymous No.22780267]

>>22780264
Proust.

[Anonymouṡ No.22780400]

>>22780085

— What's two plus two?

— Four.

— The correct answer is four, yes. But that's only one answer. And there are literally an infinite number of incorrect answers. Wouldn't you agree?

— Sure.

— God is infinite, is he not?

— Errr, if you say so.

— Therefore, being incorrect is more Godlike than being correct!

— . . .

— I am very intelligent.


The more I hear from this Mr. Eco the less I care for him.

[Anonymous No.22780560]

>>22780400
The nature of the incorrect answers is not that of the correct one. Untruth is not a thing in itself, it is simply the lack of truth. The nature of the correct answer is that it IS, as God's nature IS. Untruth, or 2+2=5, is NOT, therefore it is not God.

[Anonymous No.22780581]

>>22780560
>Untruth, or 2+2=5, is NOT, therefore it is not God.
so there were of course no miracles as described in your scriptures, since God is just universal laws which cannot be broken

[Anonymous No.22780586]

>>22780581
Yet they occurred, since they were willed, which means they are.

[Anonymous No.22780595]

>>22780586
so 2 and 2 could be 5 if it were willed, in the same way a corpse can be brought to life, in which case you have no way of knowing what is "true" since it that is determined by the whims of an astral rabbi and not any form of knowledge accessible to you

[Anonymous No.22780602]

>>22780595
Brilliant, ad hominem. Consider yourself refuted.

[Anonymous No.22780616]

>>22780602
if god can bring corpses back to life then it isn't true that corpses are defined by being dead, just so we cannot look at 2+2=5 as "untruth" any more than we can look at corpse=dead body as truth; truth for you is whatever god does and not anything we can actually agree upon or observe in the absence of what god has willed... Even the Bible tells you that 3=1, so you are fucked either way trying to do math

[Anonymous No.22780626]

>>22780616
So you're claiming the only way for an ugly person to be regarded as not ugly is through literal divine intervention? Self-report?
>Even the Bible tells you that 3=1
You truly are clueless.

[Anonymous No.22780642]

>>22780085
With the advent of neuroesthetics it seems to be the case that the underlying mechanisms governing the amount of "hedonic value" we assign stuff are all governed by interactions with our reward center.

In other words, we train our brains to like what it likes and this ability arises within natural environments in order to orient us towards or away from certain stuff.

So if you've trained it to enjoy trannies or BBC posting, that's something you should probably interrogate. If you don't enjoy it, maybe given enough exposure you eventually will. It'll become "natural" for you, even!

Isn't science cool?!

[Anonymous No.22780644]

>>22780626
you are claiming that 2+2=5 is "untruth" but your only way of knowing what is true is whether god has willed something or not, so while a non-retarded person would agree with me that corpses are dead bodies you have to insist they can, have been, and will be reanimated, even though this goes against observable information from which we might conclude otherwise. Since we have to reject what we observe in order to affirm scripture, your claim that 2+2=5 is untruth only so long as God hasn't revealed otherwise, just as corpses are dead until God reveals otherwise. You don't actually have truth. You have beliefs you hold first, and truth is alleged after the fact. You are in fact the real postmodernist who believes ugliness is beauty, shit is gold, the first shall be last, etc.

[Anonymous No.22780652]

>Beauty is finite, ugliness is infinite
This is true. I wouldn't say "and that's a good thing", but it is true. Beauty is ephemeral and the product of a conscious effort while ugliness just exists.
Mozart plays beautifully, it took him a lifetime of work and innate talent. I smash the keys in random order and it sounds ugly. You need good genetics, a good diet and special care to be beautiful, but one day a drunk driver smashes into your car and your nose gets smeared across your forehead (you were going to transform into a ghastly zombie like mummy anyway).
Beauty is what people want God to be, Ugliness is what God is.

[Anonymous No.22780666]

>>22780652
>Ugliness is what God is.
You misinterpreted the quote. It says ugliness is infinite like God.

[Anonymous No.22780669]

>>22780644
Miracles are by nature events dictated and willed by God that transgress the universal laws that God himself has dictated and willed. God's will is infallible and does not negate the establishment of these universal laws with the slight exception of instances where this infallibility allows for the superceding of phenomena past these universal laws. Just because divine intervention may occur and renege convention does not mean that convention is therefore rendered moot. It is because of the concreteness of these conventions that this divine intervention is called a miracle. These miracles also further concretize these very same conventions by solidifying the fact that they cannot in any shape way or form be transgressed through human ingenuity or craftsmanship, and must necessitate the will and acts of God--not to negate these laws, but simply omit them, and not through abstraction or relativistic suppositions, but through absolute and inviolable manifest.

[Anonymous No.22780680]

>>22780652
Ugliness is Godlessness, and beauty is the attunement to the sublime and immaculate. Petty effete conceptions and moralisms don't apply here. Beauty does not need to be called beautiful in order to affirm and validate its beauty--it simply is beautiful, just the same way that God simply is.

[Anonymous No.22780689]

>>22780669
>Miracles are by nature events dictated and willed by God that transgress the universal laws that God himself has dictated and willed
so 2+2=/=5 is not inherently true since it can br miraculously overridden, and all your claims about truth are purely nominal or contingent, since truth is the mysterious will of the astral rabbi

[Anonymous No.22780691]

Muttification.

[Anonymous No.22780694]

>>22780689
So you still have no argument.
Universal laws can never be negated, only superceded. If you can provide me with an instance where these universal laws have been replicably broken, feel free. I'll wait.

[Anonymous No.22780703]

>>22780680
Ugliness and beauty are both properties of the same universe God created. The difference being ugliness is infinite and the normal state of the universe, while beauty is rare and requires conscious effort. Why would ugliness equate godlessness? Wasn't Lucifer supposed to be the most beautiful angel there was?

[Anonymous No.22780720]

>>22780694
>If you can provide me with an instance where these universal laws have been replicably broken, feel free. I'll wait.
there are none since the only breaches occur in your desert capeshit, so either the laws are broken which makes them false, or the desert capeshit is false, and the laws have not been broken, and are presumably true. They cannot be both true and have been made false, otherwise you have conceded truth is just a rhetorical device or metaphor of some sort to be used in arguments, and not actually anything in itself

[Anonymous No.22780723]

>>22780703
>ugliness is infinite and the normal state of the universe
LOL no you fucking retard
>beauty is rare and requires conscious effort
The immaculate is a fundamental component of existence, you cannot manifest (physical) beauty.
>Wasn't Lucifer supposed to be the most beautiful angel there was?
He embodies the vanity of beauty, it's when this beauty does not simply *be*, but when it doubles down on itself and tries to quell the immaculate for the sake of its own beauty.

[Anonymous No.22780735]

>>22780720
Keep ignoring the fact that I have never stated God breaks these laws, and that these miracles do anything to nullify these laws. Omission does not equate negation. You seem to have a real chip on your shoulder about what your so-called "desert capeshit" has to say. Maybe consider getting a clue?

[Anonymous No.22780748]

>>22780723
>LOL no you fucking retard
Why do you have to be such a dipshit instead of saying something with actual value?
You shit foul-smelling substances through every pore and hole of your being, how is that not ugly?
>The immaculate is a fundamental component of existence, you cannot manifest (physical) beauty.
How so?

[Anonymous No.22780770]

>>22780748
Every single thing that exists and holds the properties of existing must, by necessity, acknowledge and inhabit natural imperatives that give it the components that constitute its beauty. Everything has been configured to work in accordance with everything else, even if such a collaboration results in what one would perceive as a detriment (destructive forces, for example). The immaculate underscores these processes, and these objects constitute the immaculate, and entities primarily embody the immaculate, if unconsciously. It is only through conscious effort or the interference of actively denigrating forces to stymy the absoluteness of the immaculate that ugliness is derived.
>You shit foul-smelling substances through every pore and hole of your being, how is that not ugly?
Sweat is not inherently repulsive, it holds radiant and cooling qualities, and enables us to embody the immaculate and engage in contributing to the sublime (through removing these denigrative forces, i.e waste, and allowing them to evaporate into the air, being quite literally radiant). The smell of your sweat can also be determined by outside factors such as diet and even hormones, so make of that what you will. As for feces, the same applies (smell, texture, and taste all vary with diet), except it has the additional generative quality of being an excellent fertilizer.

[Anonymous No.22780786]

>>22780770
Recommend some books that will help me understand beauty and the immaculate.

[Anonymous No.22780812]

>>22780786
NTA, I recommend reading Thomas Aquina's view on beauty. Eco wrote a book on this, but I've heard scholars have criticisms about the book.
https://iep.utm.edu/medieval-theories-of-aesthetics/#SH3c

[Anonymous No.22780846]

>>22780786
Most of these conclusions are primarily my own, although I can recommend you something by way of Kierkegaard, The Brothers Karamazov (not original, but very applicable), Schopenhauer (to a degree, through his concept of "representation", but be wary of his evil pessimism), Ovid's Metamorphoses, Nietzsche (also to a degree, remain wary of his "transgressions"), Ponty (if you want to get really systematic about it), Aquinas is a great one as mentioned by the anon above me, Mann, Plato (particularly how he handles "virtue" across his oeuvre), Proust (slow, unassuming, yet marvelous beauty), Mishima (that elusive, distant beauty that unconsciously surrounds you), Wordsworth, Coleridge, Alfred Whitehead (how the immaculate functions in coming to fruition in the first place), Baudrillard (provides insight into how one can identify "abstraction" and impediments to these immaculate processes) and Emil Cioran (particularly On the Heights of Despair) (being able to transcend past Cioranist pessimism is the ultimate step towards being able to grasp the immaculate and the moments, instances, or events that could be regarded as sublime--if read correctly, could be extremely life-affirming). That said, I hope to one day be able to write a comprehensive outline of my philosophical outlook on beauty and the immaculate and the processes underlying them. What I have listed above has guided me towards my present conceptions of these things, and I hope you receive them well. Godspeed.

[Anonymous No.22780856]

>>22780846
What would you consider Nietzsche's transgressions?

[Anonymous No.22780879]

>>22780846
Oh, and Faulkner.
>>22780856
I will answer this shortly, I've got some IRL occupations i need to attend to right now

[Anonymous No.22780890]

>>22780735
>resorts to psychology to explain why someone thinks he is wrong
keep coping christkek, if you believe god can ignore "true" laws then there are no such laws and you are as much of a bullshitter on "truth" as everyone you condemn for being pomo... only super-yehud is allowed to be a relativist is that the catch?

[Anonymous No.22780893]

>>22780879
Thanks. Good luck in your activities. I hope you can also mention later in the day why you like Faulkner.

[Anonymous No.22781086]

>>22780890
I'm not even going to entertain you with a response.
>>22780856
Nietzsche's transgressions amount to his misrepresentation of the world and its constituents as an abstract, illusory venue, and finding meaning par excellence and material vitality (this is only a basic part of embodying the immaculate, and certainly not the sole or most overarching component at hand as he stresses it to be) and ascendancy, alongside "spiritual individuation" (his critiques of religion as a subordinating construct rather than an objective system of ordaining and empowering the immaculate). His dramatic fire-and-brimstone aphorisms detailing the horrific and the profane are especially awful. That said, Nietzsche is capable of being able to address and capture the tempestuous majesty of the immaculate, free from myopic humanism and moralisms, and underscores the capacity for one to be able to contribute or serve as a conduit for the dissemination of the immaculate through their actions and their "refinement--that is where Nietzsche's outlook is at its most marvelous.
>>22780893
>why you like Faulkner
The inviolable free range of aesthetical certainty and beauty, the representation of sublimity and profundity in suffering, or even the cursory inconsequential components of the world--things one may take for granted--and the marvelous brilliance of sorrow and lamentation that resounds from each aching line and each breathing masterpiece of aesthetical representation. His prose and relentless style beats like an incessant gale of curious origin and force and could make even the most mundane or otherwise cursory things important and integral to the radiant beauty of the world. Faulkner's writing is some of the most life-affirming literature you can read. To acknowledge and find the beauty in the lamentable is to weep in reverence of the immaculate.

[Anonymous No.22781108]

>>22780085
Only ugly "people" go on rants about beauty. Just as an incel goes on rant about women, a commie about money and property, a whore about cheating etc. When you let envy and ego take control, you lost, it's ogre because everything else - lack of accountability, low impulse control, extremism, gaslighting etc stems from this. It all comes back to the capital sins, every single time.
You should see beauty and aspire towards it close as possible. If your max is 65 out of 100 then that is your maximum. If you can somehow overcome it, even better for you and the world around you. Beauty is capital and is the only quality that is both physical during our lives and also transcends after our death, alongside us, through God's grace. Beauty is comprehensible and incomprehensible at the same time, it is the liquid that spins the wheel of life for the most relaxing moments a person can have during his lifetime is in presence of beauty - the wife, the mountain vista, the tree at your window - it all stems from beauty.
Beauty is the only one that directly interferes with your physical body without creating any kind of defensive response of any type for it makes you smile - when you smile, as opposed to when you frown, cry, feel fear etc, you do not feel anything wrong on your face, it's like nothing is moving, whether when you perform the latter examples you feel your skin being pulled, you feel pressure, you feel stings, crumple sensations etc.
A normal person can say "I hate being born but not my existence for the first action birth made me do is cause pain" whether an ugly one would say "I hate God". Cornered animals, no matter how much they civilize themselves during their lifetimes.

[Anonymous No.22781118]

>>22781108
Incredible post, made me tear up.

[Anonymous No.22781126]

>>22781086
>His prose and relentless style beats like an incessant gale of curious origin and force and could make even the most mundane or otherwise cursory things important and integral to the radiant beauty of the world. Faulkner's writing is some of the most life-affirming literature you can read.
True

[Anonymous No.22781142]

>>22780085
>Beauty is, in some way, boring
Barthes has a similar line in, I think, S/Z. He says that you can never really describe beauty as a writer, you can only refer back to other classical references for beauty (Helen of Troy, etc.), or to conventional similes (skin like snow). So ideal beauty itself can never be made present in a text, but only evoked by referring to something else.

[Anonymous No.22781241]

>>22781142
Wrong, it can be represented prosaically. Invoked, if you will. Artistic beauty manifests itself in the manner in which it is represented, so the textual basis for such beauty then serves as the means of characterizing and transmitting that beauty to the reader. The necessitation of classical references or conventional similes is an indicator of creative bankruptcy and a puerile grasp of aesthetics.

[Anonymous No.22781635]

>>22781108
god doesn't exist

[Anonymous No.22781642]

>>22781635
go back

[Anonymous No.22781649]

>>22781642
christianity is for fags and whores

[Anonymous No.22781705]

>>22781649
so edgy mr euphoric

[Anonymous No.22781707]

>>22781705
thanks, christnigger
I always try my worst

[Anonymous No.22782067]

>>22780085
>In a delightful little essay onThe Beauty of FlowersLord Northbourne is struck by the sheer lavishness displayed by nature in her numerous forms. He remarks:

>The picture of flowers manifests a joyous superfluity that accords ill with any conception so grim as that of a universal struggle for existence taken as the influence which has made that picture what it is and has conferred on us the inexplicable and gratuitous benediction of flowers.

>Indeed, experienced botanist as he was, the Lord only knew to well, that the outer beauty of certain flowers confers no discernable reproductive advantage on them. The meager greenery of ivy, gooseberries and sycamores is just as contested among the bees and bugs as the lavish bloom of poppies and peonies. The fig and the yucca compete for the same species of insects, yet the flowers of the fig are entirely hidden while the yucca flaunts its large white flowers in great plumes. What is more, within certain kinds likeCotoneasterthe least conspicuous specimen have proven to be even more successful than their more attractive counterparts.

>However, what the Lord observed among the plants and trees holds just as true within the animal kingdom. We need only to think of the song of the wood thrush or the plumage of peacocks, the ornament of butterflies and the dances of the manakins. None of these things are a matter of mere exigency; they manifest, each in their own way, the infinite beauty of the Primal Cause, thekalokagathíato which they revert and from which they receive being and essence. Beauty is revelation, a self-disclosure of Him, in whom all beauty and goodness resides.
>Beauty is an end in itself, that is to say, it has to do with final causality. Now according to Aristotle an effect can be attributed to four modes of causes: material, efficient, formal and final causes. Contemporary materalism knows only of efficient and material causes and has dispensed with all notions of formal and final causality. Hence the voice of beauty must ring hollow to it.

>While the ultimate cause of beauty is rooted in finality, it is revealed in the fullfilment of form. Beauty is “resplendentia formae”, the intelligible radiance exuded by the mastery of form over matter. The materialists has to relegate all types of quality, including beauty, to the realm of subjectivity. But beauty is as objective as mathematics, and indeed deeply related to it, although it might be perceived differently by each of us. The mathematical structure revealed in the tail of the peacock gives a stunning testimony of this mastery, the subjection of material chaos under the laws of reason, structure, logos. And while the Darwinist may avert his eyes in disgust at this preposterous design of nature, that seems to mock his every deeply held conviction, we should stop and thank the Maker of beauty, wherever we encounter it. Deo gratias.

[Anonymous No.22782073]

>>22782067
>Charles Darwin once supposedly wrote that the sight of a male peacock’s tail made him physically ill; and how could it not? Its gratuitous beauty acts as a damning indictment against all notions of the sort of utilitarian reductionism that he and his followers profess. It was Nietzsche of all people, who wrote with regards to Darwin’s theory, that “one should not confuse Malthus with nature”. The natural world doesn’t work on the principles of economics, it is a kosmos, i.e. “adorned”, “decorated” (kosmeô) beyond the material needs of survival and reproduction.

[Anonymous No.22782608]

>>22780560
Thank you, Brother Dominican. May your readings of Scripture and the Summa always be fruitful

[Anonymous No.22783994]

>>22780085
>be ugly faggot
>seethe about it
>come up with contrived way about how acktshuallhy you are le god-like
How do people such as this exist?

[Anonymous No.22784755]

>>22780199

[Anonymous No.22784759]

>>22784755
lol

[Anonymous No.22784794]

>>22781086
>The inviolable free range of aesthetical certainty and beauty, the representation of sublimity and profundity in suffering, or even the cursory inconsequential components of the world--things one may take for granted--and the marvelous brilliance of sorrow and lamentation that resounds from each aching line and each breathing masterpiece of aesthetical representation. His prose and relentless style beats like an incessant gale of curious origin and force and could make even the most mundane or otherwise cursory things important and integral to the radiant beauty of the world. Faulkner's writing is some of the most life-affirming literature you can read. To acknowledge and find the beauty in the lamentable is to weep in reverence of the immaculate.
You're almost as tedious as Faulkner himself.

[Anonymous No.22784922]

>>22784794
And you're almost as puerile, knuckle-headed, and insignificant as Hemingway.

[Anonymous No.22785703]

>>22780595
>astral rabbi
kek

[Anonymous No.22786768]

>>22780786
THE Aesthetic writing

[Anonymous No.22787593]

>>22784755
Tyranids are space skaven equivalent (the swarm-tactics faction)

And skaven indeed were based on stereotypes about the jews.