beauty

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Re: beauty

Postby MagsJ » Sat Nov 14, 2020 11:09 pm

_
Is Iam, Turd?
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. - MagsJ
I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something at some point in time.. Huh! - MagsJ
You’re suggestions and I, just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a really bad DJ - MagsJ
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek
 
Posts: 20864
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka / LDN Town

Re: beauty

Postby iambiguous » Sat Nov 14, 2020 11:17 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Sure, that's one way to actually avoid addressing the point that I am making here.


Yes, I am avoiding addressing your point and I do so because I think that by addressing your point I would initiate an off-topic discussion.


Okay, you got me on a...technicality.

Okay, then in regard to those 100 human faces, 100 human bodies and 100 works of art, what are you saying? If different people have different personal opinions regarding beauty, what criteria would be used to establish what is "truly beautiful"?


Magnus Anderson wrote: I said nothing about what method should be used to discover what is "truly beautiful".


So, then what? Someone claims that someone is beautful and that someone is not, and the only criteria they need to "demonstrate" this is the fact that they believe it?

Magnus Anderson wrote: But I do have a rough idea. Note that it's a rough idea. It's not an idea you can take and implement straight away. Some details are missing and must be filled in. In other words, further work is required.


Well, when the work is finished note any definitive conclusions you come to in regard to objective beauty.

Observer wrote:No - not HERE. He said start your own thread for that.


Magnus Anderson wrote:I also told him to provide an argument in favor of his claim (which is "Magnus Anderson is a dogmatism") and he didn't do that either.

Basically, he ignored everything I said :o

Only moderators can stop him -- and they aren't doing their job.


What's this supposed to mean? If the moderators here were doing their job, what would you advise them to do?

On the other hand, the only moderator that's left [to the best of my knowledge] is Dan.

Or Carleas. But if you click on him it notes this: Last visited: Mon Nov 02, 2020 12:57 pm

And if you click on The Team

MODERATORS
Dan global moderator
Flannel Jesus global moderator

Abstract Staff Emeritus
Alexistentialism Staff Emeritus
Janitorben Staff Emeritus
Janitorfelix dakat Staff Emeritus
Thinker Staff Emeritus
Jayson Staff Emeritus
Manifested Staff Emeritus
Only_Humean Staff Emeritus
PavlovianModel146 Staff Emeritus
Stoic Guardian Staff Emeritus
Uccisore Staff Emeritus
xanderman Staff Emeritus
Xunzian Staff Emeritus


What's it mean? You tell me.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing?
iambiguous: a post from Pedro?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38466
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: beauty

Postby Magnus Anderson » Sat Nov 14, 2020 11:30 pm

iambiguous wrote:So, then what? Someone claims that someone is beautful and that someone is not, and the only criteria they need to "demonstrate" this is the fact that they believe it?


No.

What's this supposed to mean? If the moderators here were doing their job, what would you advise them to do?


Move your posts elsewhere and warn you.
"Let's keep the debate about poor people in the US specifically. It's the land of opportunity. So everyone has an opportunity. That means everyone can get money. So some people who don't have it just aren't using thier opportunities, and then out of those who are using them, then most squander what they gain through poor choices, which keeps them poor. It's no one else's fault. The end."

Mr. Reasonable
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4721
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: beauty

Postby iambiguous » Sat Nov 14, 2020 11:43 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:
iambiguous wrote:So, then what? Someone claims that someone is beautful and that someone is not, and the only criteria they need to "demonstrate" this is the fact that they believe it?


No.


Oh, right, you're working on a more definitive alternative.

What's this supposed to mean? If the moderators here were doing their job, what would you advise them to do?


Magnus Anderson wrote:Move your posts elsewhere and warn you.


So you're saying that my posts on this thread should be moved? That I should be warned?

If so would mind explaining your reasoning more in depth?
Last edited by iambiguous on Sun Nov 15, 2020 12:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing?
iambiguous: a post from Pedro?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38466
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: beauty

Postby MagsJ » Sat Nov 14, 2020 11:53 pm

iambiguous wrote:And if you click on The Team

MODERATORS
Dan global moderator
Flannel Jesus global moderator

Abstract Staff Emeritus
Alexistentialism Staff Emeritus
Janitorben Staff Emeritus
Janitorfelix dakat Staff Emeritus
Thinker Staff Emeritus
Jayson Staff Emeritus
Manifested Staff Emeritus
Only_Humean Staff Emeritus
PavlovianModel146 Staff Emeritus
Stoic Guardian Staff Emeritus
Uccisore Staff Emeritus
xanderman Staff Emeritus
Xunzian Staff Emeritus


What's it mean? You tell me.

..that I’m not on there?

Neither is Tent though.. he didn’t want to be, and I don’t ‘give a shit’, and I already mentioned Carleas’s misogyny issue on these here boards a very long time ago, but no-one reacted back then, and I currently have huge fish to fry.
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. - MagsJ
I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something at some point in time.. Huh! - MagsJ
You’re suggestions and I, just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a really bad DJ - MagsJ
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek
 
Posts: 20864
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka / LDN Town

Re: beauty

Postby obsrvr524 » Sun Nov 15, 2020 2:37 am

MagsJ wrote: I currently have huge fish to fry.

Don't forget the butter.
              You have been observed.
obsrvr524
Thinker
 
Posts: 996
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: beauty

Postby Magnus Anderson » Sun Nov 15, 2020 2:50 am

iambiguous wrote:So you're saying that my posts on this thread should be moved? That I should be warned?

If so would mind explaining your reasoning more in depth?


They should be moved because they are off-topic. Recall your first post in this thread. Let's break it down.

PART 1/3:

iambiguous wrote:And of course this applies to morality too.

Right?


The subject of this thread isn't morality, so my opinion on whether morality is objective or not is irrelevant.

PART 2/3:

Clearly, there are biological elements embedded in how human beings react to the "looks" of others. Certain features seem more appealing than others. Both historically and cross culturally.

But on the level of the individual this becomes increasingly more problematic. Whether in regard to a human face, a human body or a "work of art".


This is closest you come to being on-topic.

PART 3/3:

Again, the mentality of someone like Magnus seems to reflect with I call the "psychology of objectivism". They have come to invest "I" in a particular set of assumptions about beauty and what becomes most critical for them is not whose assumptions about beauty is correct but that there is only one set of assumptions that is correct.

Their own.


The subject of this thread isn't Magnus Anderson, so this too is off-topic.

Are you a fan of statistics?

There are 124 words in your post. 69 words are off-topic, 55 words are on-topic. In other words, statistically speaking, your post is largely (56%) off-topic. And that's merely your first post in this thread. Your subsequent posts aren't any better (indeed, some are worse.)

The other problem is that it's not only you who's being off-topic. You pull everyone else with yourself. This post right here is also off-topic but at least it is an attempt to squash present off-topic diversions. (It would be nice if each thread had two pages where one page contains the main discussion and the other page contains the meta-discussion i.e. discussion about the discussion itself such as whether this or that member violated this or that rule in this or that post and so on. But since such a feature is not present, people have no choice but to either 1) start a separate meta-thread (rarely happens), 2) turn the active thread into a meta-thread, or 3) simply ignore the "bad" guys.)

I have the impression that you have no interest in actual philosophical subjects. Rather, your are merely interested in those who participate -- their psychology, specifically. You are looking for those who behave in a way that leads you to conclude they are authoritarians (i.e. guys who expect others to accept their opinions without any kind of questioning.) And when you spot one, which happens often enough, you will do anything you can in an effort to make them make an attempt to prove to you that they are worthy of your blind obedience.

This thread is about beauty. There's not a single post of yours where you explained your understanding of beauty. Not a single one. Instead, all we get is what we usually get -- you accusing others of being authoritarians and asking them to prove to you they are worthy of your worship.
"Let's keep the debate about poor people in the US specifically. It's the land of opportunity. So everyone has an opportunity. That means everyone can get money. So some people who don't have it just aren't using thier opportunities, and then out of those who are using them, then most squander what they gain through poor choices, which keeps them poor. It's no one else's fault. The end."

Mr. Reasonable
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4721
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: beauty

Postby iambiguous » Sun Nov 15, 2020 3:56 am

Magnus Anderson wrote:
iambiguous wrote:So you're saying that my posts on this thread should be moved? That I should be warned?

If so would mind explaining your reasoning more in depth?


They should be moved because they are off-topic. Recall your first post in this thread. Let's break it down.


Come on, just because you insist a reference to morality is off topic doesn't make it so. I don't make that distinction myself. From my perspective, all value judgments are intertwined in the assumption I make regarding dasein, conflicting goods and objectivism.

Clearly, there are biological elements embedded in how human beings react to the "looks" of others. Certain features seem more appealing than others. Both historically and cross culturally.

But on the level of the individual this becomes increasingly more problematic. Whether in regard to a human face, a human body or a "work of art".


Magnus Anderson wrote:

Part 2/3 This is closest you come to being on-topic.


Closest? A reference to beauty constitutes 90% of my entire post.

Again, the mentality of someone like Magnus seems to reflect with I call the "psychology of objectivism". They have come to invest "I" in a particular set of assumptions about beauty and what becomes most critical for them is not whose assumptions about beauty is correct but that there is only one set of assumptions that is correct.

Their own.


Magnus Anderson wrote:

PART 3/3: The subject of this thread isn't Magnus Anderson, so this too is off-topic.


To the extent I react to your argument as an example of objectivist thinking about beauty, I think it is. You have your focus in posting at ILP, but don't expect it to be mine.

Magnus Anderson wrote: Are you a fan of statistics?

There are 124 words in your post. 69 words are off-topic, 55 words are on-topic. In other words, statistically speaking, your post is largely (56%) off-topic. And that's merely your first post in this thread. Your subsequent posts aren't any better (indeed, some are worse.)


:lol:

No, seriously.

As for this:

Magnus Anderson wrote: The other problem is that it's not only you who's being off-topic. You pull everyone else with yourself. This post right here is also off-topic but at least it is an attempt to squash present off-topic diversions. (It would be nice if each thread had two pages where one page contains the main discussion and the other page contains the meta-discussion i.e. discussion about the discussion itself such as whether this or that member violated this or that rule in this or that post and so on. But since such a feature is not present, people have no choice but to either 1) start a separate meta-thread (rarely happens), 2) turn the active thread into a meta-thread, or 3) simply ignore the "bad" guys.)

I have the impression that you have no interest in actual philosophical subjects. Rather, your are merely interested in those who participate -- their psychology, specifically. You are looking for those who behave in a way that leads you to conclude they are authoritarians (i.e. guys who expect others to accept their opinions without any kind of questioning.) And when you spot one, which happens often enough, you will do anything you can in an effort to make them make an attempt to prove to you that they are worthy of your blind obedience.

This thread is about beauty. There's not a single post of yours where you explained your understanding of beauty. Not a single one. Instead, all we get is what we usually get -- you accusing others of being authoritarians and asking them to prove to you they are worthy of your worship.


It's what I call Stooge Stuff. Focusing the discussion and debate not on the substantive points that I make about beauty but insisting instead that I make no substantive points because I don't "do" philosophy like you do.

Your "thing" seems to be capturing "beauty" in an exchange of intellectual contraptions in which words define and defend other words but never actually make any reference to this face, or this body or this work of art.

So, from my frame of mind [and that's all it is, my own personal opinion], you encompass the worst of both worlds here: the objectivist who is also the abstractionist.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing?
iambiguous: a post from Pedro?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38466
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: beauty

Postby Magnus Anderson » Sun Nov 15, 2020 5:48 am

iambiguous wrote:Come on, just because you insist a reference to morality is off topic doesn't make it so. I don't make that distinction myself. From my perspective, all value judgments are intertwined in the assumption I make regarding dasein, conflicting goods and objectivism.


It's not a mere reference to morality. You didn't merely mention the word. You actually asked an irrelevant question. You asked "Is morally objective?" as if the answer to that question can lead anyone to find the answer to the question posed in the OP which is "What is beauty?"

To the extent I react to your argument as an example of objectivist thinking about beauty, I think it is. You have your focus in posting at ILP, but don't expect it to be mine.


Again, the answer to the question "Is Magnus Anderson a dogmatist?" does not lead to the answer to the question "What is beauty?" It's completely irrelevant. There's a word for making such questions and I think it goes something like "ad hominem".

Focusing the discussion and debate not on the substantive points that I make about beauty but insisting instead that I make no substantive points because I don't "do" philosophy like you do.


The bottom line is that you do not agree that you're being off-topic. I am not sure I can convince you otherwise, so I will make no further effort. The consequence is that I will simply ignore some if not all of your questions and statements. And there's also the question of what moderators think about your posts (since it is them who are in charge of this forum.)

Your "thing" seems to be capturing "beauty" in an exchange of intellectual contraptions in which words define and defend other words but never actually make any reference to this face, or this body or this work of art.


I don't think you understood anything about what I said.

So, from my frame of mind [and that's all it is, my own personal opinion], you encompass the worst of both worlds here: the objectivist who is also the abstractionist.


I'm happy that you have your own set of opinions (like everyone else) but please note that these opinions of yours have nothing to do with the subject. So don't be surprised if people choose to ignore you.
"Let's keep the debate about poor people in the US specifically. It's the land of opportunity. So everyone has an opportunity. That means everyone can get money. So some people who don't have it just aren't using thier opportunities, and then out of those who are using them, then most squander what they gain through poor choices, which keeps them poor. It's no one else's fault. The end."

Mr. Reasonable
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4721
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: beauty

Postby iambiguous » Sun Nov 15, 2020 6:24 am

Magnus Anderson wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Come on, just because you insist a reference to morality is off topic doesn't make it so. I don't make that distinction myself. From my perspective, all value judgments are intertwined in the assumption I make regarding dasein, conflicting goods and objectivism.


It's not a mere reference to morality. You didn't merely mention the word. You actually asked an irrelevant question. You asked "Is morally objective?" as if the answer to that question can lead anyone to find the answer to the question posed in the OP which is "What is beauty?"


I give you my own subjective take on this. You don't accept it. Fine.

To the extent I react to your argument as an example of objectivist thinking about beauty, I think it is. You have your focus in posting at ILP, but don't expect it to be mine.


Magnus Anderson wrote: Again, the answer to the question "Is Magnus Anderson a dogmatist?" does not lead to the answer to the question "What is beauty?" It's completely irrelevant. There's a word for making such questions and I think it goes something like "ad hominem".


Focus your philosophical assessment of beauty on a particular face, a particular body, a particular work of art. Explain to us why you think it either is or is not "truly beautiful". Express how you are likely to react to another who insists that you are wrong. Someone who employs very different criteria. Then note how you imagine mere mortals in a No God world would go about resolving the dispute.

Focusing the discussion and debate not on the substantive points that I make about beauty but insisting instead that I make no substantive points because I don't "do" philosophy like you do.


Magnus Anderson wrote: The bottom line is that you do not agree that you're being off-topic. I am not sure I can convince you otherwise, so I will make no further effort. The consequence is that I will simply ignore some if not all of your questions and statements. And there's also the question of what moderators think about your posts (since it is them who are in charge of this forum.)


I still maintain that our contention here could be more clearly examined if you were willing to bring your intellectual contraptions above down out of the scholastic clouds and focus instead on your reaction to a particular entity that might elicit conflicting assessments of beauty.

Again, for example, Melissa Broder above: https://www.google.com/search?source=un ... 42&bih=597

Using logic here as you understand it, is she or is she not "truly beautiful" herself?

Your "thing" seems to be capturing "beauty" in an exchange of intellectual contraptions in which words define and defend other words but never actually make any reference to this face, or this body or this work of art.


Magnus Anderson wrote: I don't think you understood anything about what I said.


In other words, since what you said is predicated entirely on words defining and defending other words placed in a particular order, it all comes down to that. The words don't make reference to something concrete and well known to most of us here.

So, from my frame of mind [and that's all it is, my own personal opinion], you encompass the worst of both worlds here: the objectivist who is also the abstractionist.


Magnus Anderson wrote: I'm happy that you have your own set of opinions (like everyone else) but please note that these opinions of yours have nothing to do with the subject. So don't be surprised if people ignore your questions.


Well, any number of objectivists ignore my questions because, in my view, they tug them in the direction of understanding the relationship between their own identity and their own value judgments more as I do. And I know this in part because it had already happened to me. I know what is at stake for the "ego" in regard to confronting the "psychology of objectivism".
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing?
iambiguous: a post from Pedro?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38466
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: beauty

Postby Magnus Anderson » Sun Nov 15, 2020 6:42 am

iambiguous wrote:Focus your philosophical assessment of beauty on a particular face, a particular body, a particular work of art. Explain to us why you think it either is or is not "truly beautiful". Express how you are likely to react to another who insists that you are wrong. Someone who employs very different criteria. Then note how you imagine mere mortals in a No God world would go about resolving the dispute.


What makes you think I can do this?

I still maintain that our contention here could be more clearly examined if you were willing to bring your intellectual contraptions above down out of the scholastic clouds and focus instead on your reaction to a particular entity that might elicit conflicting assessments of beauty.

Again, for example, Melissa Broder above: https://www.google.com/search?source=un ... 42&bih=597

Using logic here as you understand it, is she or is she not "truly beautiful" herself?


The best I can do is tell you how I feel about her looks. Sort of like what you did earlier. But I am pretty sure that's not what you're looking for.

In other words, since what you said is predicated entirely on words defining and defending other words placed in a particular order, it all comes down to that. The words don't make reference to something concrete and well known to most of us here.


Not really. My words do refer to something concrete, it's just that you do not understand what they refer to.

Well, any number of objectivists ignore my questions because, in my view, they tug them in the direction of understanding the relationship between their own identity and their own value judgments more as I do. And I know this in part because it had already happened to me. I know what is at stake for the "ego" in regard to confronting the "psychology of objectivism".


Right, so you are projecting yourself.
"Let's keep the debate about poor people in the US specifically. It's the land of opportunity. So everyone has an opportunity. That means everyone can get money. So some people who don't have it just aren't using thier opportunities, and then out of those who are using them, then most squander what they gain through poor choices, which keeps them poor. It's no one else's fault. The end."

Mr. Reasonable
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4721
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: beauty

Postby obsrvr524 » Sun Nov 15, 2020 7:07 am

Now he has derailed you into arguing over the off topic topic of what is off topic.
              You have been observed.
obsrvr524
Thinker
 
Posts: 996
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: beauty

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sun Nov 15, 2020 7:13 am

I connect the animal sense of beauty to the similar tastes, political positions of twins. IOW we have inborn tendencies to like certain things and to certain attitudes. None of this means these atttitudes and tastes are objective, but rather that we have strong innate tendencies to have certain values. Naturally (puns intended) nurture (that is experience) plays a strong role also. These two 'factors' affecting what we end up thinking is beautiful, for example the clothes we will be drawn to wear, our aesthetic take on fashion. But tabula rasas vi are not.

I suppose I interested in how much of a person's potential engagement is elicited by something considered beautiful. Like the different between kitschy beauty vs. more complicated forms of beauty. The large eyed animal paintings vs. a Van Gogh, say. One can get all tied up in knots trying to prove that the latter is objectively more beautiful, or one can approach the issue as how many ways can the latter engage a person, potentially change a person's perception, thinking, memory, etc. The high low dichotomy need not be a debate about objective aesthetic values, but about how diverse the effects are of a certain work of art. How much of one can be engaged and what is engaged. So given the goals, tastes and self-awareness of the viewer, different works of art will do the trick better or worse.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3403
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: beauty

Postby MagsJ » Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:24 pm

obsrvr524 wrote:
MagsJ wrote:I currently have huge fish to fry.
Don't forget the butter.

Lol.. I don’t intend to tango in Paris, plus, I’m dairy intolerant.

I don’t find Iam’s belligerence annoying, but him veering off-topic is..
..he’s gone god damn renegade on ILP’s ass. Someone go fetch a lasso! :animals-chickencatch:
or knock his senses back into him :violence-stickwhack: :violence-smack:
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. - MagsJ
I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something at some point in time.. Huh! - MagsJ
You’re suggestions and I, just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a really bad DJ - MagsJ
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek
 
Posts: 20864
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka / LDN Town

Re: beauty

Postby obsrvr524 » Sun Nov 15, 2020 6:46 pm

MagsJ wrote:Lol.. I don’t intend to tango in Paris, plus, I’m dairy intolerant.

I don’t find Iam’s belligerence annoying, but him veering off-topic is..
..he’s gone god damn renegade on ILP’s ass. Someone go fetch a lasso! :animals-chickencatch:
or knock his senses back into him :violence-stickwhack: :violence-smack:

Where's that Texan when you need him?

I am going to try to filter through his posts and see how James handled him in the past. :D
I haven't been looking into his opponents yet but maybe it's time.
              You have been observed.
obsrvr524
Thinker
 
Posts: 996
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: beauty

Postby MagsJ » Sun Nov 15, 2020 6:55 pm

iambiguous wrote:Then note how you imagine mere mortals in a No God world would go about resolving the dispute.

Comme ça? :violence-smack:

Which is what’s happening right now.. on the streets of America, where Blacks are taking pleasure, in reversing the roles that they think that Whites once had over them.

What happened between the 80s and now? How did it all go very wrong for America, in the last 4 decades?

There’s no money in unity..
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. - MagsJ
I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something at some point in time.. Huh! - MagsJ
You’re suggestions and I, just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a really bad DJ - MagsJ
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek
 
Posts: 20864
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka / LDN Town

Re: beauty

Postby obsrvr524 » Sun Nov 15, 2020 7:16 pm

MagsJ wrote:What happened between the 80s and now? How did it all go very wrong for America, in the last 4 decades?

There’s no money in unity..

In a word - "China" (- a beauty-ful country - depending on what you see, what you know, and what you want))

Not to change topic.
              You have been observed.
obsrvr524
Thinker
 
Posts: 996
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: beauty

Postby iambiguous » Sun Nov 15, 2020 8:00 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Focus your philosophical assessment of beauty on a particular face, a particular body, a particular work of art. Explain to us why you think it either is or is not "truly beautiful". Express how you are likely to react to another who insists that you are wrong. Someone who employs very different criteria. Then note how you imagine mere mortals in a No God world would go about resolving the dispute.


What makes you think I can do this?


Well, my point is that those who argue that beauty can be noted objectively but are unable to demonstrate this in regard to a particular face, body or work of art are basically owning up to the fact that their belief itself resides only "in their head". And, sure, there, one can believe that their pet unicorn is truly beautiful.

I still maintain that our contention here could be more clearly examined if you were willing to bring your intellectual contraptions above down out of the scholastic clouds and focus instead on your reaction to a particular entity that might elicit conflicting assessments of beauty.

Again, for example, Melissa Broder above: https://www.google.com/search?source=un ... 42&bih=597

Using logic here as you understand it, is she or is she not "truly beautiful" herself?


Magnus Anderson wrote: The best I can do is tell you how I feel about her looks. Sort of like what you did earlier. But I am pretty sure that's not what you're looking for.


Above you noted:

Beauty is a measure of how desirable a person is as a spouse based on how they look. So of course it is objective. Shifting tastes prove nothing just like how shifting opinions prove nothing.


Do you "feel" this is true too?

If Melissa Broder's husband feels that she is truly beautiful does that in fact make her truly beautiful? Given that Melissa herself does not feel that she is? Where does the part about logic and objectivity come in? Are there or are there not limitations placed on the tools philosophers have at their disposal in establishing something like this?

In other words, since what you said is predicated entirely on words defining and defending other words placed in a particular order, it all comes down to that. The words don't make reference to something concrete and well known to most of us here.


Magnus Anderson wrote: Not really. My words do refer to something concrete, it's just that you do not understand what they refer to.


Perhaps, but it is not in relation to any particular face, body or work of art. An argument in which you explain in more descriptive detail why you find it either truly beautiful or not truly beautiful.

Well, any number of objectivists ignore my questions because, in my view, they tug them in the direction of understanding the relationship between their own identity and their own value judgments more as I do. And I know this in part because it had already happened to me. I know what is at stake for the "ego" in regard to confronting the "psychology of objectivism".


Magnus Anderson wrote: Right, so you are projecting yourself.


Ah, the beauty of human psychology!
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing?
iambiguous: a post from Pedro?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38466
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: beauty

Postby MagsJ » Sun Nov 15, 2020 8:12 pm

obsrvr524 wrote:Where's that Texan when you need him?

In Paris, but not in France..

I am going to try to filter through his posts and see how James handled him in the past. :D
I haven't been looking into his opponents yet but maybe it's time.

Ok..

I wouldn’t know how myself, because I stopped reading James in-depthly when he became rude, but would merely skim-read his posts..
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. - MagsJ
I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something at some point in time.. Huh! - MagsJ
You’re suggestions and I, just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a really bad DJ - MagsJ
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek
 
Posts: 20864
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka / LDN Town

Re: beauty

Postby iambiguous » Sun Nov 15, 2020 8:19 pm

Come on, this isn't a "yak yak yak" thread.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing?
iambiguous: a post from Pedro?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38466
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: beauty

Postby iambiguous » Sun Nov 15, 2020 8:38 pm

As is often the case, when we commence a discussion here, Satyr has to weigh in on it there:

Satyr wrote: Once more to clarify for imbeciles....

beauty is about evaluated potentials.
To put it metaphysically, a judgment of probabilities in an expanding field of possibilities, i.e., expanding space/time that includes both patterned (ordering) and non-patterned (random) energies - temporal arrow, in relation to conscious life, is towards increasing chaos, therefore life - dependent on order - appreciates all forms of order - it is all it can perceive.


Satyr wrote: Blah blah blah


You'll notice of course that as with some here, his "clarification" does not actually involve discussing any particular entity/thing/object...face/body/work of art...as either beautiful or not beautiful.

Note to Satyr:

Go there please. In fact, I dare you to. 8)
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing?
iambiguous: a post from Pedro?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38466
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: beauty

Postby MagsJ » Sun Nov 15, 2020 8:42 pm

iambiguous wrote:Come on, this isn't a "yak yak yak" thread.

I’ve been on-topic the whole time.. America is not a beautiful place, though many of the inhabitants of it may be.. TikTok can vouch.. I’ve seen em ; )

Come on Iam.. we’ve all seen those scientific studies where research volunteers rate faces, and the most symmetrical faces always get top vote/the most props.

Now.. Art, Design, and Architecture etc.. those are down to discernment and therefore individual taste, but even then, those aesthetics can be rated on the subjective/objective scale, of being pleasing to the eye the most. That is what beauty is, it pleases the senses and satiates a need. Good food, good wine, good company, good surroundings..

..and that, is all, for now.
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. - MagsJ
I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something at some point in time.. Huh! - MagsJ
You’re suggestions and I, just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a really bad DJ - MagsJ
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek
 
Posts: 20864
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka / LDN Town

Re: beauty

Postby phoneutria » Sun Nov 15, 2020 9:44 pm

posting my thoughts on this thread would be an insult to all that is holy
you fucking savages don't deserve it
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 3686
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

Re: beauty

Postby iambiguous » Sun Nov 15, 2020 9:48 pm

phoneutria wrote:posting my thoughts on this thread would be an insult to all that is holy
you fucking savages don't deserve it


So much more to the point: She actually believes this!!

Unless of course she doesn't. 8)

Note to Magnus:

Just out of curiosity, based on the photographs she endlessly provides us, would you argue that she is herself "truly beautiful". Pedro might think so, sure, but how can we know for certain. :wink:
Last edited by iambiguous on Sun Nov 15, 2020 9:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing?
iambiguous: a post from Pedro?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38466
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: beauty

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Sun Nov 15, 2020 9:52 pm

8)
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6663
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: wearaObjed