beauty

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

Re: beauty

Postby iambiguous » Sun Nov 15, 2020 9:57 pm

Pedro I Rengel wrote: 8)


Okay, you're thinking about her. But, seriously, if you were attempting to argue that she is beautiful, how close might you come to establishing that her beauty is an objective fact. :-k
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 » Mon Nov 16, 2020 12:00 am

Here is his follow up to me daring him to bring this down to earth:

satyr wrote: For the really, really obtuse and degenerate...
What do we appreciate as beautiful when it comes to a sexual partner?
It is his/her physical symmetry, hinting at temporal potentials, resistance to change, etc., and his/her organ proportionalities - 7/10 - hair and skin smoothness, shine, eye clarity hinting at mental health promising fertility, resistance to parasites, health...
"Charm" is what we call mental proportionality - expressed verbally through verbal eloquence, or humour etc.
"Intelligence" is what we call mental symmetry - expressed through complex concepts being linguistically simplified, perception and incorporation of details into cohesive models etc.


satyr wrote:blah blah blah


Okay, I'll provide the specific example.

Phoneutria. Would he describe her as objectively beautiful? Is she more or less objectively beautiful than Lyssa?*

And now the new element: intelligence.

How does that factor into a context in which one woman is thought to be exceptionally beautiful, but dumb as a box of rocks. While another woman is not attractive at all but is extremely intelligent. What's a man to do?

*assuming she actually does exist

Stay tuned.
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 » Mon Nov 16, 2020 2:43 am

obsrvr524 wrote: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.


A 60-page thread between James and Iam:
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 6&t=184955
"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 » Mon Nov 16, 2020 3:01 am

Magnus Anderson wrote:
obsrvr524 wrote: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.


A 60-page thread between James and Iam:
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 6&t=184955


Now I get it. When I mention the world "morality" above, I'm off topic and deserve a warning to cease and desist...but when you take the thread to a discussion that has nothing to do with the OP, that's entirely appropriate.

The beauty of hypocrisy! 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 Magnus Anderson » Mon Nov 16, 2020 3:18 am

I never said that post of mine is on-topic. But you did claim that Magnus Anderson's psychology is somehow relevant to the subject of beauty.
"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 » Mon Nov 16, 2020 4:00 am

Magnus Anderson wrote:I never said that post of mine is on-topic. But you did claim that Magnus Anderson's psychology is somehow relevant to the subject of beauty.


On the other hand, in regard to morality, I made it clear above that, from my frame of mind, I was being "on topic". Value judgments are value judgments, aesthetic, moral or otherwise. I believe they are rooted subjectively, existentially in dasein.

And how can we realistically separate value judgments from human psychology? In fact the entire point of this thread -- https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296 -- is to link them in profoundly consequential ways.
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 obsrvr524 » Mon Nov 16, 2020 4:15 am

Magnus Anderson wrote:
obsrvr524 wrote: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.


A 60-page thread between James and Iam:
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 6&t=184955

Thank you for that. It is really time consuming to try to sort through over 26000 posts without software.


He seemed to have ignored the thread for a while (about 3 days and 8 posts) and then gave a post that really strikes to the core of what I believe James was all about -
James S Saint » Mon Jan 06, 2014 1:16 pm wrote:When people do not actually challenge the reasoning (the very essence of philosophy), but instead merely say, "well they told me that they proved...", then I usually let them know that they are being "religious" and usually misinterpreting their bible exactly like any fundamentalist. Such behavior is the extreme opposite of the very foundation of Science, "Nullius in Verba" - "Take no ones word", the motto for the Royal Society for the Advancement of Science.

I never argue against logic. And I will always question whether what is reported to the general masses, is what was really there. Of course people on this forum aren't particularly good with logic or reasoning, so...

On the Science forum, Phyllo, PhysBang, HHW, and FJ are all very staunch fundamentalists, religious to the core as much as any Muslim terrorist, extreme anti-Science advocates (as well as anti-philosophers). They claim to be in favor of Science while doing the exact opposite, just believing whatever their Pop Science cult preachers tell them. They are literal Cultists and in effect, deceivers/liars. And in FJ's case, threatening to ban for disagreeing with what he thinks is "mainstream" while allowing HHW and other his comrades to break every forum rule ever declared because they are on "the right side".

As usual, what they accuse me of being, is what they really are. I am the ONLY actual Science advocate on this forum.

So, yeah... I give'm Hell.

Zookers! - To someone like me, that post couldn't make it more clear of exactly what is happening on this board as well as in US politics. I am sure he would have said the same thing concerning current politics (if he had gotten into it) -
- "they do exactly the opposite of what they claim"
- believing whatever their Pop Science cult preachers tell them
- They are literal Cultists and in effect, deceivers/liars.
- And in FJ's [Jack Dorsey's] case, threatening to ban for disagreeing with what he thinks is "mainstream" while allowing HHW [Hidin, Lyin Biden] and his other comrades to break every forum [moral and Constitutional] rule ever declared because they are on "the right side" [meaning the political Left).
- What they accuse me of being is what they are
- I am the ONLY actual Science advocate on this forum.

He had a precise analogy between political science, physical science, and philosophical thought. The man was an extreme example and awesome star in the heavens for us analytical reductionists - a logical rationalist (why the Jewish Left hated him and the Jewish Right wouldn't touch him - although silently voted for him on the Christian Apologetic boards).

He took on the very essence of Chinese thought (much like Mr Trump) and "updated" their fundamental "ontology" (the I Ching, Taoism, and a little Buddhism). He did the same with physics and even mathematics (the logic involved with infinities). Just recently I discovered that on a different board he said that he discovered that his analysis of the subject had already been proven to be true decades ago (by Herbert somebody) - yet is still argued by leftist deniers (many on this board).

Nullius in Verba - I love that phrase. Tucker Carlson should add that to his mantra when he moves over to Newsmax. Imagine if the mainstream media and politics adopted that idea - "I never argue against logic" - of course most people struggle with even knowing what logic is (which James bothered to define for them - "consistency of language and thought").

Obviously I was seriously impressed with the man - more than impressed the more I discovered about all he was saying - spookily astonished is more like it when it came to his prognostications. But you have to be one to truly see one (me being one is why I was tasked to observe them), so most people have no reason to be impressed.

Sorry for my short enthusiastic outburst but I wanted to say that I am sure that James would have handled this topic of beauty in much the same manner as Magnus Anderson and myself.

Back to beauty and whatever topic iambiguous whats to divert to instead --
Last edited by obsrvr524 on Mon Nov 16, 2020 4:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
              You have been observed.
obsrvr524
Thinker
 
Posts: 996
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: beauty

Postby phoneutria » Mon Nov 16, 2020 4:25 am

dude if you jut came out and said alright fuck it i am james
it would come across a lot less pathetic than what you're doing
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 3686
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

Re: beauty

Postby obsrvr524 » Mon Nov 16, 2020 4:27 am

phoneutria wrote:dude if you jut came out and said alright fuck it i am james
it would come across a lot less pathetic than what you're doing

Don't you think that would have been easy enough for James to do?
Why bother with subterfuge at this point?
              You have been observed.
obsrvr524
Thinker
 
Posts: 996
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: beauty

Postby phoneutria » Mon Nov 16, 2020 4:30 am

dunno pride?
i've seen stranger things
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 3686
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

Re: beauty

Postby obsrvr524 » Mon Nov 16, 2020 4:48 am

phoneutria wrote:dunno pride?
i've seen stranger things

The man gave me the impression of being as honest as a man could get while trying to explain extraordinary concepts (although a few times he seemed to be merely testing people). Why wouldn't he just say, "Hi, I'm back from my break (for whatever reason)"? It's out of his character to try to fool a bunch of (seemingly not very important and hostile) people.

Besides the moderators can check IPs and such. Apparently many people here are also other people but until they admit it, I don't get into suspicions. People who think alike tend to write alike. Mr Anderson writes like James (just doesn't talk about him). So is he James as well? Silhouette and iambiguous write similarly. Are they the same person - I doubt it. But then there are a few who it seems everyone here knows who have multiple monikers.
              You have been observed.
obsrvr524
Thinker
 
Posts: 996
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: beauty

Postby iambiguous » Mon Nov 16, 2020 5:04 am

phoneutria wrote:dude if you jut came out and said alright fuck it i am james
it would come across a lot less pathetic than what you're doing


Beautiful!!
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 » Mon Nov 16, 2020 5:05 am

obsrvr524 wrote:
phoneutria wrote:dude if you jut came out and said alright fuck it i am james
it would come across a lot less pathetic than what you're doing

Don't you think that would have been easy enough for James to do?
Why bother with subterfuge at this point?


Instructions from the Real God?
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 » Mon Nov 16, 2020 5:37 am

obsrvr524 wrote:Silhouette and iambiguous write similarly. Are they the same person - I doubt it.


We've thought about that ourselves. But it turns out that he wants to be me and I want to be him. True story.
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 » Mon Nov 16, 2020 6:10 am

obsrvr524 wrote:Thank you for that. It is really time consuming to try to sort through over 26000 posts without software.


Here's one related to science and religion:
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=172304
"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 » Mon Nov 16, 2020 7:54 am

Magnus Anderson wrote:
obsrvr524 wrote:Thank you for that. It is really time consuming to try to sort through over 26000 posts without software.


Here's one related to science and religion:
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=172304

Reading his posts like those makes me think of how extremely relevant those thoughts are to what is happening the US today.

Such as -
There is a competition for allegiance going on as we speak. Who shall have the final voice for Truth? Scientists make extremely poor social managers and Science cannot dictate purpose. That means that Science can only be a tool for some other social manipulator, not Science itself.

COVID-19, face masks, lockdowns, "what the scientists say" (or the scientists we choose to do the saying). Science being used as an excuse to gain control over nations (as long as the right scientists are chosen). Specific scientists becoming the archbishops of the new religion of science.

There is just so much packed into his posts. He had a substantive rating of 85-90% (the normal is around 30%). Reading him is like trying to speed read a book on theoretical physics. I just have to slow down.

Really I didn't mean to derail this thread. Go back to the topic.
              You have been observed.
obsrvr524
Thinker
 
Posts: 996
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: beauty

Postby Magnus Anderson » Mon Nov 16, 2020 9:43 am

Alright, let's return to "the topic".

iambiguous wrote:On the other hand, in regard to morality, I made it clear above that, from my frame of mind, I was being "on topic". Value judgments are value judgments, aesthetic, moral or otherwise. I believe they are rooted subjectively, existentially in dasein.


On the other hand, I made it clear that, from my frame of mind, you were being off-topic. It's my opinion against yours.

This thread is an invitation for people to define the word "beauty" and optionally provide an argument in favor of their definition.

You did no such thing.

Instead, you responded to me. You responded to this post:

Magnus Anderson wrote: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.


This post does two things.

First, it exposes what Magnus thinks is the concept that people commonly associate with the word "beauty". He's either right or wrong. He provided no argument but at least he expressed his opinion.

Second, it shows Magnus using that concept to conclude that the word "beauty" does not refer to a feeling of certain kind (which is basically what Peter argues in his opening post) but something else.

The point being that there is a difference between feeling of beauty and beauty itself. The former is merely someone's perception of beauty. The latter is something else.

And of course, one's feelings of beauty can be shaped by external factors such as one's family, friends, the state, church, media and so on; but that does not mean that whether this or that person is beautiful or not at this or that point in time to this or that person (or to this or that group of people) can be changed at all.

And what exactly was your response?

That Magnus Anderson is a dogmatist.

How does that prove or disprove my claim?

How do you use that as a premise to support or deny what I'm saying?
"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 phyllo » Mon Nov 16, 2020 1:20 pm

James wrote :
I am the ONLY actual Science advocate on this forum.

Yeah, that was James.

He was the only one who really knew and understood physics. He was the one and only expert on everything.

Anyone who disagreed with him was ignorant, irrational or "religious".

If some scientific research contradicted his ideas, then it was the "religious cult of science".

It couldn't be as simple as : James is mistaken. James doesn't understand it as well as someone else.

Arrogant and egotistical. That was his major failing.

By the way, Physbang knew a lot more about physics than anyone here.

Carry on.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12113
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: beauty

Postby obsrvr524 » Mon Nov 16, 2020 4:52 pm

phyllo wrote:
James wrote :
I am the ONLY actual Science advocate on this forum.

Yeah, that was James.

He was the only one who really knew and understood physics. He was the one and only expert on everything.

Anyone who disagreed with him was ignorant, irrational or "religious".

You are sounding like a typical political science pundit - bending what someone actually said into what you want people to believe he said - a strawman.

James did NOT say that he was the only one who knows anything about science. He said that he is the only one supporting or advocating Nullius in Verba - taking no ones word (even his own). He wasn't talking about physics or maths or any specific science subject. He was referring to people doing their own thinking instead of just regurgitating things they had heard and accepted without thought - "religiosity".

Get your story straight.

phyllo wrote:By the way, Physbang knew a lot more about physics than anyone here.

I remember some of those exchanges from years ago. There was a bloke "Farsight" and even Mr Carleas expressing more understanding than Physbang. But since you are a pundit rather than a Nullius in Verba kind of bloke, what would you know.
              You have been observed.
obsrvr524
Thinker
 
Posts: 996
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: beauty

Postby MagsJ » Mon Nov 16, 2020 5:48 pm

_
If you actually are James, you’re a lot more cheery, than prior.

Oh yea.. beauty beauty beauty beauty, and, er.. beauty.

:D
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 » Mon Nov 16, 2020 6:07 pm

MagsJ wrote:_
If you actually are James, you’re a lot more cheery, than prior.

Oh yea.. beauty beauty beauty beauty, and, er.. beauty.

:D

I am a lot younger (misguided hopes of youth).
And of course more beauty-ful. :D
              You have been observed.
obsrvr524
Thinker
 
Posts: 996
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: beauty

Postby iambiguous » Mon Nov 16, 2020 6:38 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote: Alright, let's return to "the topic".

iambiguous wrote:On the other hand, in regard to morality, I made it clear above that, from my frame of mind, I was being "on topic". Value judgments are value judgments, aesthetic, moral or otherwise. I believe they are rooted subjectively, existentially in dasein.


On the other hand, I made it clear that, from my frame of mind, you were being off-topic. It's my opinion against yours.


Exactly! Opinions about beauty that, in my view, either can be demonstrated to in fact be true objectively for all of us or are instead rooted more in the subjective beliefs that we sustain "in our heads".

Beliefs then demonstrated in regard to a particular face, body or work or art. You pick it.

Magnus Anderson wrote: This thread is an invitation for people to define the word "beauty" and optionally provide an argument in favor of their definition.

You did no such thing.


Defining beauty is your thing. It keeps you [and others here] up in the numbingly scholastic "world of words" rendition of philosophy.

My thing is to take definitions out into the world and see how snugly the words can be made to fit around a specific face, body or work of art.

Magnus Anderson wrote: Instead, you responded to me. You responded to this post:

Magnus Anderson wrote: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.


Actually, what I responded to was a point of view that I deemed to be both objectivist and hopelessly "intellectual". What spouse noting what criteria for assessing beauty and desire? And if shifting tastes and opinions prove nothing, where then is the proof for objective beauty and desire in regard to that spouse...in regard to that spouse.

Then straight back up into the clouds:

Magnus Anderson wrote: First, it exposes what Magnus thinks is the concept that people commonly associate with the word "beauty". He's either right or wrong. He provided no argument but at least he expressed his opinion.

Second, it shows Magnus using that concept to conclude that the word "beauty" does not refer to a feeling of certain kind (which is basically what Peter argues in his opening post) but something else.

The point being that there is a difference between feeling of beauty and beauty itself. The former is merely someone's perception of beauty. The latter is something else.


Magnus Anderson wrote: And of course, one's feelings of beauty can be shaped by external factors such as one's family, friends, the state, church, media and so on; but that does not mean that whether this or that person is beautiful or not at this or that point in time to this or that person (or to this or that group of people) can be changed at all.


This or that person? What about a particular person:

If Melissa Broder's [spouse] 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?


As for dogmatism, you tell me. You either insist that your own assessment of beauty here reflects some objective truth, or you acknowledge that "here and now" it is what you "feel" is the truth.

Acknowledging in turn that given a new experience or contact with new information and knowledge you cannot rule out changing your mind about it.

Or can you rule this out?
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 obsrvr524 » Mon Nov 16, 2020 7:16 pm

iambiguous wrote:Opinions about beauty that, in my view, either can be demonstrated to in fact be true objectively for all of us or are instead rooted more in the subjective beliefs that we sustain "in our heads".

Beliefs then demonstrated in regard to a particular face, body or work or art. You pick it.

ALL motivations stem from perceptions of "hope and threat". That would include beauty.

But the problem that James had with you it seems was that you couldn't (or didn't want to) follow his definitive logic. So to you, everything remains merely guess work. Proof is for those who can recognize proof. You don't seem to be one of them. So you will never get your answer to the issue of beauty or of your dasien "conflicting goods" issues. You have to learn of logic and what it really means (despite what is "only true in your head").

iambiguous wrote:Defining beauty is your thing. It keeps you [and others here] up in the numbingly scholastic "world of words" rendition of philosophy.

Resolving ANY philosophical issue REQUIRES an agreed definition of the words being used. It is NOT merely a toy of punditry. It is a requirement for progress. YOU are the one keeping things "up in the numbingly scholastic 'world of words'" because you refuse to do the one thing that will prove things one way or another - define your bleedn words.

iambiguous wrote:My thing is to take definitions out into the world and see how snugly the words can be made to fit around a specific face, body or work of art.

You have to agree on those definitions first else you are only talking to yourself out loud.

So define the word already by whatever definition you think fits best. Why refuse?
              You have been observed.
obsrvr524
Thinker
 
Posts: 996
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: beauty

Postby iambiguous » Mon Nov 16, 2020 7:21 pm

obsrvr524 wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Opinions about beauty that, in my view, either can be demonstrated to in fact be true objectively for all of us or are instead rooted more in the subjective beliefs that we sustain "in our heads".

Beliefs then demonstrated in regard to a particular face, body or work or art. You pick it.

ALL motivations stem from perceptions of "hope and threat". That would include beauty.

But the problem that James had with you it seems was that you couldn't (or didn't want to) follow his definitive logic. So to you, everything remains merely guess work. Proof is for those who can recognize proof. You don't seem to be one of them. So you will never get your answer to the issue of beauty or of your dasien "conflicting goods" issues. You have to learn of logic and what it really means (despite what is "only true in your head").

iambiguous wrote:Defining beauty is your thing. It keeps you [and others here] up in the numbingly scholastic "world of words" rendition of philosophy.

Resolving ANY philosophical issue REQUIRES an agreed definition of the words being used. It is NOT merely a toy of punditry. It is a requirement for progress. YOU are the one keeping things "up in the numbingly scholastic 'world of words'" because you refuse to do the one thing that will prove things one way or another - define your bleedn words.

iambiguous wrote:My thing is to take definitions out into the world and see how snugly the words can be made to fit around a specific face, body or work of art.

You have to agree on those definitions first else you are only talking to yourself out loud.

So define the word already by whatever definition you think fits best. Why refuse?


Note to others:

Is there even a grain of intelligence here that would prompt me to, say, actually read it?

Just kidding of course.
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 obsrvr524 » Mon Nov 16, 2020 7:32 pm

iambiguous wrote:Note to others:

Is there even a grain of intelligence here that would prompt me to, say, actually read it?

Just kidding of course.

You should join the Ecmandu cult - only insult and disclaim what others say ("unless your wrong of course").
              You have been observed.
obsrvr524
Thinker
 
Posts: 996
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: wearaObjed