Dark Jaguar
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2006
- Messages
- 1,666
Beauty can be explained in terms of brain function. In that sense it's objective. That is the only sense in which it exists though.
Why no questions about the objective nature of being grossed out?
Why no questions about the objective nature of being grossed out?
Bah! All the same, really. What's gross to one person is hilarious to another.
But it doesn't give us an excuse to talk about Angelina Jolie. That's probably why.
For those that wish to maintain their philosophy and opinion with science and math.
Here is a PDF which attemtps to get computers to predict a beautiful human face.
To quote from the SCIENTIFIC and MATHEMATICAL paper.
http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/089976606774841602
If a machine can learn beauty, then clearly beauty must be objective. machines have NO subjectivity, and thus, this clears the whole argument out of the water objectively.
Beauty is not soley objective.
Beauty is not soley subjective.
Beauty is BOTH objective, and subjective.
Toodles.
Here is a PDF which attemtps to get computers to predict a beautiful human face.
To quote from the SCIENTIFIC and MATHEMATICAL paper.
http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/089976606774841602
If a machine can learn beauty, then clearly beauty must be objective. machines have NO subjectivity, and thus, this clears the whole argument out of the water objectively.
Beauty is not soley objective.
Beauty is not soley subjective.
Beauty is BOTH objective, and subjective.
Toodles.
Because it outlines the contradiction in the argument that beauty is soley subjective, and thus it is avoided in consideration.
Note that Zaay tries to refute a poster who states that beauty is evidence of a creator. Zaay counters this with the observation that the creator makes 'ugly' things, like anuses.
So Zaay's argument contains an inherent contradiction; Beauty is subjective, but somehow ugliness is objective.
There are no objective rationalizations for this contradiction.
Magical thinking assumes that the rate, repetition and number of statements said to be true is what makes them true. And if it feels good when you are making them, then that is what is true.
For those that want thier philosophies to align with magical thinking, simply conduct a survey on this forum as to how many people find beauty to be subjective, and if more than 60% are correct, then the dominant opinion is is therefore true, so it must be correct.
Zaay's arguments are founded in mysticism philosophically. As an admitted occultist, however, he contradicts himself internally when he claims to adhere to a critical argument about reality, and thus at the heart of his arguments lay his mystical and wiccan philosophy.
Wiccan's practice 'magic'. Magic is the art and science of causing 'change' in reality to conform with the 'will' of the aspirant. Zaay's approach to this concept,( i do find magical philosophy and science to be very interesting, by the way, and do not discount them inside of their sphere of relevance) is consistant with many in the new age movement who hold a distinct interpretation of magic, the belief that our feelings create reality.
I find no problems with this belief system as a personal system. I do find it odd, however, that Zaay's arguments fail to account for his discrepancy, he argues for objectivity yet practices earth and energy magic subjectively while admittadly not being able to account for that phenomenon objectively.
I say this because our discussion in another thread on beauty was alarming to him, and he could not refute in rational exchange the objective qualities of beauty. He simply could not maintain consistant rational reciprocal dialouge. So he removed himself from a rational process because that rational process for dialouge didnt make him 'feel good', and therefore I charge that this thread here, which he started in frustration out of his performance failure in our previous discussion, is nothing more than a magic operation in Zaay's mind to make himself 'feel good' again about his arguments.
For those that want thier philosophies to align with magical thinking, simply conduct a survey on this forum as to how many people find beauty to be subjective, and if more than 60% are correct, then the dominant opinion is is therefore true, so it must be correct.
Zaay's arguments are founded in mysticism philosophically. As an admitted occultist, however, he contradicts himself internally when he claims to adhere to a critical argument about reality, and thus at the heart of his arguments lay his mystical and wiccan philosophy.
Wiccan's practice 'magic'. Magic is the art and science of causing 'change' in reality to conform with the 'will' of the aspirant. Zaay's approach to this concept,( i do find magical philosophy and science to be very interesting, by the way, and do not discount them inside of their sphere of relevance) is consistant with many in the new age movement who hold a distinct interpretation of magic, the belief that our feelings create reality.
I find no problems with this belief system as a personal system. I do find it odd, however, that Zaay's arguments fail to account for his discrepancy, he argues for objectivity yet practices earth and energy magic subjectively while admittadly not being able to account for that phenomenon objectively.
I say this because our discussion in another thread on beauty was alarming to him, and he could not refute in rational exchange the objective qualities of beauty. He simply could not maintain consistant rational reciprocal dialouge. So he removed himself from a rational process because that rational process for dialouge didnt make him 'feel good', and therefore I charge that this thread here, which he started in frustration out of his performance failure in our previous discussion, is nothing more than a magic operation in Zaay's mind to make himself 'feel good' again about his arguments.
Last edited:
Z
Variable Constant
OK, who left the Troll door open again?
I have no idea what he's in here blathering about, but I imagine we'll see more of him around, now that his other thread has fallen apart.
Anyway, back to beauty:
Exactly. Just as beauty is subjective, so is ugly; just as gross is subjective, so is attractive.
Even though it disheartens me to say so, there are some who find feces to be beautiful and attractive. Some find disembodied innards to be beautiful. Some only see beauty in clean lines, while other prefer complexities.
The same goes for ugliness, of course. I am just one of many who finds absolute simplicity, symmetry, or order to be hideous. I much prefer machines with design embellishments or unnecessary decorations to strictly functional ones. The fictionally derived 'precisely symmetrical' faces that people post occasionally on the Net are grossly horrible to me.
Even in my gaming, I prefer to find SOME way of breaking up the monotony of symmetrical art design. Lots of the graphics of games I play at home have been altered to break up the forced symmetry of the images.
Have you seen her HANDS?
Gross.
I have no idea what he's in here blathering about, but I imagine we'll see more of him around, now that his other thread has fallen apart.
Anyway, back to beauty:
Bah! All the same, really. What's gross to one person is hilarious to another.
Exactly. Just as beauty is subjective, so is ugly; just as gross is subjective, so is attractive.
Even though it disheartens me to say so, there are some who find feces to be beautiful and attractive. Some find disembodied innards to be beautiful. Some only see beauty in clean lines, while other prefer complexities.
The same goes for ugliness, of course. I am just one of many who finds absolute simplicity, symmetry, or order to be hideous. I much prefer machines with design embellishments or unnecessary decorations to strictly functional ones. The fictionally derived 'precisely symmetrical' faces that people post occasionally on the Net are grossly horrible to me.
Even in my gaming, I prefer to find SOME way of breaking up the monotony of symmetrical art design. Lots of the graphics of games I play at home have been altered to break up the forced symmetry of the images.
Have you seen her HANDS?
Gross.
Lonewulf
Humanistic Cyborg
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2005
- Messages
- 10,375
Z
Variable Constant
Curious... all I see is a red X.
Z
Variable Constant
And fewer 'not-so-good' days lately.
They are very unusual on her face. Plus, her teeth seem... off, somehow.
(I think Bubblefish is stalking you, Z. He must like your aftershave!)
No aftershave, but I have taken to using AXE products recently.
Last edited:
Z
Variable Constant
Forbidden, it says.
Z
Variable Constant
Heh... thanks to a quote via pv+ on the other thread, we see that Rome equates perfect symmetry to beauty. How, do you ask? After all, a human face is by no means perfectly symmetrical. At best, it approaches bilateral symmetry and only bilateral symmetry.
Ah, but you see, he's referring to symmetrical harmony with our internal metaphysical symmetries!
...
Internal?
You mean....
Subjective????
(We won't even go there with 'metaphysical symmetry...')
Honestly, though, and back on point: is symmetry an absolute measure of beauty? Does that make Picasso paintings ugly? What about objects in nature, which possess almost no obvious symmetry?
Or shall we delve into what makes up 'metaphysical' symmetry?
And if we delve into metaphysics in our arguments on beauty, do we not, in fact, only more securely ensure the subjective slant on our meaning of beauty?
It's almost worth taking Viharo off of 'ignore' to see what he has to say on these subjects... Almost.
Ah, but you see, he's referring to symmetrical harmony with our internal metaphysical symmetries!
...
Internal?
You mean....
Subjective????
(We won't even go there with 'metaphysical symmetry...')
Honestly, though, and back on point: is symmetry an absolute measure of beauty? Does that make Picasso paintings ugly? What about objects in nature, which possess almost no obvious symmetry?
Or shall we delve into what makes up 'metaphysical' symmetry?
And if we delve into metaphysics in our arguments on beauty, do we not, in fact, only more securely ensure the subjective slant on our meaning of beauty?
It's almost worth taking Viharo off of 'ignore' to see what he has to say on these subjects... Almost.
Beleth
FAQ Creator
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2002
- Messages
- 4,125
I think that beauty/ugliness gets more subjective the higher up the evolutionary tree the sense involved is, and that ugliness is more objective than beauty.
The lowest senses (touch, taste, and smell) are all pretty objective. Rotten food smells bad. Animals with soft, thick fur feel good. And so on. Hearing is next, and while most people will agree on what sounds bad (retching, for instance) what sounds good is much more subjective. Then there's sight. Lots of things are really pretty horrific to look at, but I'd rather look at, say, a grisly sight than smell it. And then we get to Ms. Jolie, who I admit I don't find overly attractive either.
When I was in college the most beautiful thing -- the thing I would plan my days around -- was the monthly testing of the air raid sirens. I found a spot that was approximately equidistant from three of them. They weren't quite in tune, and they rotated at slightly different speeds. They only sounded for two or three minutes a month. It was beautiful in part because it was so rare. And that is another aspect of beauty -- for something to be beautiful, it must be difficult to achieve.
The lowest senses (touch, taste, and smell) are all pretty objective. Rotten food smells bad. Animals with soft, thick fur feel good. And so on. Hearing is next, and while most people will agree on what sounds bad (retching, for instance) what sounds good is much more subjective. Then there's sight. Lots of things are really pretty horrific to look at, but I'd rather look at, say, a grisly sight than smell it. And then we get to Ms. Jolie, who I admit I don't find overly attractive either.
When I was in college the most beautiful thing -- the thing I would plan my days around -- was the monthly testing of the air raid sirens. I found a spot that was approximately equidistant from three of them. They weren't quite in tune, and they rotated at slightly different speeds. They only sounded for two or three minutes a month. It was beautiful in part because it was so rare. And that is another aspect of beauty -- for something to be beautiful, it must be difficult to achieve.
there are three distinctions of symmetry. radial, geometrical, and planar. A human face that is symmetrical is symmetrical within all three.
Our internal symmetries are thinking and feeling. thinking and feeling are abstractions, metaphysical.
Apparently you niether understand art nor metaphysics.
...
Internal?
You mean....
Subjective????
(We won't even go there with 'metaphysical symmetry...')
Yes, our internal subjective experience is thinking and feeling, a metaphysical symmetry.
Picasso's paintings are symmetrical within all three distinctions of symmetry. Once again, you confuse full symmetry as geometric symmetry.
All objects in nature are aligned withing the three distinctions of symmetry and the metaphysical distinctions to percieve them
Thinking and feeling
No, you simply relate external symmetries with external symmetries, which creates beauty
You have never once ignored me, although you have stated over and over that you were.
Again, deceptive.
I dont have time to get into another thread. If anyone wants to discuss internal and external symmetry, then they can come by the other thread.
This thread is simply not stimulating enough for me to maintain a discussion that has already happened somewhere else.
BF
Z
Variable Constant
Fascinating.
I don't think even ugliness is objective. Any qualitative evaluation requires subjective, relative judgements, I'd say.
Think - to a carrion eater, the stink of decay is probably quite beautiful. To a bat, your air raid sirens might have been incredibly horrid.
A rock is a rock is a rock, regardless if you are the bird atop it, the worm beneath it, or the bacteria within it. But aesthetics are different for each observer, so beauty/ugly is a purely subjective process.
I look at it this way: if a statement remains true regardless of who is making the statement, it's objective. If a statement is true for some making the statement, but false for others making the statement, then it's subjective.
Among the hollywood fad-chasing folk, AJ is beautiful. Among the Pai Dong, she's not beautiful. To the Aborigine of Australia, she might be agreeable enough, for a white woman, but hardly beautiful. The Apache might find her extremely beautiful, solely for her exotic, pale skin and familiar dark hair. Hardcore socialist Aryans might find her acceptable enough, but to be truly beautiful, she'd need to be blonde.
That's all a sign of the subjective nature of beauty. We can't say that there is any one standard of beauty applied universally; we can't make a list of beautiful people, and expect every single observer to agree with us. Examples exist right here that prove that Angelina Jolie is not universally considered beautiful. I'm sure that the same holds true for ANYONE advanced as 'beautiful'.
Let's try it out, shall we?
This is a list of female celebrities I find (or have found in the past) beautiful:
Winona Ryder
Drew Barrymore
Kirsten Dunst
Christina Ricci
Audrey Hepburn
Heidi Klum
Halle Berry
Jennifer Love Hewitt
Now, how many of these do we ALL AGREE to be beautiful?
Interestingly enough, Angelina Jolie is only number 42 on the AskMen.com's top 50 most Beautiful Women!