/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6704819]

>beauty is like ... subjective anon
*giggle*

[Anonymous No.6704823]

>>6704819
It literally defines subjectivity.

[Anonymous No.6704828]

beauty is tension between geometric/objective and foamic/subjective

[Anonymous No.6704830]

>>6704828
>foamic
wat

[Anonymous No.6704837]

>>6704823

Theoretically, sure. But among humans beauty can be objectively measured. Their is a large consensus on what's considered beautiful - green landscapes, wide hips, good food - because of our shared evolutionary background (we're attracted to what's "good" for our survival so object appears beautiful).

Among individuals and across cultures there's striking consistency on this subject.

[Anonymous No.6704839]

>>6704837
>green landscapes, wide hips, good food
If that's your concept of beauty, you need to leave this board. Now. Go look at a field, or some porn, or a picture some retard has made of their lunch, but leave us alone.

[Anonymous No.6704841]

>>6704837
All culturally imparted and therefore subjective.

[Anonymous No.6704848]

>>6704841
Have you never heard of the Mozart experiment on african tribes ?

It's literally aesthetic realism/antirealism 101
You'll have to do better than >muh culture >muh determinism if you want to undermine this

[Anonymous No.6704850]

>>6704841
Wrong. It's not cultural in the slightest.

[Anonymous No.6704852]

Beauty is objective and can be measured. Helen of Troy was the most beautiful woman in the world "Was this the face that launch'd a thousand ships, / And burnt the topless towers of Ilium." Thus beauty can be measured in hellenistic units, the millihelen being a one thousandth part of her rescue fleet launching tendencies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBI6BKxe880

[Anonymous No.6704860]

Aesthetic judgments are necessarily subjective of course, however some people do have better taste than others.

More detailed and a wider range in discernment is greater sophistication and thus superior taste regardless of actual preference.

i.e. taste is subjective and some subjects are better than others

[Anonymous No.6704861]

>>6704852
>milihelen
Noice

[Anonymous No.6704862]

Daily reminder that
>The concepts of what is subjective and what is objective have been completely inverted. Objective means the non-controversial side of the phenomenon, its unquestioned imprint, taken as it is, the facade constructed out of classified data, therefore the subjective; and they call subjective, whatever breaks through such, emerging out of the specific experience of the thing, divesting itself of prejudged convention and setting the relation to the object in place of the majority decision concerning such, which they cannot even see, let alone think – therefore, what is objective. How vacuous the formal objection to subjective relativity is, can be observed in its own actual field, that of aesthetic judgments. Those who have subjected themselves in earnest, out of the energy of their precise reaction, to the discipline of a work of art, to the compulsion of its shape, of its immanent law of form, find the objection against what is merely subjective in their experience dissolving like a threadbare appearance, and every step they take further into the matter, by virtue of their extreme subjective innervation, has incomparably greater objective power than comprehensive and much-vindicated conceptual formations, such as that of “style,” whose scientific claim comes at the cost of such experience. This is doubly true in the era of positivism and of the culture-industry, whose objectivity is calculated by administrating subjects. In contrast to this, reason has fled completely into eyeless idiosyncrasy, which the caprice of the power-brokers castigates as caprice, because they want the powerlessness of subjects, out of fear of the objectivity, which alone is sublated in these subjects.

[Anonymous No.6704863]

>>6704860
but taste is just an ability to discern ? not a set of preferences

[Anonymous No.6704872]

>>6704841

No, the exact opposite in fact. How can you misunderstand that?

[Anonymous No.6704876]

What does it even mean to say that beauty is objective or subjective?

That the truth of the statement "that is beautiful" resides in the subject or the object?

This approach defeats itself, see: POS - Perception: Or the Thing and Deception.

[Anonymous No.6704879]

>>6704839

You don't find those things beautiful?

[Anonymous No.6704880]

>>6704879
what a traumatising movie

[Anonymous No.6704882]

>>6704862
Which book is this from?

[Anonymous No.6704883]

>>6704876
>That the truth of the statement "that is beautiful" resides in the subject or the object?
So objective then?

[Anonymous No.6704886]

>>6704883
It's obviously neither.

[Anonymous No.6704889]

>>6704879
Beautiful is such a strong word. Such things may be pretty, nice, pleasing, or tantalizing. Beauty is a whole different matter. At the very least it requires meaningful composition, and a dualism of emotional impact and intellectual complexity.

[Anonymous No.6704890]

>>6704882
Minima Moralia.

[Anonymous No.6704893]

Why does it have to be exclusively subjective or objective? Beauty is both subjective and objective. Most people share the same general notions of what is aesthetically pleasing. But our tastes do differ, thus it's partially subjective.

[Anonymous No.6704895]

>>6704889

I would suggest that experiencing beauty - much like disgust it this regard - is immediate. Instinctual. The rationalization of the feelings comes much later.

[Anonymous No.6704896]

>>6704889
>intellectual complexity
back up this claim

>>6704895
I personally agree with those points

[Anonymous No.6704912]

>>6704895
>>6704896
Ok, if you people think aesthetic experience is a completely un-intellectual affair, explain literature and poetry. Explain fine art. Explain music. If beauty is just a gut reaction to stuff, why do you even read (assuming you do, even when that whole attitude is extremely un-/lit/)? Why don't you just take a shitton of drugs and fap all day?

[Anonymous No.6704913]

Shakespeare is not a great poet because of his "beauty", it's his poems capacity to enrich the souls of their beholders.

This is the key to objective aesthetic judgments.

[Anonymous No.6704918]

>>6704912
While poetry and literature include intellectual elements, some beautiful things have no intellectual elements (eg tsunami clouds)

I'm not saying aesthetic experience is un-intellectual, but that the intellectuallisation of the experience of beauty is contingent.

[Anonymous No.6704926]

>>6704918
>some beautiful things have no intellectual elements eg tsunami clouds
I'm not saying the objects of aesthetic experience necessarily have intellectual elements, I'm saying the aesthetic experience itself has indispensable intellectual elements.
But go ahead, explain the selective advantage of taking pleasure in looking at a cloud that looks like a wave.

[Anonymous No.6704928]

>>6704912

I don't really understand your combativeness. This is hardly a topic to get pissy about.

Intellectual pursuits still tap into emotional impulses.

[Anonymous No.6704929]

>>6704926
would you mind dropping the worthless rhetoric, this isn't a rap battle, and clarifying
>aesthetic experience itself has indispensable intellectual elements.

[Anonymous No.6704942]

>>6704848
mozart sucks dude, they would probably like bach

[Anonymous No.6704949]

>>6704929
not even that anon but are you dumb
what is not to understand about the very obvious idea stated

[Anonymous No.6704956]

>>6704929
Well, take your beloved clouds, why would anyone find them beautiful, if it wasn't for what you associate with them intellectually. In itself, as a mere visual stimulus, the cloud has little in common with hips, fields, and food, all of which we like in the very same way a lower animal might like such things. I'm certainly no expert in aesthetic theory, but just off the top of my head, a massive object floating weightlessly in the sky while taking the shape of of a movement of water, this contains a twofold reversal of the natural order, which to us looks like a symbol of salvation, utopia (or something, this is imprecise, but you get the point).
>>6704928
>Intellectual pursuits still tap into emotional impulses.
Sure, the dichotomy would be false, but: this is no longer immediacy, then.

[Anonymous No.6704961]

>>6704949
not that anon but >>6704929 is obviously using socratic dialogue

[Anonymous No.6704969]

>>6704956
I see, but then if every experience is a resonance with something past though an intellectual process, what is the origin of this chain of connections, what is the first link of this reminescence ?

[Anonymous No.6704984]

>>6704969
>what is the first link of this reminescence
That is forgotten and buried in the unconscious I think, but it also doesn't really matter for any purpose. The very act of thinking about this seems to require more connections that are available at the beginning. (tbh I'm not sure what you're talking about, I didn't mention memory.)

[Anonymous No.6704985]

>>6704956

I'm not sure you understand. Beauty achieved through intellectual pursuits are as objective as those achieved immediately.

[Anonymous No.6704989]

>>6704956

The visual stimulus can in some way be said to imply clouds, hips, food by way of it´s dependence of fractal geometry to be perceived and the tendency of this sort of system to be perceived as beautiful in virtue of its relationship with all other natural phenomena including the workings of our minds and eyes.

The subject and object starts to vibrate in a pattern that functions as the backdrop for all experience. A state of being that is beyond the process of ego, and more holistically inclined. I think the feeling of being embedded in such a pattern or "space" is the feeling of beauty.

Don´t know if Kant talked about this as well - the free play of imagination and reason, the infinite series of aesthetic ideas that are immediately apparent.

[Anonymous No.6704991]

>>6704837
>a varying degree of intersubjectivity is objectivity
Never go full retard.

[Anonymous No.6704994]

>>6704985
I never said they weren't objective, just that immediacy in that sense doesn't exist. Paraphrasing Kant, judgment, i.e. the application of concepts to phenomena, is the essential unit of experience.

[Anonymous No.6704995]

>>6704984
Not necessarily memory but maybe something different. The divine, something commonly found in humans ? Surely then this would be objective or common in some ways.

Also digging to this first step would be a great move to understand the essence of beauty

[Anonymous No.6705002]

>>6704991

How do you explain beauty without factoring in an evolved, and universal, human nature? Are you under the impression it's magic?

[Anonymous No.6705003]

>>6704819
read thread, didn't know what tsunami clouds were, googled it, pretty cool

[Anonymous No.6705006]

>>6704989
Oh well, I'm not that convinced of Kant's take on aesthetics, he makes it such a dispassionate affair.
>>6704995
I don't think this is based in some original first step, but rather in the complexity that follows.

[Anonymous No.6705008]

>>6705006
cue resonance theory ?

[Anonymous No.6705011]

>>6704848
The fuck does that have to do with finding wide hips attractive instinctually?

[Anonymous No.6705014]

>>6705008
Interesting stuff, but I was talking from a purely phenomenological point of view.

[Anonymous No.6705017]

>>6705011
well I don't think being sexually attracted and finding something beautiful are the same thing

[Anonymous No.6705021]

>>6705017

The former is under the remit of the latter, or wouldn't you agree?

[Anonymous No.6705022]

>>6705014
ah I see. thank you for your input

[Anonymous No.6705033]

>>6705021
I don't think so but am not well-versed enough in the matter to argue my point.

I would say that you can experience beauty without attraction, attraction without beauty but that they can be interwined, but not necessarily

Their relationship appears contingent to me

[Anonymous No.6705038]

>>6704994
>Paraphrasing Kant,
Just quote him directly, he was quite clear on the subject:

"the aesthetic experience of beauty is a judgement of a subjective but similar human truth, since all people should agree that “this rose is beautiful.” " --Kant

[Anonymous No.6705041]

>>6705038
>judgement of a subjective but similar human truth
I don't understand, how is that different from pure objectivity ?
Does he mean that it is only objective in the limits of humanity ie. that there is no aesthetic realism, but a common ground for beauty in all humans ?

This also implies that beauty doesn't exist outside of the human perception ?

[Anonymous No.6705043]

I thought beauty was found in ratios.

[Anonymous No.6705046]

Oh, look, another ethics/aesthetics, good/bad thread full of people who haven't read Korzybski yet.

[Anonymous No.6705053]

>>6705038
That's besides the point. To be clear: I agree with the Kantian rejection of immediacy, but not with his account of a dispassionate aesthetic judgment.

[Anonymous No.6705060]

>>6705043
Objectively, yes, but that doesn't allow for academic wankery and sophistry.

[Anonymous No.6705063]

>>6705060
>>6705043
>symmetria in 2015
Michelangelo pls go back to hell

[Anonymous No.6705065]

This is /lit/, dumbass. Book or GTFO

[Anonymous No.6705071]

>>6705063
>he doesn't know basic mathematics

[Anonymous No.6705080]

>>6705071
I know that you were a filthy homo and that you are burning in hell now fagget

also
>what is sum of part
>what is the agency argument

[Anonymous No.6705123]

>>6705080
God isn't real.

[Anonymous No.6705129]

>>6705123
Michael sure thought it was
Have you never been to the Sistine chapel ?

[Anonymous No.6705152]

>>6705129
How is that proof?

[Anonymous No.6705154]

>>6704837
>we're attracted to what's "good" for our survival so object appears beautiful

Lol. This is pseudoscientific bullshit. Evolutionary psychology isn't nearly rigorous enough to come to conclusions like this.

[Anonymous No.6705157]

>>6704852
That song is fucking awful, please don't tell me you listen to this shit.

[Anonymous No.6705170]

>>6705152
How can you prove God isn't real?

[Anonymous No.6705176]

>>6704837
>green landscapes, wide hips, good food

none of these are 'beautiful'. they're appealing also for reasons other than visual. i hope the studies that measured responses 'across cultures' had a more specific working definition of beautiful but i can't say these three things typify what is beautiful

[Anonymous No.6705181]

>>6705170
How can you prove Bigfoot isn't real?

You can't, but there's no convincing evidence at all.

[Anonymous No.6705218]

>>6704913
>it's his poems capacity to enrich the souls of their beholders.

Right, because "enrich the souls" is such an unambiguous concept.

[Anonymous No.6705229]

If beauty is subjective why do girls hate me

Please respond

[Anonymous No.6705238]

>>6705181
the burden of proof isn't on me though. And there is indirect evidence for God. Such as the universe, intelligent life etc.

[Anonymous No.6705266]

>>6705238
You need to step up your game, anon.

[Anonymous No.6705331]

>>6705238
>the burden of proof isn't on me though.
Except it is. We have a giant Foucaultian semantic structure of which the concept of 'God', the essence of 'God-ness', and the various other attributes which you may or may not tag your concept with (omniscience, omnipotence, infinite. . .), are all internal too. We can demonstrate this quite aptly. Your argument requires you to show how God is external to this structure, and not a man made linguistic concept -- created in your image -- that you use to 'describe' something you can't fathom.

[Anonymous No.6705344]

>>6705218
not really
it gives you a thing
there

>>6705176
muh contrarian

[Anonymous No.6705349]

>>6705152
It's a joke about Michelango being a cocksucker and fearing god because he was gay you fedora-tipping uneducated swine

[Anonymous No.6705350]

>>6705344
Shitposting used to be a art.

[Anonymous No.6705352]

>>6705350
Now it's just entertainment and doesn't enrich the soul.

[Anonymous No.6705614]

I still have no idea why /lit/ can't wrap their heads around people having opinions.

[Anonymous No.6705618]

>>6705614
Opinions are not understandings. Mere opinions are worthless.

[Anonymous No.6705623]

>>6705618
Cool opinion.

[Anonymous No.6705633]

>>6705618
Says the idiot with a worthless opinion.

[Anonymous No.6705659]

>subjectivity is like ... intersubjective

[Anonymous No.6705695]

>>6704823
What are aesthetics

[Anonymous No.6705696]

>>6705331
Your argument is retarded. All major religions (well at least Jews and Catholics) consider our concept of God to be a man made concept because God is unfathomable. That's why faith is required.

[Anonymous No.6705722]

>>6704819
Yup, Caucasoid features are the best.

[Anonymous No.6705755]

>>6705696
>All major religions (well at least Jews and Catholics) consider our concept of God to be a man made concept because God is unfathomable.
okay.
>That's why faith is required.
Two issues there.
1. So, 'faith' in something you know you have artificially created yourself?
2. 'faith' and 'faith-ness' both remain semantic structures themselves. You're not catching anyone in your Aristotelian reality trap, sneaky christposter.