The Instigator
Hematite12
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
humanright2debate
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Beauty is Objective

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/27/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 780 times Debate No: 47970
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

Hematite12

Con

BoP: Shared

1st Round is for Acceptance

-----------------------------

Definitions:

Objective:
true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings (from Wikipedia)

Subjective:
existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (from Dictionary.com)

I will leave the definition of "Beauty" open for debate, because I think that is the main part of the question; I think it would be unfair of me to provide a definition, because it would beg my answer.

-----------------------------

What I will argue:


I will attempt to show that Beauty is subjective, not objective. This will be based on an attempt to show that when people call something beautiful, they mean it gives them pleasure to see.


Pro will attempt to show that Beauty is objective; that is, it does not depend on the viewer. It will be acceptable if they show that the majority of beauty is objective.


Thanks in advance, I hope for a good debate!
humanright2debate

Pro

First of all, i will have to stand firm of my claim, my belief is no one is ugly , everyone is beauty .
the fact that , most human do judge human in term of beauty base on objective beauty.

let me pick a 2nd etc for you,
if you own a modeling agency and you have a summer party show to host, and you need someone for a bikini dress show,
there 2 lady come for your interview, one of them are experience-beauty queen who have more than 60 years of knowledge on beauty and on degree in beauty marketing or totally no experience but a young sexy 18age beauty? now the beauty queen say to you that she is a "subjective beauty" please hire her for the bikini show. what will you do for this subjective beauty?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
let me pick a etc for you,
if you own a modeling agency and you have a summer party show to host, and you need someone for to input great idea for a bikini dress show, there 2 lady come for your interview, one of them are experience-beauty queen who have more than 60 years of knowledge on beauty and degree in on beauty marketing or totally no experience but a young sexy 18age beauty? now the sexy 18 say to you that she is a "subjective beauty" please hire her for the bikini show. what will you do for this subjective sexy?

let be true in real, everyone have their own beauty of taste, for me knowledge is beauty.
overall beauty are judged by "objective", and its difference "objective" depend of situation.
Debate Round No. 1
Hematite12

Con

Some Arguments for Subjective Beauty:

Desired Female Figure in the Eyes of Men Has Changed Drastically Over Time: These quotes from an article I found explain this pretty well: "Be it a female fashion model or an ordinary woman, there has been a significant change in their figures over the period of time." and "Beauty standard is something that has fluctuated greatly over the period of time." [1] The article goes on to explain that, in the medieval period, obese women were preferred. In Victorian England, an hourglass figur was preferred. In the 1920s, a washboard profile was preferred. This leads into the modern day, where thinnness is the desired body type by the vast majority of men. If beauty were objective, ideal body type in women would not fluctuate so much, since objective beauty would be free from individauls' biases.

The Different Periods in Music Sought Entirely Different Things: The major periods of "classical" music are Medieval, Renaissance, Baroque, Classical, Romantic, and 20th/21st Century. The Medieval period held that Perfect 4th intervals were beautiful, for instance, while all the following periods preferred 3rds to build their music. The Medievals also used many musical modes, while now we almost exclusively use the Ionian and Aeolian modes, now called Major and Minor. Composers in the Classical period referred to the prior period as "Baroque", because it comes from the Hebrew for "misshapen pearl". This meant that, although the Baroque did some good things, which makes it a pearl, it was far too frilly and disordered, making it misshapen. The Classical embraced order and consistency, which stemmed from the philosophical Empiricism and Rationalism of the 18th Century. In reaction to the Classical, the Romantic period came along, which valued human emotion and passion, not order, in their music. Each period felt that what they did was most beautiful; and since the ideologies of the various periods often came into direct conflict, as I have described, it is clear that what people considered beautiful drastically changed in each period. This also points to a subjective beauty, since it seems that musical beauty exists in people's minds.

These are just a couple of many, many examples of differing experiences of "beauty". Another example is art, which follows many of the same trends as music, with reactions and counterreactions between the different movements. All of these examples show that what people experience as beautiful varies massively over time and with the culture, meaning that beauty depends on the subject and not the object of thought, making it subjective.

Response to Opponent:

To be honest, I don't really know what you are saying. Correct me if I'm wrong: you're saying that, if you are running a modelling show, you want the girl with knowledge to help you run it, and the physically attractive one to actually be in the show.

This is valid, but I don't really know how this applies to whether beauty is objective or subjective. You said:

"overall beauty are judged by "objective", and its difference "objective" depend of situation."

This seems like a non sequitur, and I don't quite know how you got this from your hypothetical. You say:

"let be true in real, everyone have their own beauty of taste, for me knowledge is beauty."

Isn't this essentially further proof that beauty is subjective? If everyone has a preferred "form" of beauty, that means that beauty depends on the subject's individual opinions/biases/preferences, and this exactly fits the definition of subjective that I gave.

Sources:

[1] http://ezinearticles.com...
humanright2debate

Pro

Main point A
Instigator showed us a mislead article ,

SUB A point-
1) this article is found random on internet, how trustful can it be
2) text are just copy and paste. Do you even try adding any of your thought?
3) the article is writer by Sarah J Jones who claim she is a fashion designer and selling her item online. can her article be accurate ?
4) is she trying to make more sales?
5) its just her point of view ?

SUB B point- Beauty is Objective

1) There is definitely a mass basic idea of what beauty is which cause by media ,

B1.1)surrounded by racks of magazines adorned with photos of thin, fit and beautiful models and celebrities,These magazines first take away a woman"s self-image and esteem and then offer to sell them back to her one product at a time.
B1.2) The increasing power of the media to define standards of beauty is causing many women to develop eating disorders and waste money on beauty products in an effort to alter their appearances
B1.3)we exposed to hundreds of images from the mass media every day ,by age 21 typical American will have watched over one million commercials,the media preys upon insecure adolescent girls by placing a strong emphasis on the value of beauty and physical perfection
B1.4) According to the National Association of Anorexia Nervosa and Associated Disorders, 47 percent of girls from 5th to 12th grade reported wanting to lose weight because of magazine picture
B1.5) eating disorders have grown 400 percent since 1970
B1.6) actresses and models weigh 23 percent less than the average woman, and that the current media ideal of thinness is achievable by less than five percent of the female population

2)Beauty is but a word that is only known and accepted in relation to it's opposite.Opposites are imagined..they have no tangible existence within the totality of consciousness in which everything is of itself.
2.1)Beauty is of itself.All is beauty.There are no subjects...only objects..even we are universal objects

2.2)if beauty is entirely subjective"that is, if anything that anyone holds to be or experiences as beautiful is beautiful for example, asserts)"then it seems that the word has no meaning

Sub point C
Instigator is making a perplexed argue , by his Definitions of Objective and What will be argue title

3.1)I will attempt to show that Beauty is subjective, not objective. This will be based on an attempt to show that when people call something beautiful, they mean it gives them pleasure to see
Definitions : existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (from Dictionary.com)

***the term about statement of "it gives them pleasure to see", if its not an object, how could you view it?
before its existing in the mind, how could you not view the object and understand its a object?

3.2) Pro will attempt to show that Beauty is objective; that is, it does not depend on the viewer. It will be acceptable if they show that the majority of beauty is objective.
Definitions :Objective: true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings (from Wikipedia)

it does not depend on the viewer. and its true even outside of a "subject's" individual biases

***the term of subject is based on " will be based on an attempt to show that when people call something beautiful, they mean it gives them pleasure to see "

overall,
"BT "is "S "not "O"
"S" ,is they mean it gives them pleasure to see

"BT" is "O"
"BT "is "O" if and only if , its true even outside of a "S" individual biases

you get the ball?
Debate Round No. 2
Hematite12

Con

Uh... Please try to speak in coherent English... I am really not trying to be rude and I mean the utmost respect but it is almost impossible to understand what you are saying most of the time.

My Rebuttal:

"1) this article is found random on internet, how trustful can it be
2) text are just copy and paste. Do you even try adding any of your thought?
3) the article is writer by Sarah J Jones who claim she is a fashion designer and selling her item online. can her article be accurate ?
4) is she trying to make more sales?
5) its just her point of view ?"

I really don't think I even should have had to provide a source for such a historically true statement as what I said, but alright, if you really want some more "valid" sources....:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://www.ivillage.com...

http://www.stylecaster.com...

http://www.diet-blog.com...

http://news.discovery.com...

And really you can just google "ideal female body type through the ages" and you'll get thousands of results.

You didn't respond even remotely to my point about how music has changed drastically every century or so, so that remains to be answered. Frankly I find it insulting that your only response to my entire argument was a weak attack on my source. And I don't see you providing any sources. Now on to the rest of your argument:

"1) There is definitely a mass basic idea of what beauty is which cause by media ,"

Sure, of course there is. But that's just the point: it was caused by "the media". It was not always this way. Refer to my plethora of sources concerning how the ideal body type for women has changed massively over time.

"2)Beauty is but a word that is only known and accepted in relation to it's opposite.Opposites are imagined..they have no tangible existence within the totality of consciousness in which everything is of itself."

I am really trying to understand what you are trying to say, but I fail to understand it. The way I interpet it is that you are saying that beauty is a relative term that varies in relation to opposites, and opposites are things that the mind constructs, that are not inherent in reality. If this is what you are saying.... then you agree with me, that beauty is subjective. If beauty is based on foundations of opposites, and "opposites are imagined", then beauty is subjective. To quote my definition, it is "existing in the mind".

"2.1)Beauty is of itself.All is beauty.There are no subjects...only objects..even we are universal objects"

A bare assertion, and this is just metaphysical word-chopping. Of course there are subjects. A subject is something that perceives or does. We are talking about humans perceiving things. Therefore, humans are the subjects, and the things they perceive are the objects.

"2.2)if beauty is entirely subjective"that is, if anything that anyone holds to be or experiences as beautiful is beautiful for example, asserts)"then it seems that the word has no meaning"

No, it does have meaning. It is aesthetic form that is pleasing to the observer. Just because it doesn't fit what you want it to fit doesn't mean it lacks meaning.

"***the term about statement of "it gives them pleasure to see", if its not an object, how could you view it?
before its existing in the mind, how could you not view the object and understand its a object?"

When did I deny that there was an object? You, the subject, perceives an object. The "beauty" is a construct of the mind; your mind find that the object matches forms that are pleasurable to you. But the beauty is not inherent in the object, and the forms that are considered beautiful vary greatly depending on the subject and their circumstances.

"***the term of subject is based on " will be based on an attempt to show that when people call something beautiful, they mean it gives them pleasure to see "

You just quoted me. I don't understand the point you are trying to make.

"overall,
"BT "is "S "not "O"
"S" ,is they mean it gives them pleasure to see

"BT" is "O"
"BT "is "O" if and only if , its true even outside of a "S" individual biases"

Yes, I understand the points we are both making. This is just repeating what I laid out very clearly in the opening post. I don't see the issue?
humanright2debate

Pro

Instigator this topic is about Beauty is Objective
with the Definitions:
Objective: true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings (from Wikipedia)

1)Instigator agree Beauty is Objective
1.a)Instigator have strongly agreed there is definitely a mass basic idea of what beauty is which cause by media . he even supported us with plethora of sources concerning how the ideal body type for women has changed massively over time from the media.

2)
Objective is relation Subjective
beauty only may exist true as a Subjective when only its a Objective .
you have agreed beauty is a Subjective, therefore you also agree Objective Beauty exist.

2.1) please read it clear, we are talking about "Beauty" Objective or Subjective from your define.
as from your claim of "human are subjective or objective" will be another topic.

2.2) how could you only conclusion that beauty are only pleasing to the observer? this is a fully self conception claim.

All supporting sources from Instigator link on round 3 show us that , in his tiny view Beauty is equal to all about female body shape,sexy human from the media, with sources of topic titles such as Female_body_shape, Hollywood hotties? How To Look Skinny in Pictures? LOL .

debate is totally pointless to carry as Instigator view Beauty as only female body shape.
Debate Round No. 3
Hematite12

Con

"Instigator this topic is about Beauty is Objective"

Yes, I am aware, thanks.

"1)Instigator agree Beauty is Objective
1.a)Instigator have strongly agreed there is definitely a mass basic idea of what beauty is which cause by media . he even supported us with plethora of sources concerning how the ideal body type for women has changed massively over time from the media."

?.... Right. Ideal body type for women has changed massively over time by the media. This means that "beauty" depends on people's biases. You could also say, that beauty "is in the eye of the beholder". The fact that ideal body type for women has changed so much throughout history means that beauty depends on people's biases/interpetations. There is no beauty inherent in the women, otherwise it wouldn't change over time. So, beauty is subjective. I've explained this several times already.

"2)
Objective is relation Subjective
beauty only may exist true as a Subjective when only its a Objective .
you have agreed beauty is a Subjective, therefore you also agree Objective Beauty exist."

With all due respect, this doesn't make any sense. Yes, beauty is subjective. Non sequitur that objective beauty exists. And subjective and objective are opposing, contradictory concepts. To say that they have "relation" makes no sense. And this is a bare assertion, why is it that "beauty only may exist true as a Subjective when only its a Objective"?

"2.1) please read it clear, we are talking about "Beauty" Objective or Subjective from your define.
as from your claim of "human are subjective or objective" will be another topic."

Well, you are the one who brought up the issue, but ok. I didn't make any claim, it's just the definition of subject and object. I think you are getting these difficulties from a lack of understanding of English?... In the sentence, "The dog bit the man", the dog is the subject, and the man is the object. This extends to "subjective" and "objective". Subjective would hold that the beauty is inherent in the the subject, or the observer, which is human(s) in this case. Objective would hold that the beauty is inherent in the object, or the thing being observed, regardless of the state of mind of the subject, or observer. This isn't an argumentative claim, this is just basic grammar. Humans COULD be the object; in my example sentence, the man is the object. But we are talking about humans observing, so they are the subjects. And I never said "humans are subjective", I said they are the subjects in the situations we are talking about.

"2.2) how could you only conclusion that beauty are only pleasing to the observer? this is a fully self conception claim."

I don't know what you mean by "self-conception claim".

"All supporting sources from Instigator link on round 3 show us that , in his tiny view Beauty is equal to all about female body shape,sexy human from the media, with sources of topic titles such as Female_body_shape, Hollywood hotties? How To Look Skinny in Pictures? LOL .

debate is totally pointless to carry as Instigator view Beauty as only female body shape."

This is largely just a personal attack, but I'll respond. My "tiny view" is not that beauty is all about female body shape. That was one of my examples in my initial argumentative post. I also talked about how music has changed over time, which you continue to ignore. I also mentioned art, but that can be grouped in with music; they have both developed pretty similarly. So, this just further shows your strange unwillingness to respond to anything except for my female body shape argument. If anyone is obsessed with female body shape, it's you.
humanright2debate

Pro

critical point from the Instigator, (round 1)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Desired Female Figure in the Eyes of Men Has Changed Drastically Over Time: These quotes from an article I found explain this pretty well: "Be it a female fashion model or an ordinary woman, there has been a significant change in their figures over the period of time." and "Beauty standard is something that has fluctuated greatly over the period of time." in the medieval period, obese women were preferred. In Victorian England, an hourglass figur was preferred. In the 1920s, a washboard profile was preferred. This leads into the modern day, where thinnness is the desired body type by the vast majority of men. If beauty were objective, ideal body type in women would not fluctuate so much, since objective beauty would be free from individauls' biases.

The Instigator agree that there has been a significant change in humans preferred view of beauty the period beauty standard is something that has fluctuated greatly over the period of time, they went into deeper to support that
etc of the modern day, where thinnness is the desired body type by the vast majority of men.
________________________________________________________________________________
******Instigator strongly agree there is a beauty standard that beauty is vast by majority humans be it in older days, or modern day.
---------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------
critical point from the Instigator, (round 1)
The major periods of "classical" music are Medieval, Renaissance, Baroque, Classical, Romantic, and 20th/21st Century. The Medieval period held that Perfect 4th intervals were beautiful, for instance, while all the following periods preferred 3rds to build their music. The Medievals also used many musical modes, while now we almost exclusively use the Ionian and Aeolian modes, now called Major and Minor. it is clear that what people considered beautiful drastically changed in each period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

************Instigator strongly agree field of art is a related beauty ,
he agreed there is a drastically changed in each period which vast by majority humans view of preferred beauty in art

----------------------------------
----------------------------------
critical point from the Instigator, (round 3)
I really don't think I even should have had to provide a source for such a historically true statement as what I said, but alright, if you really want some more "valid" sources....:

http://en.wikipedia.org......

http://www.ivillage.com......

http://www.stylecaster.com......

http://www.diet-blog.com......

http://news.discovery.com......

And really you can just google "ideal female body type through the ages" and you'll get thousands of results.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

******again The Instigator, is showing us the, "ideal female body type - through the ages
he agree there is a standard beauty through the ages .
his point of view "valid" sources" of those historically true standard are from the mass media internet, which again show us that he fully agree there are standard beauty on female from the media.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Hematite12 2 years ago
Hematite12
"Apparently my opponent are unintelligent..."

Oh the irony.

"Instigator strongly agree there is a beauty standard that is vast by majority humans, but define statement as the whole of human race thought for his tiny tiny tiny view.

Now majority humans view your face as physical ugly? do you have to depend on viewer and agree with whatever they claim, is so please explain why."

Your argument is thoroughly incoherent and all over the place. I don't have to "agree" with the viewer, and this shows your further lack of understanding of what subjective means. The whole point is that beauty is "in the eye of the beholder" and is subject to opinion. There is no right or wrong view of what is beautiful. So, no, I don't have to agree with the viewer. And the irony is that YOUR view would hold that you have to agree with others; you apparently think objective beauty is determined by the majority at any given time, so if I disagree with the majority, I'm wrong.

"Your statement,claim is as good as saying a set of belief must be true because its make by majority humans."

I never said that. If anything, you are the one who is holding to that, given that you support the existence of objective beauty by saying there is a general standard of beauty that is supported by "the media". I have pointed out how what people view as beautiful has DRASTICALLY changed over time and by culture. If beauty were objective, people wouldn't see so many contrasting things as beautiful at different times; objective beauty is constant beauty.

"let me make it more simple for you
will there be logic vs vote by majority humans in this case below
raping is allow because vote and agree by majority humans in city.

let make another simple etc for you
Do u think everyone pick their husband or wife to be based on majority humans agreement compare to individual biases?
if yes please explain what the standard?"

This is strawmanning, because I never appealed to the majority, as I stat
Posted by humanright2debate 2 years ago
humanright2debate
Apparently my opponent are unintelligent to the point.

i will make it simple for you.
Instigator strongly agree there is a beauty standard that is vast by majority humans, but define statement as the whole of human race thought for his tiny tiny tiny view.

Now majority humans view your face as physical ugly? do you have to depend on viewer and agree with whatever they claim, is so please explain why.

Your statement,claim is as good as saying a set of belief must be true because its make by majority humans.

let me make it more simple for you
will there be logic vs vote by majority humans in this case below
raping is allow because vote and agree by majority humans in city.

let make another simple etc for you
Do u think everyone pick their husband or wife to be based on majority humans agreement compare to individual biases?
if yes please explain what the standard?
Posted by Hematite12 2 years ago
Hematite12
Apparently my opponent doesn't understand what objective and subjective mean <_<
No votes have been placed for this debate.