/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.20985060]

>beauty is subjective
how do u respond to that?

[Anonymous No.20985070]

>>20985060
I respond with "is a child getting raped beautiful?"

[Anonymous No.20985071]

the european standard of beauty is not subjective

[Anonymous No.20985080]

>>20985060
It’s true.

>>20985070
The answer is no, anon. Do you not understand what it means?

[Anonymous No.20985084]

เดือ

[Anonymous No.20985092]

>>20985060
It doesn't merit a response.

[Anonymous No.20985093]

>>20985060
physical beauty is not.

[Anonymous No.20985099]

Stop posting her. She is literally perfect and my mind goes crazy at the fact that I can never have her.

[Anonymous No.20985105]

>>20985060
Mirroredly

[Anonymous No.20985122]

>>20985060
Its wrong. Now In humanity there is some volatility because sometimes someone’s personality may make them prettier or uglier depending on how affable they are, but in nature it is undoubtedly objective. The face of the person does not change but the viewer is affected by their kindness, humor, wit, etc. (These traits are objectively beautiful btw)

Forget about people who like disgusting things in porn. Pornography corrupts the mind.

In nature, a living tree is better than a dead tree, always. A living animal is always more appealing than a dead carcass.

Etc.

[Anonymous No.20985123]

>>20985080
>The answer is no, anon. Do you not understand what it means?
>a child rapist can't find his own raping beautiful
Why not?

[Anonymous No.20985128]

So-called "objectivity" is a delusion. There is no such thing as truth, only power and convenient metaphors.

[Anonymous No.20985140]

>>20985123
aberrant/degenerate beauty standards only further prove that an objective beauty exists

[Anonymous No.20985154]

>>20985123
He’s deranged, of course he likes what he’s done, at least enough to do it. But is he doing it to be something more un-beautiful? Isn’t that the point? I don’t know, I’m not a psychopath.
So you ask this question and by doing so, you’re agreeing. I get it now.

[Anonymous No.20985157]

>>20985128
>There is no such thing as truth

Is this true?

[Anonymous No.20985161]

>>20985060
First of all the words "subjective" and "objective" don't have a coherent meaning. The object implies a subject and vice versa. But that's another topic.
If I had to respond to this I would say beauty is objective but this objectivity is "wide", meaning, subject to variation. Statistically what people empirically judge to be beautiful is mostly the same although there is some variation. If you categorized those groups that deviate from the norm into specific classifications, however, then you would see that people with certain deviant neurological subtypes find certain things beautiful that neuro-typicals do not.

The biological routes of the evaluation of a person's physical appearance are quite obvious. People find those who are healthiest, in good shape, and virile conventionally attractive, as these are indicators of genetic fitness. Basically they approximate some version of an ideal of the secondary sex characteristics . Most people don't have a thing for late stage cancer patients.

For those who are unconventionally attractive, the value judgement of their appearance involves more aesthetic and cerebral evaluations . They may have a certain elegance or charm or quality about them which makes them sexually interesting as individuals rather than as mere exemplars of a heuristic fitness schema.

[Anonymous No.20985164]

>>20985099
You desire her like desiring a painting. Go talk to people.

[Anonymous No.20985168]

>>20985060
that's ugly people talk

[Anonymous No.20985170]

>>20985164
>implying people want to talk

[Anonymous No.20985172]

>>20985161
>The biological routes
roots

[Anonymous No.20985180]

>>20985128
Braindead take
https://youtu.be/lNI07egoefc

[Anonymous No.20985206]

>>20985157
BOOM!! and just like that, that faggot just got FUCKING OWNED!!

[Anonymous No.20985221]

Generally yes. There exists an in-between area for subjective preference and ,of course, outliers. But yes, beauty tends to follow a very semi-rigid set of rules.

[Anonymous No.20985233]

>>20985221
>very semi-rigid
yes we can perhaps conclude this decisively, without committing ourselves too strongly one way or the other except insofar as a particular situation may or may not warrant it

[Anonymous No.20985239]

>>20985060
Oh no. AI has crafted my dream woman. It's already too late.

[Anonymous No.20985241]

>>20985239
that's a man

[Anonymous No.20985244]

>>20985241
Oh no. AI has crafted my dream man. It's already too late.

[Anonymous No.20985263]

>>20985080
Then its not subjective. Ipso facto

[Anonymous No.20985317]

>>20985140
But your average liberal lefty soiwoman deserves to be raped. You are only convincing yourself that your delusions is truth when it never will be true

[Anonymous No.20985319]

>>20985317
don't get the wrong idea, i'm a child rape advocate

[Anonymous No.20985324]

>>20985092
>I dont know how to answer
Ftfy

[Anonymous No.20985336]

Roger Scruton proved you all wrong.

[Anonymous No.20985337]

>>20985060
I'd agree with it.

[Anonymous No.20985339]

I think conventional sexual attractiveness detracts from beauty

[Anonymous No.20985359]

>>20985154
>of course he likes what he’s done
this is what they're talking about. if everyone in the world were child molesters, child rape would be considered beautiful. that means it's subjective.

For most people, "beauty" reflects certain patterns in nature that assist in survival or gene proliferation, blah blah you've heard it before.
Green landscape = food, water, possibility for human survival. Young woman with clear skin, symmetrical face, etc = fertile and no maladaptive genetic variation/mutation.
So, "beauty" is subjective, but our perception of it usually corresponds to patterns in nature that are objective.

pic unrelated

[Anonymous No.20985376]

Yes and no; or no and yes. Beauty, as a word, has an objective meaning. Beauty, as one finds it, is a subjective experience.

[Anonymous No.20985385]

Well, it's as they say: beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

[Anonymous No.20985397]

>>20985385
not true desu
>>20985336
>>20985336
>>20985336

[Anonymous No.20985403]

>>20985397
Eh what does Roger Scruton know

[Anonymous No.20985439]

>>20985122
What do you think about this? >>20985427

[Anonymous No.20985451]

>>20985060
I would say that some aspects of beauty are subjective.

If the person is fat, I would add that being a fat fuck is good looking to some, but to most people it ranks really low.

[Anonymous No.20985455]

>>20985122
Outside of humans and birds, attraction has little to do with mating. Most males put their dingdongs wherever they can.

[Anonymous No.20985469]

>>20985128
1. You uust made an absolute statement about truth though.
2. There are immutable laws of the universe, why should they be unextrapolatable?
3. We know that some people prefer milk over water, this is an example of a truth we know exists.
4. You prefer dubs over dubs, there's another fact.

[Anonymous No.20985476]

>>20985161
An object does not necessitate a subject.
That's why the term was coined, to separate "things" that are being observed and are put into context of something else by an agent, and "things" that are not.

If you want to make an existentialist argument of everything being a subject, then even most existentialists disregarded that idea eventually.

[Anonymous No.20985509]

>>20985122
You were on the right track until that last line where you suddenly went negative-IQ for some reason.

There are plenty of dead and ruined things that can be hauntingly beautiful. Ruins, insects preserved in amber, fossilized trees--dead trees in a winter landscape can look beautiful, for example. A dead person can look peaceful and beautiful in a casket. A grave can be beautiful.

Of all the hills to die on, that's one of the most stupid and bizarre for me.

[Anonymous No.20985515]

This debate is due to the false presupposition of nominalism and rejection of real universal categories such as, in this case, beauty. The Platonic form of beauty renders this debate moot.

[Anonymous No.20985519]

>>20985385
fake and gay, if you think this is beautiful you're just wrong.

[Anonymous No.20985533]

>>20985519
They're going to put stuff like this on billboards soon. That's where this is all heading.

[Anonymous No.20985536]

>>20985519
As I said before. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

[Anonymous No.20985537]

>>20985070

[Anonymous No.20985564]

>>20985180
>PragerU
sad
https://youtu.be/v5DqmTtCPiQ

[Anonymous No.20985601]

>>20985476
>An object does not necessitate a subject.
By the same token there can be no subject without an object, the two coincide and are codependent. Subjectivity is representation, without representation there can be no subject. If there is no represented, there is no representation, therefore there is no representer. The subject/object distinction is bogus on a deeper level which is what I said about it being "another topic."
Check out Arthur Schope

[Anonymous No.20985610]

>>20985601
Also the whole statement "beauty is subjective" to have any meaning at all has meaning only in distinction: i.e, only insofar as there are some truths which are objective. If everything is subjective, who cares that beauty is. The fact that the possibility of objectivity threatens to encroach on beauty is what gives the raison d'etre to the opposite statement.