Skepticism and The Normal

[WWHP]

It is subjective, because people have different experiences of it.

"I have 56 chairs in my kitchen" is an objective statement.

" I have 56 chairs in my kitchen, all of them BEAUTIFUL to me" is also an objective statement.

Features that make up beauty might be objectively defined, but the concept of beauty is puerly subjective.

exactly, beauty is both objective and subjective

Statements can be true or false or meaningless (amongst other things)

you are defining the third value as 'meaningless' here, and then you are defining 'meaningless' as something which cannot be considered true or false.

Which means you are using the third value.

They can be subjective or objective.

There are four options : (the initials are obvious)


TO, FO
TS, FS

agreed, and then there are the statements whose distinction you cannot tell, which gives you actually five options from a ternary framework

Only the person making the subjective statements can *definitely* assign TS or FS to a particular statement.

Oh my goodness, is the relativity of statements sinking in with you?

If I understand your nearly coherent posts BS123 is limited to TO, FS, and unknown.

your close, but y our mixing your definitions of subjective and objective, rather, OS 012 distinguishes into true, false, and mystery. Subjective is inferred from false, and objective is inferred from true.

It also confuses true with objective and false with subjective.

no, it is you whom is very confused and ambiguous about true and false and objective and subjective. if we cant infer T from objective, then the only thing about objective that is objective is that it's meaningless.


BF

 

[Z]

He won't admit he's wrong, will he? Rome is STILL trying to claim that beauty is in some way objective, isn't he?

Amazing, the depth of ignorance some people cling to.

Someone tell the kid that there is no objective standard to beauty. Not symmetry, not color or tone, not a specific body shape. For example, AJ is too thin for me. Her hands are ugly. Her mouth is too large, her eyes too small, and her face too thin. Hence, she is not beautiful.

Beauty is entirely subjective, because what defines beauty is defined entirely by the observer alone. For example, some find paintings by Rembrant to be beautiful. Others find Rembrant gauche or passe, and prefer van Gogh. I think van Gogh paintings are attractive, but not because of their beauty, but rather because of their suffering. Is Mona Lisa beautiful? Not according to some non-whites - and many whites.

Is Jessica Simpson beautiful? I find she's repulsive. Tori Spelling was called alternately beautiful and a complete tramp (dog, barfer, etc) by different members of our battery in Korea.

Beauty is a matter of opinion only. There is no objective, universal, user-independent notion of 'beautiful' out there. No Platonic ideals, my friends.

To argue otherwise is to be a fool.

Since I fouled with Vauxhall, I shall retreat and hope to make the best of Leicester Square.

 

[Mojo]

Objective Beauty can be defined as 'symmetry',

In that case we have no need of the term "beauty": we can just say "symmetry" instead. Is that all there is to it as far as you're concerned?

Oh, I see it isn't:

Beauty is harmonious and balanced.

Now you've introduced two new terms. For "beauty" to be objective, you now need to define "harmonious" and "balanced" in terms that are objectively measurable.

 

[WWHP]

He won't admit he's wrong, will he? Rome is STILL trying to claim that beauty is in some way objective, isn't he?

My argument is advancing. My argument is that beauty is both objective and subjective.

Amazing, the depth of ignorance some people cling to.

A perfect projection.

Someone tell the kid that there is no objective standard to beauty.

Ahh, I guess this is a command towards your magical legions?


'Telling', as well as 'spelling' wont refute the argument that there exists objectifiable refrences for beauty, and thus, objectivity and subjectivity are both exalted in that which is beautiful.

 

[WWHP]

In that case we have no need of the term "beauty": we can just say "symmetry" instead.

we most certainly could if it served our purpose. note "angelina's symmetry is certainly easy on my eyes"

For "beauty" to be objective, you now need to define "harmonious" and "balanced" in terms that are objectively measurable.

simply consult the STANDARD usage in the dictionary for symmetry

http://www.answers.com/symmetry&r=67


1.) Exact correspondence of form and constituent configuration on opposite sides of a dividing line or plane or about a center or an axis. See synonyms at proportion.
2.) A relationship of characteristic correspondence, equivalence, or identity among constituents of an entity or between different entities: the narrative symmetry of the novel.
3.) Beauty as a result of balance or harmonious arrangement.

 

[karener]

Can you please explain how your argument advances because people disagree with you? You've just posted a lot of links that include very different and subjective definitions of beauty and now symmetry. You haven't explained how you can objectively measure what is or is not beautiful.

In fact, several people have disagreed with your assessment of the beauty of Angelina Jolie. Z even gave you the reasons he doesn't think she is beautiful (sorry I can't give you my husband's because he is actually busy at work unlike myself - but I think he thinks her mouth is too big - on the other hand, he's a very big fan of Drew Barrymore).

 

[WWHP]

Can you please explain how your argument advances because people disagree with you?

My argument does not advance because people disagree with me, my argument advances due to it's rational soundness and it's relationship to objective reality which it is consistant within.

You've just posted a lot of links that include very different and subjective definitions of beauty and now symmetry. You haven't explained how you can objectively measure what is or is not beautiful.

Again, I have stated over and over, symmetry is an objective measurment for beauty.

Symmetry is:

1. Exact correspondence of form and constituent configuration on opposite sides of a dividing line or plane or about a center or an axis. See synonyms at proportion.
2. A relationship of characteristic correspondence, equivalence, or identity among constituents of an entity or between different entities: the narrative symmetry of the novel.
3. Beauty as a result of balance or harmonious arrangement.

In fact, several people have disagreed with your assessment of the beauty of Angelina Jolie.

Someone disagree is not a rational refutation, it's just an opinion unless they can argue evidence to Angelina Jolie's ugliness, or commoness in appearance

Z even gave you the reasons he doesn't think she is beautiful

Zaay is a mystic, and doenst think anything is true. His irrational point of view is allowed in creative spaces, like blogs and what not, but his point of view is founded upon mysticism, which states that there is only the subjective point of view, and our subjective point of view creates reality.

I posted a link which refutes that mystical notion with an article by a mystic, who declares beauty to be objective using mystical experience and logic in his argument, not conflated opinion designed to manipulate people on discussion forums, which is what Z admittadly does, and thus nothing he says can be held in any honest scrutiny, the man means absolutly nothing when he writes here.

BF

 

[wwitzke]

Since I fouled with Vauxhall, I shall retreat and hope to make the best of Leicester Square.

Wait... Wait- isn't there a French variation on the Colmbs defense of 1974, the Aldric Shuffle? That should score at least double. I think it would go to Holborn.

 

[karener]

The view from my office is completely unsymmetrical and still beautiful. I have a view of a bay, right now there's a couple of sailboats (also unsymmetrical but still beautiful) on the bay and completely unsymmetrical mountains in the distance (still very nice). In front of the bay, across the parking lot, are some very symmetrical (and luckily short) concrete blocks which are not a bit beautiful and are, in fact, very ugly.

So, your definition of beauty = symmetry doesn't seem to be working. I therefore declare my argument advancing and yours dissolving into dust - isn't that how this works??

 

[Z]

The view from my office is completely unsymmetrical and still beautiful. I have a view of a bay, right now there's a couple of sailboats (also unsymmetrical but still beautiful) on the bay and completely unsymmetrical mountains in the distance (still very nice). In front of the bay, across the parking lot, are some very symmetrical (and luckily short) concrete blocks which are not a bit beautiful and are, in fact, very ugly.

So, your definition of beauty = symmetry doesn't seem to be working. I therefore declare my argument advancing and yours dissolving into dust - isn't that how this works??

Excellent observation. Yes, in architecture and art, symmetry can be considered ugly, rather than beautiful. In fact, the modernist movements have been more towards assymmetry - a revolution against the cold, sterile symmetry of the machine.

A facial mole, when assymetrical, is considered a beauty mark by many; a matching mole on either side looks artificial and hideous.

Symmetry does NOT equal beauty. That's one supposedly 'objective standard' for beauty shot to hell.

 

[WWHP]

The view from my office is completely unsymmetrical and still beautiful.

then that is subjectively beautiful. The fact that beauty is found in both the eye of the beholder and in objective symmetry is not contradictory.

I have a view of a bay, right now there's a couple of sailboats (also unsymmetrical but still beautiful) on the bay and completely unsymmetrical mountains in the distance (still very nice). In front of the bay, across the parking lot, are some very symmetrical (and luckily short) concrete blocks which are not a bit beautiful and are, in fact, very ugly.

I dont see how concrete blocks are representative of perfect symmetry. they may be symmetrical in shape, but that is an adjective.

So, your definition of beauty = symmetry doesn't seem to be working. I therefore declare my argument advancing and yours dissolving into dust -

For your arguments to advance past mine, you have to refute how symmetry is considered to be an objective beauty, both philosophicaly and standardly as in the dictionary. You also cannot use your subjective values in the argument, because beauty is both subjective and objective.

isn't that how this works??

Yes, if you can account that angelina jolie is an ugly or common looking woman objectively.

http://www.mi.sanu.ac.yu/vismath/proceedings/malin.htm

1. ART AND SCIENCE

Symmetry underlies many of the ways we think about both art and science. Of the four dimensions which we normally use to define the world we live in (up and down, in and out, left and right and time), only time is inherently asymmetrical, moving relentlessly forward, never back. Thus if we know the spatial properties of one half of an object we can infer (in science) or anticipate (in art) what the other half may be like, even if it is unseen or inaccessible. This principle applies universally in science and widely in the visual arts, in poetry and in literature and especially, in music.

Also important in understanding the worlds of science and art is colour. While artists and scientists see the same colours their interpretation and motivation for understanding them is entirely different. The gulf between the two groups is nowhere broader than in the discussion of colour. In a neatly symmetrical way, as important as symmetry is its opposite, asymmetry. Perfect symmetry is beautiful, but it is also sterile. If the universe had failed to develop asymmetries billions of years ago we would not be here to admire it. In art it is often the departures from symmetry that are aesthetically pleasing or disturbing and in science those same asymmetries are both revealing and informative.

To the artist colour is a means of expression, and that expression can convey mood as well as a state of mind. Artists talk of complimentary colours as though there were real symmetries in the concepts and they are familiar with colours that convey warmth or distance. While scientists are not impervious to these feelings, in the science context colour is simply another diagnostic tool, providing more information about life and light.

These reactions to colour and to symmetry seem superficially opposed, but they are profound links that hint at the shared origins of art and science, which are buried deep in the human need to know and to understand. Thus the core cultures that underpin our society spring jointly from some in-built aesthetic and from curiosity, the restless urge to explain and to explore that is in all of us. These characteristics, along with some compassion and perhaps a sense of humor are what make us human. But that's another question.

 

[WWHP]

More examples of objective statements refrencing 'beauty'.


'The image of the earth suspended in space is utterly beautiful'.

"Music is a beautiful expression"

Quotes on beauty and truth-


The mathematical sciences particularly exhibit order, symmetry,
and limitation; and these are the greatest forms of the beautiful.
- Aristotle (384-322 BC) Metaphysica

I have deep faith that the principle of the universe will be beautiful and simple.
- Albert Einstein

 

[WWHP]

Excellent observation. Yes, in architecture and art, symmetry can be considered ugly, rather than beautiful. In fact, the modernist movements have been more towards assymmetry - a revolution against the cold, sterile symmetry of the machine.

symmetry is not simply reduced to geometric balance, that's not the full symmetry. Sure, geometric balance is 'symmetrical', but so is a ruler and a square. It is not a representation of symmetry.

The modernists were still applying symmetry refrenced in radial symmetry and planar symmetry.

A facial mole, when assymetrical, is considered a beauty mark by many; a matching mole on either side looks artificial and hideous.

"Symmetry is defined as orderly, mutually corresdonding arrangement of various parts of a body, producing a proportionate, balanced form. The various types of symmetry include radial symmetry, bilateral symmetry and planar symmetry. Asymmetry is defined as lack of proportion or ill-proportioned. When artists work are described as asymetrical this is a mislabeling in the description of their work. Even though an artwork does not represent pure reflected geometrical symmetry it is still operating under a process of proportional systems and balancing"

http://www.art.net/~coffin/WRITINGS/BEAUTY/beauty.html

Symmetry does NOT equal beauty. That's one supposedly 'objective standard' for beauty shot to hell.

to assume that all symmetry is refrenced simply by geometrics is misinformed architectually, artistically, and abstractly, i.e. once again, you dont know what you are talking about.

BF

 

[WWHP]

another objective observation.

Nature is beautiful.

Here is a quote that is interesting, the 'beauty' discovered in music as opposed to the beauty simply relating to subjective experience


http://theblog.philosophytalk.org/2006/08/its_often_argue.html

Often I listen to a piece of music and don’t like it at first. But then later I come to believe, and say, that the music is “beautiful,” even though I didn’t realize it at first. I’ve gone through this process with songs from Shostakovich to Radiohead. And when I claim that the music is beautiful—finally, after hearing it many times—I’m saying that the music has something I wasn’t aware of at first. That property, I seem to be saying, was discovered by me, not constituted by my subjective experience. I was wrong when I missed it at first. When I use the word “beautiful” to indicate something I missed the first time around, I’m using it to make an objective claim about the music. So it seems to be a linguistic fact that “beautiful” can be used to make objective claims. ergo;So there are at least two senses of “beauty”—one objective and the other subjective. "

 

[WWHP]

anyone out there care to argue that nature is not beautiful? Anyone care to argue that stating "Nature is beautiful" is a subjective comment?

 

[WWHP]

Not only is symmetry beautiful, but from symmetry, one can infer 'synergy'.

OS 012 defines synergy as "all sides contribute, and all sides win the collective output of all contributing". Note how in a perfect symmetrical order, all sides do indeed contribute to that beauty, and beauty is the output of all contributing.

 

[WWHP]

All sides winning is beautiful. Anyone care to argue that?

 

[WWHP]

to state that beauty soley exists in the eye of the beholder is to state that beauty does not exist in nature. It's a mystical argument, producing nothing valid, enlightening, or *beautiful*.

To see that beauty is both objective and subjective is indeed the ultimate beauty, for there is a harmony and a perfecty synergy, symmetry between objective and subjective that is very beautiful to behold.

 

[WWHP]

Not only is beauty both objective and subjective, but so are human beings.

Truth is both objective and subjective. The universe is both objective and subjective.

 

[WWHP]

so please, replace those cinder blocks with geodesics! Geodesics are naturally symmetrical, fully symmetrical, and are used both in architecture to produce beauty, as well as found in nature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fullerene

anyone care to argue how fullerenes are not beautiful natural objects?