beauty

[iambiguous]

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").

I'm sorry but, to the best of my knowledge, I don't have a "condition".

Oh, and you might want to check to see if you do.

[phyllo]

John is identical to Patrick except that he has a darker skin tone.

Some will evaluate John as more beautiful than Patrick (and vice versa) because of that one characteristic.

How can that be an objective mark of beauty? It appears to be an objective color difference which produces a purely subjective reaction. A person prefers one color over the other and evaluates it as more beautiful. (Or evaluates one as beautiful and the other as ugly.)

[Karpel Tunnel]

I am making use of your post Phyllo, not disagreeing with it.

John is identical to Patrick except that he has a darker skin tone.

Some will evaluate John as more beautiful than Patrick (and vice versa) because of that one characteristic.

How can that be an objective mark of beauty? It appears to be an objective color difference which produces a purely subjective reaction. A person prefers one color over the other and evaluates it as more beautiful. (Or evaluates one as beautiful and the other as ugly.)

Let's extend the example/experiment. John's face is compared with different faces with his exact skin tone and Patrick with faces with his exact skin tone. And let's say they each score high in their skin color group.

Could it be that certain qualities are more universally taken as attractive? Universal, not objective.

But then what if people with certain traits, like proportion and harmony are healthier or live longer or have better sperm counts?

would we then be inching towards something objective (based, deep down, on an axiom that survival of the species and my individual genes are good or at least a goal, the axiom being subjective)

You would think that attractiveness seeking having survived for a while as a trait has a decent chance of benefitting genes. So attractiveness can be an objective sign (though not an infallible one) of traits valuable at least to the genes if not their bearers.

Now whether the survival of the human race, even, is an objective good, is another bottle of ketchup. But there is some good chance that attractiveness is not merely a random cultural fad.

Oh, and despite all my 'let's pretend...
and the like
there is scientific evidence supporting this.

We are not just plastic bags tossed around on cultural wind. Though, obviously, culture has it's effects and big ones, we are still social mammals looking to continue the pack/herd. We gots born with some taste and value also.

[phyllo]

Reproductive desirability.

That seems to be an objective factor with respect to humans.

Shouldn't it stop there? Why do people talk about beautiful furniture, cars, buildings, paintings, sculptures, animals, etc?

[MagsJ]

Shouldn't it stop there? Why do people talk about beautiful furniture, cars, buildings, paintings, sculptures, animals, etc?

In the context of this, I would then say, that it’s about the most sought after.. the prized possession n all that, in regard to the above objects being objectively enamourable.

[obsrvr524]

John is identical to Patrick except that he has a darker skin tone.

Some will evaluate John as more beautiful than Patrick (and vice versa) because of that one characteristic.

How can that be an objective mark of beauty? It appears to be an objective color difference which produces a purely subjective reaction. A person prefers one color over the other and evaluates it as more beautiful. (Or evaluates one as beautiful and the other as ugly.)

There is a difference between the non-existence of objective beauty and some beauty traits not being objective.

I think beauty can have an inherent objective nature even though that nature can be overruled by psychological influence. But in all cases, beauty is attractive for the same objective reason. The cause of beauty is objective and unchanging.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Reproductive desirability.

That seems to be an objective factor with respect to humans.

Shouldn't it stop there? Why do people talk about beautiful furniture, cars, buildings, paintings, sculptures, animals, etc?

Of course, there are a myriad of reasons people talk about those things.
But once you are an aesthetic preferer, you will still be looking for pleasant appearance in other things. Natural selection leads to a pattern in brains, brains use that pattern in unintended ways, since evolution is not teleogical. I mean, if we are going to go all materialistic, the zietgeist of our era. You can even call our obsession with beauty and beautiful things a kind of aesthetic decadence (and you don't even have to be a reactionary to believe this)....

https://www.postcarbon.org/nature-is-in ... beautiful/

But, then, perhaps it's just an inevitably byproduct of intelligence.
Or perhaps fundamental goals are built into the universe. Sort of like math is. Many mathematicians become confident in a proof if it has elegance.

[Magnus Anderson]

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.

You forgot that we're currently discussing whether or not your posts in this thread are off-topic, not whether or not this or that person is truly beautiful to this or that person. Both subjects are off-topic with the only difference being that the former has an intention of actually returning to the topic.

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

Defining beauty isn't "my thing". It is the very subject of this thread. (Something you don't seem to get.) And no, it does not keep me [and others here] up in the numbingly scholastic "world of words" rendition of philosophy. That's merely you being unable to understand what definitions are and what role they play in our lives. You've been told many times in the past that your attitude towards definitions is irrational (indeed, quintessentially feminine.)

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.

In other words, your thing is to hijack other people's threads and force everyone to discuss whatever you want to discuss.

My point is merely that the subject of this thread is the popular definition of the word "beauty". Sure, you might not like the subject, but that does not make your posts any less off-topic when you try to make this thread about something else.

In order to be on-topic, your post must consist of a statement (with an optional but highly desirable argument in favor of it) that something is or is not an answer to the question posed in the opening post.

And recall that the question posed in the OP is:
What concept is commonly associated with the word "beauty"?
(Yes, the very question you don't like and that you think merely invites intellectual masturbation involving words that refer to other words and nothing else.)

Of course, there's no place on this forum where it is clearly stated what counts and what does not count as an on-topic post. That ambiguity is precisely what allows people such as you -- and even those who run this forum -- to interpret what it means to be off-topic the way it suits their needs at any particular moment.

[Magnus Anderson]

I think that most people in this thread agree that beauty is not a feeling. People don't say "My feelings are beautiful", they say "This or that person is beautiful". And though I can see a way in which one can say that feelings are full of beauty, it's generally not a term used in reference to feelings, and most certainly, it is not exclusive to them. I think that's evident enough. (That said, I'd like to retract my earlier claim that Peter's opening post states that beauty is a feeling. It probably does not.)

On the other hand, I also think that beauty is not something that belongs to any object that causes feelings of beauty. (The is what seems to be Peter's position -- that beauty is that which causes other people to feel that it's beautiful.) If a person causes you to feel they are beautiful, that does not mean they are beautiful. If we changed someone's brain such that every human being causes them to feel they are beautiful (or ugly), it wouldn't follow that every human being is full of beauty (or ugliness.)

It's similar to how a healthy food is neither a sensation of good taste nor that which causes sensation of good taste (tasty food.) Rather, it refers to food that when consumed assists rather than hinders one's efforts at attaining one's highest goal.

Something similar applies to beauty. To say that a human being is beautiful is to say that their physical appearance is strongly correlated with the kind of person whose cooperation would assist rather hinder one's efforts at attaining one's highest goal.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Something similar applies to beauty. To say that a human being is beautiful is to say that their physical appearance is strongly correlated with the kind of person whose cooperation would assist rather hinder one's efforts at attaining one's highest goal.

Where I do come down on the side of culture creating beauty more strongly is that I think culture creates a reductionist sense of beauty. We take in the person in a shallow way. And let me be clear here. I don't mean that we overvalue beauty and should emphasize good inner qualities. I mean, that culture has impoverished our seeing. There are beautiful people who are ugly. We can see it, but we are trained to not notice it. Be it a dehumanized evaluation that skips over the coldness in the eyes, and focuses just on structure. (And I do think we are trained to see what is metaphorically structure ((in a face or a body)) and to ignore the felt contents of that 'beauty'.) We could jump to modern ignoring of plastic surgery: case in point, the pouty lips. We actually see an idea. And idea of beauty and pretend, extremely well in many cases, that we are looking at a face that is not less human. That the beauty is there in a sense structurally (the fattened lips appear more sexy or voluptuous or even friendly or welcoming) and deny our noticing of the more manniken-like appearance. She is not more beautiful, even to us. We can black box the issue of objectivity for a moment. We have been trained to have a limited focus. Deep down we will have natural draws and culture amongst other things restricts our focus, tells us what is important, tells us what to deny. Now I know many men, even, are repulsed by plastic surgery, but it is rather amazing how many do not care, do not notice the reduction in humanity, and focus just on structure.

(the women are dehumanized, literally. We know our feelings through the positions and movements of our faces, to a great degree. The restricted movement of the mouth, the lessened feeling, means that the person knows their own feelings less well. They are literally crippled by the surgery, to some degree, in their emotional awareness)

It's part of a larger trend towards controlling one's surface which social media give people the illusion of more control of. But stuns me when I see just how many women who clearly were attractive enough (by society's norms) to attract many men, have gone ahead and reduced the flexibility and sensitivity of their faces AND reduced how human they look. That there is insufficient negative feedback around this to stop SO many women. There is no gossip circle of harsh criticism widespread enough to prevent the growing number of people paying to be less human and less beautiful.

Now before plastic surgery make up could do this also, though not with so much damage to the limbic system's self awareness. And people pushed themselves to not notice the full sensory impact of women. They focused on what they were told to focus on. A checklist. An abstraction. And refused to notice the subtler aspects of their own aesthetic reactions.

I say all this, really, in reaction to what I quoted. It may have to do with what they are told are their highest goals, which as conceived will have a dimished humanity in them. Their criteria are a limited beauty. They be stunned rather then repulsed but a truly ugly human who in gross, vague looking at has the structures of beauty. Hell, with some men, the woman's eyes can even be as dead as a long term junkies eyes, and still they manage to have a global reaction of ooh, what a beauty. Perhaps spending years or even a lifetime thinking they won the jackpot spending time with a dead heart that in fact is clear in the not beautiful women they only see the structure of.

And this all happens in relation to women (and men) who have not had plastic surgery. We ignore what we are trained to ignore and chase what we have been branded to chase. A partial beauty that can really be quite ugly.

[obsrvr524]

In order to be on-topic, your post must consist of a statement (with an optional but highly desirable argument in favor of it) that something is or is not an answer to the question posed in the opening post.

Shades of Silhouette not willing to answer a simple yes/no/dont-know question. There has to be a name for that symptom somewhere.

And recall that the question posed in the OP is:
What concept is commonly associated with the word "beauty"?
(Yes, the very question you don't like and that you think merely invites intellectual masturbation involving words that refer to other words and nothing else.)

Experience says that you can repeat it all you want and merely get the same diversions.

Of course, there's no place on this forum where it is clearly stated what counts and what does not count as an on-topic post. That ambiguity is precisely what allows people such as you -- and even those who run this forum -- to interpret what it means to be off-topic the way it suits their needs at any particular moment.

James? Is that you?

[Magnus Anderson]

Experience says that you can repeat it all you want and merely get the same diversions.

My thoughts exactly. But I decided to give him a chance and prove me wrong.

Most importantly, the post is a presentation of an argument in favor of my claim that his post is off-topic. I'm no longer merely asserting he's off-topic, I am now providing an argument in favor it. The argument goes something like this:

1) In order for a post to be on-topic, it must contain a statement (with an optional but highly desirable argument in favor it) that something is or is not an answer to the question posed in the opening post of the thread.

2) The question posed in the opening post of this thread is "What concept is commonly associated with the word beauty?"

3) Iam's first post in this thread contains no statement that a concept either is or is not commonly associated with the word "beauty".

4) Therefore, Iam's first post in this thread is off-topic.

He can now evaluate my process of reasoning. If he disagrees, he can explain why he disagrees. Perhaps he thinks that one of my premises is false. If it is so, he can now state it. Or maybe he thinks that my logic is invalid. Again, if it he does so, he can make it clear. And then we can take it from there.

But of course, it's very likely that he will simply choose not to participate and insist that we do something he wants to do instead. That's fine. But he cannot say that I made no effort to resolve the dispute and he cannot accuse me of avoiding resolving the dispute.

James? Is that you?

Yes, that's very Jamesean But also, it's very applicable.

[iambiguous]

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.

You forgot that we're currently discussing whether or not your posts in this thread are off-topic, not whether or not this or that person is truly beautiful to this or that person. Both subjects are off-topic with the only difference being that the former has an intention of actually returning to the topic.

No, you forget that I already addressed this above. Now, you may not agree that I addressed it as you would have wanted me to address it [agreeing with you] but posters here at ILP are often left with no realistic alternative other than to agree to disagree.

And my interest in your interest in beauty revolves around you taking your intellectual contraptions down out of the clouds and focusing in on beauty as it might create conflicting assessments in regard to a particular face, body or work of art.

Again, pick one. Or, if that is not something that seems relevant to you in discussions of beauty, move on to others.

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

Defining beauty isn't "my thing". It is the very subject of this thread. (Something you don't seem to get.) And no, it does not keep me [and others here] up in the numbingly scholastic "world of words" rendition of philosophy. That's merely you being unable to understand what definitions are and what role they play in our lives. You've been told many times in the past that your attitude towards definitions is irrational (indeed, quintessentially feminine.)

Note in the OP where PK is asking others to define beauty as the primary intent of his thread. He asked "what is beauty"? but the bulk of the argument revolves around all of the different cultural and historical assessments that would not seem to allow us to settle on any one "most rational" definition.

He notes...

[beauty] is a subjective viewpoint that is heavily influenced
by current cultural, social, economic, political and philosophical influences within
society at large.... beauty and our understanding of being beautiful,
is based upon the standards set by the society and it various aspects like
social, political, economic, philosophical aspects of society..

And I have no problem at all agreeing with it. In fact the argument seems to suggest that whatever definition is given to beauty, history and culture reconstructs it into any number of wide ranging [and often conflicting] circumstantial assessments.

He speaks of the concept of beauty, but no didactic technical argument revolving around logic and epistemology seem able to pin that down either.

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.

In other words, your thing is to hijack other people's threads and force everyone to discuss whatever you want to discuss.

I am more than willing to allow others here to make up their own minds about that. And, if they agree with you, to simply not read my posts. Problem solved.

But I suspect that what prompts this particular declamation from you is the embarrassment you feel [consciously or otherwise] at how utterly inept you are are at bringing these intellectual contraptions of yours down out of the clouds.

Take it out on me if you must but your contributions to this thread speak considerably more about you than about me. Your objectivism is encompassed only in a world of words, and you refuse to allow us to examine your pedantic definition of beauty pertaining to a particular face body or work if art.

[Magnus Anderson]

No, you forget that I already addressed this above. Now, you may not agree that I addressed it as you would have wanted me to address it [agreeing with you] but posters here at ILP are often left with no realistic alternative other than to agree to disagree.

I am not asking you to agree with me. (That's one of those weird presumptions of yours where you think that everyone is asking you to agree with them.) I am merely asking you to stick to the subject of you being off-topic (since that's what we've been discussing in the last couple of posts.)

And my interest in your interest in beauty revolves around you taking your intellectual contraptions down out of the clouds and focusing in on beauty as it might create conflicting assessments in regard to a particular face, body or work of art.

In other words, you are trying to force me to discuss what you want me to discuss.

"I don't care about the conventional meaning of the word beauty. What I want you to do is to present an argument that can convince everyone that some particular person is either truly beautiful or truly ugly."

And I already told you that I can't do that. It's fine to ask but it is rude to nag. Why do you keep nagging?

And that's not the end of it. You're also telling me that my first post in this thread is "an intellectual contraption" that exists "up in the clouds". In other words, you are telling me that I am doing something bad (specifically, that I am thinking about things that have nothing to do with reality) and that I should stop doing it. Of course, you never explain why. You never back it up with reasoning. You merely keep repeating it over and over again hoping that one day I will blindly accept it and finally stop doing what I am doing and start doing what you want me to do. (Shaming tactic is all it is.)

And then you wonder why noone likes you.

"They don't like me because I'm trying to open their eyes and they don't want to open them because they are objectivists who are way too habituated to thinking in certain ways!"

Yeah right.

Note in the OP where PK is asking others to define beauty as the primary intent of his thread. He asked "what is beauty"? but the bulk of the argument revolves around all of the different cultural and historical assessments that would not seem to allow us to settle on any one "most rational" definition.

"What is beauty?" is another way of asking "What is the conventional meaning of the word beauty?" In most cases, "What is X?" question is no more than "What does the word X mean?" question.

He notes...

[beauty] is a subjective viewpoint that is heavily influenced
by current cultural, social, economic, political and philosophical influences within
society at large.... beauty and our understanding of being beautiful,
is based upon the standards set by the society and it various aspects like
social, political, economic, philosophical aspects of society..

And I have no problem at all agreeing with it. In fact the argument seems to suggest that whatever definition is given to beauty, history and culture reconstructs it into any number of wide ranging [and often conflicting] circumstantial assessments.

He speaks of the concept of beauty, but no didactic technical argument revolving around logic and epistemology seem able to pin that down either.

First, that's not an argument. Second, it's a definition. He defined the word "beauty". (Wiki excerpt he starts his post with also defines it.)

I am more than willing to allow others here to make up their own minds about that. And, if they agree with you, to simply not read my posts. Problem solved.

You don't get to choose the rules.

But I suspect that what prompts this particular declamation from you is the embarrassment you feel [consciously or otherwise] at how utterly inept you are are at bringing these intellectual contraptions of yours down out of the clouds.

It's funny how you think everyone is embarrassed. It's another one of your silly presumptions that you can't let go off.

Take it out on me if you must but your contributions to this thread speak considerably more about you than about me. Your objectivism is encompassed only in a world of words, and you refuse to allow us to examine your pedantic definition of beauty pertaining to a particular face body or work if art.

Sure. Peter's definition of beauty is fine but mine isn't and it isn't because it is a definition. Makes perfect sense.

[iambiguous]

No, you forget that I already addressed this above. Now, you may not agree that I addressed it as you would have wanted me to address it [agreeing with you] but posters here at ILP are often left with no realistic alternative other than to agree to disagree.

I am not asking you to agree with me. (That's one of those weird presumptions of yours where you think that everyone is asking you to agree with them.) I am merely asking you to stick to the subject of you being off-topic (since that's what we've been discussing in the last couple of posts.)

I've responded to this above: Why I don't agree with you that I did not stick to the topic.

Also, how bizarre [and ironic] is it that in thread devoted to a discussion of beauty, you now decide to make our discussion one about me being off topic!!

Isn't that "derailing the thread"?

My advice: take it to a new thread.

And my interest in your interest in beauty revolves around you taking your intellectual contraptions down out of the clouds and focusing in on beauty as it might create conflicting assessments in regard to a particular face, body or work of art.

In other words, you are trying to force me to discuss what you want me to discuss.

I'm sorry, but: Huh?!!!

I don't [won't, can't] force anyone at ILP to read my posts, let alone respond to them wholly in sync with my own interests.

Instead, I make it crystal clear that my own interest in beauty or morality or politics revolves around an existential examination of the definitions and meaning that analytic sorts give to the words in their technical/"conceptual" assessments.

Not interested in that? Then move on to all of the "serious philosophers" here who are.

"I don't care about the conventional meaning of the word beauty. What I want you to do is to present an argument that can convince everyone that some particular person is either truly beautiful or truly ugly."

Conventional meaning? And how is that not deeply rooted in vast and varied historical, cultural and circumstantial contexts?

Let's go to the dictionary and look up "conventional"

1] based on or in accordance with what is generally done or believed.

Synonyms:
normal standard regular ordinary usual traditional typical common run-of-the-mill
pedestrian commonplace unimaginative uninspired uninspiring unadventurous unremarkable

2] (of a work of art or literature) following traditional forms and genres.

Synonyms: orthodox traditional established accepted received mainstream customary conservative
traditionalist

And what I want are arguments that convince me that, using the tools of philosophy, an objective understanding of beauty and morality and God itself is possible.

And that's not the end of it. You're also telling me that my first post in this thread is "an intellectual contraption" that exists "up in the clouds". In other words, you are telling me that I am doing something bad (specifically, that I am thinking about things that have nothing to do with reality) and that I should stop doing it. Of course, you never explain why.

No, I'm suggesting only that given my own personal opinion rooted subjectively in dasein, "I" think that "here and now". Unlike the objectivists, I am not arguing that all others who wish to be thought of as rational human beings are obligated to think the same.

Something bad? No, that's you thinking that you understand my motivation and intention here. And do you really imagine, given the arguments I have been making for years now, that I would be telling others what they should or should not do in the is/ought world?

You really, really believe that?!!

And I don't care whether someone likes me here. I care about whether they might possibly have the intelligence to yank me up out of the hole that my own intelligence has dug for me.

This one:

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values "I" can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction...or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then "I" begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

The frame of mind that, in regard to beauty and morality, has left me "fractured and fragmented".

And, again, I suspect that reactions to me from objectivists of your ilk revolve more around the concern [conscious or otherwise] that I might end up instead yanking them and their own precious "real me" down into the hole with me.

Note in the OP where PK is asking others to define beauty as the primary intent of his thread. He asked "what is beauty"? but the bulk of the argument revolves around all of the different cultural and historical assessments that would not seem to allow us to settle on any one "most rational" definition.

"What is beauty?" is another way of asking "What is the conventional meaning of the word beauty?" In most cases, "What is X?" question is no more than "What does the word X mean?" question.

Again, are you sure you want to go the "conventional" route?

He notes...

[beauty] is a subjective viewpoint that is heavily influenced
by current cultural, social, economic, political and philosophical influences within
society at large.... beauty and our understanding of being beautiful,
is based upon the standards set by the society and it various aspects like
social, political, economic, philosophical aspects of society..

And I have no problem at all agreeing with it. In fact the argument seems to suggest that whatever definition is given to beauty, history and culture reconstructs it into any number of wide ranging [and often conflicting] circumstantial assessments.

He speaks of the concept of beauty, but no didactic technical argument revolving around logic and epistemology seem able to pin that down either.

First, that's not an argument. Second, it's a definition. He defined the word "beauty". (Wiki excerpt he starts his post with also defines it.)

Note to others:

Can you possible explain this using other words? And are you willing to take his definition out into the world of actual entities and relationships?

I am more than willing to allow others here to make up their own minds about that. And, if they agree with you, to simply not read my posts. Problem solved.

You don't get to choose the rules.

No, but it seems quite obvious that you and only you get to tell us when someone is breaking them.

But I suspect that what prompts this particular declamation from you is the embarrassment you feel [consciously or otherwise] at how utterly inept you are are at bringing these intellectual contraptions of yours down out of the clouds.

It's funny how you think everyone is embarrassed. It's another one of your silly presumptions that you can't let go off.

Well, in my own personal opinion rooted subjectively in dasein, if you are not embarrassed by posts like these, you ought to be.

Take it out on me if you must but your contributions to this thread speak considerably more about you than about me. Your objectivism is encompassed only in a world of words, and you refuse to allow us to examine your pedantic definition of beauty pertaining to a particular face body or work if art.

Sure. Peter's definition of beauty is fine but mine isn't and it isn't because it is a definition. Makes perfect sense.

Let's just say that lots and lots of things make perfect sense to you that to me are just more run-of-the-mill objectivist/abstractionist intellectual glop.

[Ecmandu]

Beauty is different for everyone. Even two people who see the same beauty see it in different ways.

[Magnus Anderson]

I've responded to this above: Why I don't agree with you that I did not stick to the topic.

Yes, you did. But I was talking about this post of yours.

Also, how bizarre [and ironic] is it that in thread devoted to a discussion of beauty, you now decide to make our discussion one about me being off topic!!

Isn't that "derailing the thread"?

Absolutely. I spoke about that in this post of mine. I am partly to blame. But it is you who started it all (and it's not something that you do occasionally.)

My advice: take it to a new thread.

That's a good idea. But I'd want all of the off-topic posts that have to do with whether or not you are off-topic be moved to that new thread as well. Perhaps I should contact a moderator to solve that.

I'm sorry, but: Huh?!!!

I don't [won't, can't] force anyone at ILP to read my posts, let alone respond to them wholly in sync with my own interests.

Instead, I make it crystal clear that my own interest in beauty or morality or politics revolves around an existential examination of the definitions and meaning that analytic sorts give to the words in their technical/"conceptual" assessments.

Not interested in that? Then move on to all of the "serious philosophers" here who are.

But that's what you're trying -- that's what you've been trying in the last 10 years or so. And you had quite a lot of success. You made quite a lot of people endlessly argue with you.

Conventional meaning? And how is that not deeply rooted in vast and varied historical, cultural and circumstantial contexts?

Let's go to the dictionary and look up "conventional"

1] based on or in accordance with what is generally done or believed.

Synonyms:
normal standard regular ordinary usual traditional typical common run-of-the-mill
pedestrian commonplace unimaginative uninspired uninspiring unadventurous unremarkable

2] (of a work of art or literature) following traditional forms and genres.

Synonyms: orthodox traditional established accepted received mainstream customary conservative
traditionalist

What concepts are associated with what words is indeed based on "what is generally done or believed". But what those words represent is not necessarily so.

In other words, what the word "beauty" means is culturally determined but the thing the word represents is not necessarily so. (And my claim is that it isn't.)

And what I want are arguments that convince me that, using the tools of philosophy, an objective understanding of beauty and morality and God itself is possible.

What you want, as I understand it, is for someone to present an argument that will convince everyone that this or that person is or is not truly beautiful. And though I agree that having such arguments here on this board would be more than interesting, I am not capable of presenting one (at this point in time at least) and I am also of the opinion that this thread isn't about such opinions. (There's very little in the opening post that suggests otherwise.) Morever, even if this thread was about such statements, you'd still be off-topic because you never made a statement -- let alone presented an argument -- that this or that person is or is not truly beautiful. (What you did, instead, is accuse Magnus Anderson of being a dogmatist. I still don't see the relevance of that.)

No, I'm suggesting only that given my own personal opinion rooted subjectively in dasein, "I" think that "here and now". Unlike the objectivists, I am not arguing that all others who wish to be thought of as rational human beings are obligated to think the same.

The difference seems spurious to me. I'm not sure if you recall but you've been accused of pretend humility in the past (both by me and other people.) You insist that you're humble and that you're uncertain about your beliefs but your actions -- the fact that you're so pushy with your opinions, so unwilling to expose your rationale, so quick to judgment and so dismissive of other people's opinions -- speak otherwise. That's why people have accused you of "being guilty of your own accusations" or "projecting yourself".

Something bad? No, that's you thinking that you understand my motivation and intention here,

Well, calling my posts 'intellectual contraptions" that exist "up in the clouds" does not sound like praise to me. And the same goes for calling me "serious philosopher" (quotation marks are yours) and "objectivist". It's a value judgment that is clearly a negative one. It's something you've been doing for years. It's something you enjoy doing. You accuse people and then you try to soften your accusations with "Just joshing, my friend", "Unless, of course, I am wrong" and "In my own personal opinion that is subjectively rooted in dasein". I don't think it works.

You really, really believe that?!!

Yes.

Unless, of course, I am wrong.

No, but it seems quite obvious that you and only you get to tell us when someone is breaking them.

Not really. It's up to those who run this forum. Unless they are willing to listen to what I think, what I think is of no importance.

I believe in "private property". It's your forum, you run it however you want. It might not be how I want to run my own and I might even think you're doing it wrong but I won't try to change your mind unless you're open to it. Quite un-authoritarian, isn't it?

Well, in my own personal opinion rooted subjectively in dasein, if you are not embarrassed by posts like these, you ought to be.

I ought to be embarassed? But but but . . . just a couple of sentences ago, you said:

"And do you really imagine, given the arguments I have been making for years now, that I would be telling others what they should or should not do in the is/ought world?"



But it's a good thing you say "in my own personal opinion rooted subjectively in dasein". That makes all the difference. That totally proves you're not a dogmatist. Not your actions but how you decorate your actions.

[iambiguous]

I've responded to this above: Why I don't agree with you that I did not stick to the topic.

Yes, you did. But I was talking about this post of yours.

Note to others:

I'm sorry but what on earth is he getting at here? That post is all about beauty. On a thread created to discuss beauty. Or is he protesting that I'm discussing beauty instead of my being off-topic?

Also, how bizarre [and ironic] is it that in thread devoted to a discussion of beauty, you now decide to make our discussion one about me being off topic!!

Isn't that "derailing the thread"?

Absolutely. I spoke about that in this post of mine. I am partly to blame. But it is you who started it all (and it's not something that you do occasionally.)

Again, a little help please. Or are these points just further distractions, allowing him to avoid bringing his intellectual contraptions out into the world of actual human interactions where there have always been conflicting views about beauty.

My advice: take it to a new thread.

That's a good idea. But I'd want all of the off-topic posts that have to do with whether or not you are off-topic be moved to that new thread as well. Perhaps I should contact a moderator to solve that.

Yes, perhaps you should. Keep us advised.

I'm sorry, but: Huh?!!!

I don't [won't, can't] force anyone at ILP to read my posts, let alone respond to them wholly in sync with my own interests.

Instead, I make it crystal clear that my own interest in beauty or morality or politics revolves around an existential examination of the definitions and meaning that analytic sorts give to the words in their technical/"conceptual" assessments.

Not interested in that? Then move on to all of the "serious philosophers" here who are.

But that's what you're trying -- that's what you've been trying in the last 10 years or so. And you had quite a lot of success. You made quite a lot of people endlessly argue with you.

This is just more Stooge Stuff from my point of view. Making me the issue. But I've already got three.

But I'll make this simple: I am only interested in the extent to which you are willing to take your definitions and concepts about beauty and examine why, if definitions and concepts can be concocted [using logic and the tools of epistemology] in order to arrive at objective assessments of beauty, there are still so many conflicts regarding 1] which faces, bodies and works of art are beautiful and 2] why there are even more conflicts regarding which are more beautiful than others. Or which are the most beautiful of all.

I've already acknowledged that nature is an important factor in all of this, but the human species is the only species to be shaped and molded as well by historical, cultural and experiential factors. Memes some call them. And beauty is certainly no exception in that regard.

Conventional meaning? And how is that not deeply rooted in vast and varied historical, cultural and circumstantial contexts?

Let's go to the dictionary and look up "conventional"

1] based on or in accordance with what is generally done or believed.

Synonyms:
normal standard regular ordinary usual traditional typical common run-of-the-mill
pedestrian commonplace unimaginative uninspired uninspiring unadventurous unremarkable

2] (of a work of art or literature) following traditional forms and genres.

Synonyms: orthodox traditional established accepted received mainstream customary conservative
traditionalist

What concepts are associated with what words is indeed based on "what is generally done or believed". But what those words represent is not necessarily so.

In other words, what the word "beauty" means is culturally determined but the thing the word represents is not necessarily so. (And my claim is that it isn't.)

Again, in regard to what particular thing, experience, relationship etc., involving human beings expressing conflicting points of view about its beauty? What do words used to encompass beauty "necessarily represent" in regard to what in particular? Or should we just take a poll, fall back on the consensus in any particular community and call that "conventional wisdom". So,if someone in a community finds a particular abstract artist's work beautiful but the consensus in town is that abstract art is not beautiful...that settles it?

And what I want are arguments that convince me that, using the tools of philosophy, an objective understanding of beauty and morality and God itself is possible.

What you want, as I understand it, is for someone to present an argument that will convince everyone that this or that person is or is not truly beautiful.

No, what I want is a world in which there are considerably less objectivists around who insist that only their own standards of beauty in regard to faces and bodies and works of art count. And then attain political power and are able to enforce their own standards on others.

Though sure if it actually can be demonstrated that all rational and logical people are obligated to think of beauty in one and only one way, that would be a startling revelation. If that were the case, each individual could voice an opposing opinion but they would be labeled objectively irrational.

Your kind of world or not?

In other words:

No, I'm suggesting only that given my own personal opinion rooted subjectively in dasein, "I" think that "here and now". Unlike the objectivists, I am not arguing that all others who wish to be thought of as rational human beings are obligated to think the same.

The difference seems spurious to me. I'm not sure if you recall but you've been accused of pretend humility in the past (both by me and other people.) You insist that you're humble and that you're uncertain about your beliefs but your actions -- the fact that you're so pushy with your opinions, so unwilling to expose your rationale, so quick to judgment and so dismissive of other people's opinions -- speak otherwise. That's why people have accused you of "being guilty of your own accusations" or "projecting yourself".

Fine. You are entitled to think that you really do know me just as others are. And I am entitled to disagree. But doesn't it reach the point where you decide to move on to others less intolerable to you? That is an option for you, right?

Well, calling my posts 'intellectual contraptions" that exist "up in the clouds" does not sound like praise to me. And the same goes for calling me "serious philosopher" (quotation marks are yours) and "objectivist". It's a value judgment that is clearly a negative one.

I can only react honestly to others as "here and now" I do. In discussing beauty your posts strike me as being intellectual contraptions that are far more intent on focusing in on definitions and concepts. And I've read nothing from you on this thread that leads me to believe that you do not see your own definitions and concepts as being either the optimal manner in which to construe beauty or the only rational manner.

But only when the focus is on a particular face, body or work of art can we examine that more substantively.

Well, in my own personal opinion rooted subjectively in dasein, if you are not embarrassed by posts like these, you ought to be.

I ought to be embarrassed? But but but . . . just a couple of sentences ago, you said:

"And do you really imagine, given the arguments I have been making for years now, that I would be telling others what they should or should not do in the is/ought world?"

Here I was thinking back to the days when I think I was a lot like I think you are now. And any number of things I believed then embarrass me now. So, sure, there's a part of me who finds it hard to believe that those who think those sorts of thing now aren't embarrassed.

But here you and I construe the nature of identity -- "I" in the is/ought world -- in seemingly very different ways.

But it's a good thing you say "in my own personal opinion rooted subjectively in dasein". That makes all the difference. That totally proves you're not a dogmatist. Not your actions but how you decorate your actions.

Yes, it makes all the difference "in the world" to me.

But in order to explore that more in depth with you we would need to focus in on a particular context and then in regard to beauty or morality or religion or political prejudices we would have to compare and contrast the components of our respective philosophies in regard to value judgments.

On a new thread.

[Magnus Anderson]

Note to others:

I'm sorry but what on earth is he getting at here? That post is all about beauty. On a thread created to discuss beauty. Or is he protesting that I'm discussing beauty instead of my being off-topic?

Perhaps you should ask your interlocutor (which is me) instead of asking other people. You are more likely to get your question answered that way.

I was referring to this part:

"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."

Yes, this is related to beauty even though it is not really on-topic. But that's irrelevant. What's relevant is that it is a response to the following post of mine:

"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."

And as everyone can see, in the post you responded to, I was talking about you being off-topic. Indeed, we were already engaged in a discussion about you being off-topic. And your response was to talk about something else.

The point is that you never listen to what other people are saying choosing instead to insist on doing whatever is of interest to you at that particular moment (and it's always the same thing, it's always dasein that is of interest in you, regardless of the content of the post you are responding to.)

Absolutely. I spoke about that in this post of mine. I am partly to blame. But it is you who started it all (and it's not something that you do occasionally.)

Again, a little help please. Or are these points just further distractions, allowing him to avoid bringing his intellectual contraptions out into the world of actual human interactions where there have always been conflicting views about beauty.

I don't need the distraction that you speak of in order to avoid doing what you want me to do. I have already stated several times in the past that I cannot do what you want me to do. It's certainly not something that I'm trying to hide.

But that's what you're trying -- that's what you've been trying in the last 10 years or so. And you had quite a lot of success. You made quite a lot of people endlessly argue with you.

This is just more Stooge Stuff from my point of view. Making me the issue. But I've already got three.

You make yourself the issue.

This is what you said in your first post in this thread:

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.

We are supposed to believe that making Magnus Anderson the issue (what you're doing in the above post) is relevant but making iambiguous the issue is not.

I am only interested in the extent to which you are willing to take your definitions and concepts about beauty and examine why, if definitions and concepts can be concocted [using logic and the tools of epistemology] in order to arrive at objective assessments of beauty, there are still so many conflicts regarding 1] which faces, bodies and works of art are beautiful and 2] why there are even more conflicts regarding which are more beautiful than others. Or which are the most beautiful of all.

I understand that very well. There is no need to repeat it. The problem is:

1) It's off-topic. (The question "What are some of the examples of true beauty?" is not one of the questions posed in the opening post. Note where Peter asked or provided an answer to such a question.)

2) I cannot do it.

I've already acknowledged that nature is an important factor in all of this, but the human species is the only species to be shaped and molded as well by historical, cultural and experiential factors. Memes some call them. And beauty is certainly no exception in that regard.

And I agree that our feelings (which are no more than perceptions) of beauty can be shaped by all sorts of factors (biological, cultural, etc) but I disagree that beauty itself can be shaped. What is truly beautiful is truly beautiful regardless of what anyone thinks or feels is truly beautiful.

What concepts are associated with what words is indeed based on "what is generally done or believed". But what those words represent is not necessarily so.

In other words, what the word "beauty" means is culturally determined but the thing the word represents is not necessarily so. (And my claim is that it isn't.)

Again, in regard to what particular thing, experience, relationship etc., involving human beings expressing conflicting points of view about its beauty? What do words used to encompass beauty "necessarily represent" in regard to what in particular? Or should we just take a poll, fall back on the consensus in any particular community and call that "conventional wisdom". So,if someone in a community finds a particular abstract artist's work beautiful but the consensus in town is that abstract art is not beautiful...that settles it?

That's not related to what I said.

No, what I want is a world in which there are considerably less objectivists around who insist that only their own standards of beauty in regard to faces and bodies and works of art count. And then attain political power and are able to enforce their own standards on others.

And what does that have to do with this thread?

(Note that I never said that my perception of beauty is true let alone that ONLY my perception is true. And I also have no intention of using political power to enforce my opinions on others.)

No, I'm suggesting only that given my own personal opinion rooted subjectively in dasein, "I" think that "here and now". Unlike the objectivists, I am not arguing that all others who wish to be thought of as rational human beings are obligated to think the same.

The difference seems spurious to me. I'm not sure if you recall but you've been accused of pretend humility in the past (both by me and other people.) You insist that you're humble and that you're uncertain about your beliefs but your actions -- the fact that you're so pushy with your opinions, so unwilling to expose your rationale, so quick to judgment and so dismissive of other people's opinions -- speak otherwise. That's why people have accused you of "being guilty of your own accusations" or "projecting yourself".

Fine. You are entitled to think that you really do know me just as others are. And I am entitled to disagree. But doesn't it reach the point where you decide to move on to others less intolerable to you? That is an option for you, right?

Fine. You are entitled to think that you really do know me just as others are. And I am entitled to disagree. But doesn't it reach the point where you decide to move on to others less intolerable to you? That is an option for you, right?

Well, calling my posts 'intellectual contraptions" that exist "up in the clouds" does not sound like praise to me. And the same goes for calling me "serious philosopher" (quotation marks are yours) and "objectivist". It's a value judgment that is clearly a negative one.

I can only react honestly to others as "here and now" I do.

And that supposedly makes a difference?

In discussing beauty your posts strike me as being intellectual contraptions that are far more intent on focusing in on definitions and concepts.

Perhaps because the subject of this thread is the definition of the word "beauty". (And not, as you insist, whether this or that person is or is not truly beautiful.)

Well, in my own personal opinion rooted subjectively in dasein, if you are not embarrassed by posts like these, you ought to be.

I ought to be embarrassed? But but but . . . just a couple of sentences ago, you said:

"And do you really imagine, given the arguments I have been making for years now, that I would be telling others what they should or should not do in the is/ought world?"

Here I was thinking back to the days when I think I was a lot like I think you are now. And any number of things I believed then embarrass me now. So, sure, there's a part of me who finds it hard to believe that those who think those sorts of thing now aren't embarrassed.

I understand, you are projecting yourself (and assuming you are any different than you were in the past.) But as far as I can see, you are still contradicting yourself. You said that I ought to feel embarrassed.

[iambiguous]

Note to others:

I'm sorry but what on earth is he getting at here? That post is all about beauty. On a thread created to discuss beauty. Or is he protesting that I'm discussing beauty instead of my being off-topic?

Perhaps you should ask your interlocutor (which is me) instead of asking other people. You are more likely to get your question answered that way.

Well, if I don't understand your explanation, perhaps someone else does. It's just an option I employ because it actually seems reasonable to me.

I was referring to this part:

"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."

Yes, this is related to beauty even though it is not really on-topic. But that's irrelevant.

If you honestly think the point I am making here is not on topic regarding a discussion of beauty, that in and of itself speaks volumes regarding the gap between us. This is precisely where I believe all discussions must end up once the intellectual contraptions, the definitions and the concepts are taken down out of the clouds. But, for some, it never goes beyond that. Why? Because "up there" everything can revolve around the meaning that you give to words defining and defending other words.

What's relevant is that it is a response to the following post of mine:

"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."

And as everyone can see, in the post you responded to, I was talking about you being off-topic. Indeed, we were already engaged in a discussion about you being off-topic. And your response was to talk about something else.

Then it's true! In a thread created to discuss beauty, you criticize me for being off topic when you go off topic and make the thread a discussion about me being off topic!!

I'm sorry, but I can't begin to explain just how ironic this all is to me. It would be funny [to me] if you didn't insist on me actually taking it seriously.

Though, sure, this is no less a subjective reaction than yours us.

Again, a little help please. Or are these points just further distractions, allowing him to avoid bringing his intellectual contraptions out into the world of actual human interactions where there have always been conflicting views about beauty.

I don't need the distraction that you speak of in order to avoid doing what you want me to do. I have already stated several times in the past that I cannot do what you want me to do. It's certainly not something that I'm trying to hide.

Then this exchange is basically futile. You cling to your definitions and your conceptions up in the didactic clouds and my interest is only bringing all of that "down to earth".

Now, if you ever change your mind, come back on board. And, yeah, if I ever change mine, I'll come back.

In the interim, I can assure you there are philosophers here who won't share your definitions and the concepts of beauty, but who are just as adamant as you that this is by far the most important aspect of any discussion involving conflicting value judgments.

And regarding beauty, morality, religion or politics. Go to them.

Over and out.

[Magnus Anderson]

If you honestly think the point I am making here is not on topic regarding a discussion of beauty, that in and of itself speaks volumes regarding the gap between us. This is precisely where I believe all discussions must end up once the intellectual contraptions, the definitions and the concepts are taken down out of the clouds. But, for some, it never goes beyond that. Why? Because "up there" everything can revolve around the meaning that you give to words defining and defending other words.

You are wrong about the bolded.

You are also wrong when you say that what I said about beauty has nothing to do with reality.

I am more than willing to discuss these things with you, but if you are not willing to do so, that's fine; but let it be known that it is you, and not me, who quit the discussion.

Then it's true! In a thread created to discuss beauty, you criticize me for being off topic when you go off topic and make the thread a discussion about me being off topic!!

I'm sorry, but I can't begin to explain just how ironic this all is to me. It would be funny [to me] if you didn't insist on me actually taking it seriously.

We are both off-topic. The difference between the two of us is that 1) you think that you are not off-topic, 2) you started it, 3) my off-topic discussion is an attempt to return you to the topic, and 4) your have a tendency to hijack threads.

Let me know if and when you want to discuss these things.

Over and out.

Farewell.

[Pedro I Rengel]

Over and out.

Farewell.

This victory will be remembered many years hence.

[obsrvr524]

I think I worked out what might have been the basic problem here. Mr Anderson asked a question that iambiguous couldn't possibly answer.

It seems to me that iambiguous' head is so wrapped up the ugliness (dasein, conflicting goods, subjectivity, doubt, contention, and so on) that he literally never uses the word "beauty". How could he ever explain what the word means to him when it isn't a word he ever uses to describe anything. There is probably no beauty for him. He never sees it. It would be like asking a dog to define the color blue.

That explanation seems to fit his discussions.

A similar explanation seems to fit those who cannot see logic (or not well enough). It is something they don't ever use or recognize. So how could they ever be convinced by it? Any logical explanation of it would require that the person already understand it. I think a great percentage of people don't because they just never use it. Then when it is presented, it probably seems like just a fog of words to be taken as likable or dislikable - having nothing to do with certainty (another concept they have never experienced). I am thinking that it might relate to feminine.

If someone has never experienced the concept expressed by a word, how could they ever explain or define it except to say, "that is what you say it means from what is in your objectivist head but how do I know it is true"?

[Magnus Anderson]

It seems to me that iambiguous' head is so wrapped up the ugliness (dasein, conflicting goods, subjectivity, doubt, contention, and so on) that he literally never uses the word "beauty". How could he ever explain what the word means to him when it isn't a word he ever uses to describe anything. There is probably no beauty for him. He never sees it. It would be like asking a dog to define the color blue.

I would pick the position that he does use the word "beauty" but that he merely does not understand what it means. He's confusing beauty (which has no capacity for change) with feelings of beauty (which can and do change under all kinds of influences.)

I would also say that he does feel beauty but that he's not using his feelings of beauty to make important decisions in life; either that or he is using them but he's lying about it.

He appears to be promoting (not necessarily intentionally) the leftist idea that one should not use one's feelings of beauty to make important decisions such as who to employ, who to marry, who to be friends with and so on. The idea is that our feelings of beauty are less significant than we are used to think. (And this may be true in certain cases -- no doubt there are people who rely too much on their feelings in making decisions -- but leftists are taking it too far.)

The effect is that people become more and more stupid.

[phyllo]

You're going to hire someone who is beautiful rather than someone who is capable?

You're going to marry someone who is beautiful rather than someone who you enjoy being with?