Skepticism and The Normal
- Thread starter WWHP
- Start date
Bubblefish said:
*Yes.* Aesthetics are subjective. That is not to say whether I find AJ more or less attractive than Marilyn Monroe, but this is a matter for *my* subjective taste.
One may discuss *what* one finds attractive, but in the end, any discussion of *why* reduces to: "because I like/dislike this".
Mojo
Mostly harmless
You have defined beauty as perfect symmetry:
If somebody's head was a perfect sphere it would be perfectly symmetrical. Therefore by your own definition of beauty it would be beautiful. Now you are claiming that someone with a perfectly spherical (and therefore perfectly symmetrical) head would not be beautiful. You just contradicted yourself again.
By the way, I'm using the generally accepted definition of "not" here. And you can't spell "asymmetrical"
sinnikal
Muse
And it's 'axes' not 'axises'. Objectively.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Objective statements are statements that have the same truth value independent of viewpoint. There are two categories of objective statement. True objective statements are true for all viewpoints. False objective stements are false from all viewpoints.
All false objective statements are false from all viewpoints. All true objective statements are true from all viewpoints. Only some objective statements are true because some of them (false objective statements) are false.
Got it yet?
Mojo
Mostly harmless
That reminds me: it's time I went down the road to play the guitar.
Professor Yaffle
Butterbeans and Breadcrumbs
He defines beauty as perfect symmety, and now he is defining perfect symmetry as beauty....
.Bubblefish said:
Even if you could spell, which you most definitely can't, the statement quoted above, in any context, is meaningless. You are ascribing nonsense meanings to words and pretending you are communicating something other than nonsense. By any generally accepted definition, irrespective of who started this thread, you are trolling.
Jimbob, this discussion, DONE. Your statement is just that, a statement. It is not an argument. I get your statement. I knew your statement before I introduced the argument on beauty. I have argued against it, showing contradiction after contradiction with reality. You have to refute my points, and your not, your restating yours ad infinitum.
Making the same statement over and over does not make it true, that's magical thinking.
Either present your argument that beauty cannot be objectified, and contradict math and science, or be silent. From this point on, I have no need to entertain your mindless tat for me to 'tit'.
If you can't summarize an argument, listing clearly your steps and explainations, and soley make repetitive statements as arguments, then go join Zaay's discussion on beauty in the other forum, he would like that, it would make him feel good.
BF
Last edited:
Professor Yaffle
Butterbeans and Breadcrumbs
Anyone get the impression that bobble is winding up to declare a win soon, by declaring that we are no longer arguing with him properly?
Last edited:
sinnikal
Muse
There it is again, now it's really getting on my tits (and tats).
Professor Yaffle
Butterbeans and Breadcrumbs
There's something that is bugging me even more than soley, but I can't put my finger on it...
he has also said that Nature is beautiful - which seems a contradiction to me with the Beauty = perfect symmetry since all nature is definitely not symmetrical.
I guess that I'd also have to argue that all Nature isn't beautiful. I spent Saturday on a very beautiful hike where the scenery was marred only by the abundance of lots and lots of cow poo - definitely not beautiful in my mind.
I guess that I'd also have to argue that all Nature isn't beautiful. I spent Saturday on a very beautiful hike where the scenery was marred only by the abundance of lots and lots of cow poo - definitely not beautiful in my mind.
perfect symmetry radialy, planarly, or geometrically, relating all perfectly.
it would be radial symmetrical, which is assymetrical to the planar symmetries of the neck and body.
I am not going to repeat this, the argument is SIMPLE.
Having geometric symmetry is not perfect symmetry. Having radial symmetry is not perfect symmetry. having planar symmetry is not perfect symmetry.
perfect symmetry is SYMMETRICAL with all three, and in beauty, it also harmonizes SYMMETRICALY with our internal and metaphysical symmetries.
I dont have time to teach you design or metaphysics. I'm an artist and work in design all the time, I adapt symmetries to visuals, graphics, film, music, story and comedy structure, and poetry. It's a no brainer as an artist that you are still using a false idea of perfect symmetry in your mind.
i.e. you do not yet understand how to visually conceptualize perfect symmetry,and thus, you can only fail to see it.
This argument? DONE. Please stop making repetive statements over and over and expecting me to indulge your obsessions. I'm not here for that. I'm not your philosopher or therapist.
Either argue that beauty cannot be objectified and contradict math and science, or go join Zaay on his thread, he needs some support for his magical thinking too.
Professor Yaffle
Butterbeans and Breadcrumbs
Thanks for that. I have an inferiority complex due to being constantly told that Emily loves Bagpuss - despite him being baggy and a bit loose at the seams. But who loves old Professor Yaffle, eh? Nobody gives the carved wooden bookend in the shape of a woodpecker a second glance. The mice tease me endlessly all day long - no wonder I have low self esteem that I hide behind this austere and stuffy persona.
The sum energy of the universe is 0, a perfect balance. If that's not symmetrical, I dont know what is.
String Theory, which can in princaple account for all of nature although not falsifiable, is supersymmetry in mathematics.
Fractals are highly symmetrical. Pi is highly symmetrical.
How did you determine that nature is not symmetrical, because you looked at the geometric assymetry of a rock's shape while failing to account for it's planar harmony?
That's not an argument, that's an opinion. Beauty is discovered IN nature when you can remove your subjective foggy lens and find the symmetries.
No one could argue that taosim is not a beautiful and ancient philosophy of nature. Taoism can account for all phenomenon inside of it's framework, and it relates nature into the symmetry of yin, yang, which are a natural symmetry of Tao.
sinnikal
Muse
Uh-oh, time for qi
Yes, I am declaring a win soon. I am waiting for Wayne's response, and if there is not statistical anomaly with our discussion, then I can declare that I have indeed, honestly and truthfully,on all levels, have won this discussion, simply because you are failing not to argue properly, but argue at all.
You are providing no arguments to counter my assertions, rather, you are repeating commentary on me over and over to make yourself feel good about this discussion so you can define this discussion truthfully to yourself, or simply making the same statements that have been refuted and shown to contain contradiction. If you dont argue my rebuttals, then you are not arguing.
That's magical thinking. I dont have to argue with magical thinking, there simply is no argument there to argue.
Last edited:
Bubblefish, I have no doubt that right now you think you are king of the world. But an expert on the English language in any of its forms you are not. What you have written above is drivel, pure and simple. The only thing you are managing to do successfully, amid all your incoherent assertions and blustering threats, is to make yourself look even more stupid than you have in the previous 51 pages. You are behaving like some kind of manic dictator with your demands that people agree with you.
There is absolutely no meaningful content and no argument contained in any of your posts in this thread. All you do is insult people who disagree with you (which is everyone else) and resort to childish threats and reports to moderators when the fancy takes you. I have no doubt you will report this to a moderator simply because you have nothing to offer except silly charades.