Total Posts:37|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is there such thing as objective beauty?

Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2015 8:31:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
We've all heard the phrase "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" but is that true? Is it possible that a brilliant diamond is aesthetically less beautiful than a pile of barf? Is it possible that a perfectly symmetrical face is aesthetically less beautiful than a deformed and maimed face?

How about in music? Is it possible that some songs are objectively more beautiful than other songs? Some songs illicit strong emotions based on lyrical content. Some songs illicit a deep connection in some of us just based on melodic content. I find myself listening to songs in different languages that I can't understand because of the melody alone.

What do you think? While certainly there is a great deal of subjectivity in these matters I think there must be an objective component.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,673
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2015 8:50:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/1/2015 8:31:06 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
We've all heard the phrase "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" but is that true? Is it possible that a brilliant diamond is aesthetically less beautiful than a pile of barf? Is it possible that a perfectly symmetrical face is aesthetically less beautiful than a deformed and maimed face?

How about in music? Is it possible that some songs are objectively more beautiful than other songs? Some songs illicit strong emotions based on lyrical content. Some songs illicit a deep connection in some of us just based on melodic content. I find myself listening to songs in different languages that I can't understand because of the melody alone.

What do you think? While certainly there is a great deal of subjectivity in these matters I think there must be an objective component.

I would say that a consensus of opinion is not indicative of objectivity. If beauty is objective, there would be some means of testing or measuring it without relying on human opinions.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2015 9:00:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Here are some songs that I think illicit deep melodic beauty disregarding lyrics completely:

The intro of Young Blood by the naked and famous
Hopeless wanderer by Mumford and sons
Get your shine on by Florida Georgia line
The chorus of rain dance Maggie by red hot chili peppers
The chorus of don't trust me by 3oh3
The beat for we dem boys by whiz Khalifa
Hello by Adele
Many songs by avicii
Many songs by rammstein
Some songs by the killers
Some songs by kid cudi
Some songs by the weeknd
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2015 9:03:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/1/2015 8:50:05 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 12/1/2015 8:31:06 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
We've all heard the phrase "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" but is that true? Is it possible that a brilliant diamond is aesthetically less beautiful than a pile of barf? Is it possible that a perfectly symmetrical face is aesthetically less beautiful than a deformed and maimed face?

How about in music? Is it possible that some songs are objectively more beautiful than other songs? Some songs illicit strong emotions based on lyrical content. Some songs illicit a deep connection in some of us just based on melodic content. I find myself listening to songs in different languages that I can't understand because of the melody alone.

What do you think? While certainly there is a great deal of subjectivity in these matters I think there must be an objective component.

I would say that a consensus of opinion is not indicative of objectivity. If beauty is objective, there would be some means of testing or measuring it without relying on human opinions.

I would argue that it's not an opinion but more of something that you apprehend. If everyone apprehends a sense of beauty from something then we can say that objective beauty exists.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,673
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2015 9:27:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/1/2015 9:03:37 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/1/2015 8:50:05 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 12/1/2015 8:31:06 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
We've all heard the phrase "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" but is that true? Is it possible that a brilliant diamond is aesthetically less beautiful than a pile of barf? Is it possible that a perfectly symmetrical face is aesthetically less beautiful than a deformed and maimed face?

How about in music? Is it possible that some songs are objectively more beautiful than other songs? Some songs illicit strong emotions based on lyrical content. Some songs illicit a deep connection in some of us just based on melodic content. I find myself listening to songs in different languages that I can't understand because of the melody alone.

What do you think? While certainly there is a great deal of subjectivity in these matters I think there must be an objective component.

I would say that a consensus of opinion is not indicative of objectivity. If beauty is objective, there would be some means of testing or measuring it without relying on human opinions.

I would argue that it's not an opinion but more of something that you apprehend. If everyone apprehends a sense of beauty from something then we can say that objective beauty exists.

Not necessarily. There are plenty of things that are incredibly appealing to some while utterly repulsive to others. You would have to argue that in the other direction, I believe. "If beauty is objective, then everyone will apprehend a sense of beauty from something."
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2015 9:38:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/1/2015 9:27:25 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 12/1/2015 9:03:37 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/1/2015 8:50:05 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 12/1/2015 8:31:06 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
We've all heard the phrase "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" but is that true? Is it possible that a brilliant diamond is aesthetically less beautiful than a pile of barf? Is it possible that a perfectly symmetrical face is aesthetically less beautiful than a deformed and maimed face?

How about in music? Is it possible that some songs are objectively more beautiful than other songs? Some songs illicit strong emotions based on lyrical content. Some songs illicit a deep connection in some of us just based on melodic content. I find myself listening to songs in different languages that I can't understand because of the melody alone.

What do you think? While certainly there is a great deal of subjectivity in these matters I think there must be an objective component.

I would say that a consensus of opinion is not indicative of objectivity. If beauty is objective, there would be some means of testing or measuring it without relying on human opinions.

I would argue that it's not an opinion but more of something that you apprehend. If everyone apprehends a sense of beauty from something then we can say that objective beauty exists.

Not necessarily. There are plenty of things that are incredibly appealing to some while utterly repulsive to others. You would have to argue that in the other direction, I believe. "If beauty is objective, then everyone will apprehend a sense of beauty from something."

There are definitely different opinions about what is considered beautiful and what isn't. The difference is that some people may actually be wrong in their assessments. If beauty is subjective, nobody's assessments can be wrong. If I said "a brilliant diamond is aesthetically more pleasing to the eye than dirt" and someone said "no, the dirt is aesthetically more pleasing to the eye than a brilliant diamond" would it be a stalemate? Or would the person who thinks dirt is more beautiful just be wrong? I'd argue that the person would just be wrong.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,673
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2015 10:04:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/1/2015 9:38:47 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/1/2015 9:27:25 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 12/1/2015 9:03:37 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/1/2015 8:50:05 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 12/1/2015 8:31:06 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
We've all heard the phrase "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" but is that true? Is it possible that a brilliant diamond is aesthetically less beautiful than a pile of barf? Is it possible that a perfectly symmetrical face is aesthetically less beautiful than a deformed and maimed face?

How about in music? Is it possible that some songs are objectively more beautiful than other songs? Some songs illicit strong emotions based on lyrical content. Some songs illicit a deep connection in some of us just based on melodic content. I find myself listening to songs in different languages that I can't understand because of the melody alone.

What do you think? While certainly there is a great deal of subjectivity in these matters I think there must be an objective component.

I would say that a consensus of opinion is not indicative of objectivity. If beauty is objective, there would be some means of testing or measuring it without relying on human opinions.

I would argue that it's not an opinion but more of something that you apprehend. If everyone apprehends a sense of beauty from something then we can say that objective beauty exists.

Not necessarily. There are plenty of things that are incredibly appealing to some while utterly repulsive to others. You would have to argue that in the other direction, I believe. "If beauty is objective, then everyone will apprehend a sense of beauty from something."

There are definitely different opinions about what is considered beautiful and what isn't. The difference is that some people may actually be wrong in their assessments. If beauty is subjective, nobody's assessments can be wrong. If I said "a brilliant diamond is aesthetically more pleasing to the eye than dirt" and someone said "no, the dirt is aesthetically more pleasing to the eye than a brilliant diamond" would it be a stalemate? Or would the person who thinks dirt is more beautiful just be wrong? I'd argue that the person would just be wrong.

The two possibilities here are indistinguishable. That's why there has to be a measurable aspect to it in order for it to qualify it as objective. Until then, everyone's assessment of beauty is equally valid because there is no objective value to it.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2015 10:15:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/1/2015 10:04:38 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 12/1/2015 9:38:47 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/1/2015 9:27:25 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 12/1/2015 9:03:37 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/1/2015 8:50:05 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 12/1/2015 8:31:06 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
We've all heard the phrase "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" but is that true? Is it possible that a brilliant diamond is aesthetically less beautiful than a pile of barf? Is it possible that a perfectly symmetrical face is aesthetically less beautiful than a deformed and maimed face?

How about in music? Is it possible that some songs are objectively more beautiful than other songs? Some songs illicit strong emotions based on lyrical content. Some songs illicit a deep connection in some of us just based on melodic content. I find myself listening to songs in different languages that I can't understand because of the melody alone.

What do you think? While certainly there is a great deal of subjectivity in these matters I think there must be an objective component.

I would say that a consensus of opinion is not indicative of objectivity. If beauty is objective, there would be some means of testing or measuring it without relying on human opinions.

I would argue that it's not an opinion but more of something that you apprehend. If everyone apprehends a sense of beauty from something then we can say that objective beauty exists.

Not necessarily. There are plenty of things that are incredibly appealing to some while utterly repulsive to others. You would have to argue that in the other direction, I believe. "If beauty is objective, then everyone will apprehend a sense of beauty from something."

There are definitely different opinions about what is considered beautiful and what isn't. The difference is that some people may actually be wrong in their assessments. If beauty is subjective, nobody's assessments can be wrong. If I said "a brilliant diamond is aesthetically more pleasing to the eye than dirt" and someone said "no, the dirt is aesthetically more pleasing to the eye than a brilliant diamond" would it be a stalemate? Or would the person who thinks dirt is more beautiful just be wrong? I'd argue that the person would just be wrong.

The two possibilities here are indistinguishable. That's why there has to be a measurable aspect to it in order for it to qualify it as objective. Until then, everyone's assessment of beauty is equally valid because there is no objective value to it.

Measurable in what sense? Mathematics and logic are objective but not "measurable" per se. Beauty is something that we apprehend intuitively. It's qualitative rather than quantitative. It appears reasonable to say that brilliant diamonds are actually more aesthetically beautiful than barf, George clooney is actually more good looking than the elephant man, some songs are actually better than others.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2015 11:11:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/1/2015 10:15:15 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/1/2015 10:04:38 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 12/1/2015 9:38:47 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/1/2015 9:27:25 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 12/1/2015 9:03:37 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/1/2015 8:50:05 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 12/1/2015 8:31:06 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
We've all heard the phrase "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" but is that true? Is it possible that a brilliant diamond is aesthetically less beautiful than a pile of barf? Is it possible that a perfectly symmetrical face is aesthetically less beautiful than a deformed and maimed face?

How about in music? Is it possible that some songs are objectively more beautiful than other songs? Some songs illicit strong emotions based on lyrical content. Some songs illicit a deep connection in some of us just based on melodic content. I find myself listening to songs in different languages that I can't understand because of the melody alone.

What do you think? While certainly there is a great deal of subjectivity in these matters I think there must be an objective component.

I would say that a consensus of opinion is not indicative of objectivity. If beauty is objective, there would be some means of testing or measuring it without relying on human opinions.

I would argue that it's not an opinion but more of something that you apprehend. If everyone apprehends a sense of beauty from something then we can say that objective beauty exists.

Not necessarily. There are plenty of things that are incredibly appealing to some while utterly repulsive to others. You would have to argue that in the other direction, I believe. "If beauty is objective, then everyone will apprehend a sense of beauty from something."

There are definitely different opinions about what is considered beautiful and what isn't. The difference is that some people may actually be wrong in their assessments. If beauty is subjective, nobody's assessments can be wrong. If I said "a brilliant diamond is aesthetically more pleasing to the eye than dirt" and someone said "no, the dirt is aesthetically more pleasing to the eye than a brilliant diamond" would it be a stalemate? Or would the person who thinks dirt is more beautiful just be wrong? I'd argue that the person would just be wrong.

The two possibilities here are indistinguishable. That's why there has to be a measurable aspect to it in order for it to qualify it as objective. Until then, everyone's assessment of beauty is equally valid because there is no objective value to it.

Measurable in what sense? Mathematics and logic are objective but not "measurable" per se. Beauty is something that we apprehend intuitively. It's qualitative rather than quantitative. It appears reasonable to say that brilliant diamonds are actually more aesthetically beautiful than barf, George clooney is actually more good looking than the elephant man, some songs are actually better than others.

Give it a break, all you are doing is listing things that "we" as humans find pleasing.

This is hardly the basis for "objective" anything............
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2015 11:12:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/1/2015 11:11:27 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 12/1/2015 10:15:15 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/1/2015 10:04:38 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 12/1/2015 9:38:47 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/1/2015 9:27:25 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 12/1/2015 9:03:37 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/1/2015 8:50:05 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 12/1/2015 8:31:06 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
We've all heard the phrase "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" but is that true? Is it possible that a brilliant diamond is aesthetically less beautiful than a pile of barf? Is it possible that a perfectly symmetrical face is aesthetically less beautiful than a deformed and maimed face?

How about in music? Is it possible that some songs are objectively more beautiful than other songs? Some songs illicit strong emotions based on lyrical content. Some songs illicit a deep connection in some of us just based on melodic content. I find myself listening to songs in different languages that I can't understand because of the melody alone.

What do you think? While certainly there is a great deal of subjectivity in these matters I think there must be an objective component.

I would say that a consensus of opinion is not indicative of objectivity. If beauty is objective, there would be some means of testing or measuring it without relying on human opinions.

I would argue that it's not an opinion but more of something that you apprehend. If everyone apprehends a sense of beauty from something then we can say that objective beauty exists.

Not necessarily. There are plenty of things that are incredibly appealing to some while utterly repulsive to others. You would have to argue that in the other direction, I believe. "If beauty is objective, then everyone will apprehend a sense of beauty from something."

There are definitely different opinions about what is considered beautiful and what isn't. The difference is that some people may actually be wrong in their assessments. If beauty is subjective, nobody's assessments can be wrong. If I said "a brilliant diamond is aesthetically more pleasing to the eye than dirt" and someone said "no, the dirt is aesthetically more pleasing to the eye than a brilliant diamond" would it be a stalemate? Or would the person who thinks dirt is more beautiful just be wrong? I'd argue that the person would just be wrong.

The two possibilities here are indistinguishable. That's why there has to be a measurable aspect to it in order for it to qualify it as objective. Until then, everyone's assessment of beauty is equally valid because there is no objective value to it.

Measurable in what sense? Mathematics and logic are objective but not "measurable" per se. Beauty is something that we apprehend intuitively. It's qualitative rather than quantitative. It appears reasonable to say that brilliant diamonds are actually more aesthetically beautiful than barf, George clooney is actually more good looking than the elephant man, some songs are actually better than others.

Give it a break, all you are doing is listing things that "we" as humans find pleasing.

This is hardly the basis for "objective" anything............

Are you a implying that humans can't recognize objectivity?
Chaosism
Posts: 2,673
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2015 2:12:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/1/2015 10:15:15 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/1/2015 10:04:38 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 12/1/2015 9:38:47 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/1/2015 9:27:25 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 12/1/2015 9:03:37 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/1/2015 8:50:05 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 12/1/2015 8:31:06 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
We've all heard the phrase "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" but is that true? Is it possible that a brilliant diamond is aesthetically less beautiful than a pile of barf? Is it possible that a perfectly symmetrical face is aesthetically less beautiful than a deformed and maimed face?

How about in music? Is it possible that some songs are objectively more beautiful than other songs? Some songs illicit strong emotions based on lyrical content. Some songs illicit a deep connection in some of us just based on melodic content. I find myself listening to songs in different languages that I can't understand because of the melody alone.

What do you think? While certainly there is a great deal of subjectivity in these matters I think there must be an objective component.

I would say that a consensus of opinion is not indicative of objectivity. If beauty is objective, there would be some means of testing or measuring it without relying on human opinions.

I would argue that it's not an opinion but more of something that you apprehend. If everyone apprehends a sense of beauty from something then we can say that objective beauty exists.

Not necessarily. There are plenty of things that are incredibly appealing to some while utterly repulsive to others. You would have to argue that in the other direction, I believe. "If beauty is objective, then everyone will apprehend a sense of beauty from something."

There are definitely different opinions about what is considered beautiful and what isn't. The difference is that some people may actually be wrong in their assessments. If beauty is subjective, nobody's assessments can be wrong. If I said "a brilliant diamond is aesthetically more pleasing to the eye than dirt" and someone said "no, the dirt is aesthetically more pleasing to the eye than a brilliant diamond" would it be a stalemate? Or would the person who thinks dirt is more beautiful just be wrong? I'd argue that the person would just be wrong.

The two possibilities here are indistinguishable. That's why there has to be a measurable aspect to it in order for it to qualify it as objective. Until then, everyone's assessment of beauty is equally valid because there is no objective value to it.

Measurable in what sense? Mathematics and logic are objective but not "measurable" per se. Beauty is something that we apprehend intuitively. It's qualitative rather than quantitative. It appears reasonable to say that brilliant diamonds are actually more aesthetically beautiful than barf, George clooney is actually more good looking than the elephant man, some songs are actually better than others.

How are mathematics and logic objective? Math doesn't actually exist. It is a means of describing the observable universe: the relationships and workings within it, just like literary definitions. These are structures, conceptual models that only exist in the mind. Certainly, the same model can arise independently, but that is because it is derived from the same source: it is a means of describing the observable universe. Mathematics is as objective as the word "apple". If the objects we describe as apples exist on an alien world, then they will have their way to describe it, similar to us.
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2015 8:33:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Math doesn't actually exist. It is a means of describing the observable universe:

You have to ask what it is that math is describing. It describes - for instance - that 1 of anything added to another 1 of anything gives 2 anythings. That fact of the observable universe surely exists - the universe would be very different if it did not exist, or a different 'rule of addition' applied.

So if maths is a description of something that exists, what does 'maths doesn't actually exist' signify? Surely it would be just as true (or just as false) to say language doesn't exist, because laguage is also a means of describing the observable universe.
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2015 8:37:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
We've all heard the phrase "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" but is that true? Is it possible that a brilliant diamond is aesthetically less beautiful than a pile of barf? Is it possible that a perfectly symmetrical face is aesthetically less beautiful than a deformed and maimed face?

My view is that beauty (and many other things) exists only if consciousness exists. Consciousness means that the abstract is often raised to even greater significance than the concrete.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,673
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2015 8:45:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/2/2015 8:33:11 PM, kp98 wrote:
Math doesn't actually exist. It is a means of describing the observable universe:

You have to ask what it is that math is describing. It describes - for instance - that 1 of anything added to another 1 of anything gives 2 anythings. That fact of the observable universe surely exists - the universe would be very different if it did not exist, or a different 'rule of addition' applied.

Our mathematical functions are derived from the observation of the world. If the world behaved differently, then our math would be different.

So if maths is a description of something that exists, what does 'maths doesn't actually exist' signify? Surely it would be just as true (or just as false) to say language doesn't exist, because laguage is also a means of describing the observable universe.

That's exactly it; it exists as much as language does, which is only in the minds of thinking beings. Thus, it is not objectively existent. It doesn't exist outside of our minds.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2015 2:55:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/1/2015 8:31:06 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
We've all heard the phrase "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" but is that true? Is it possible that a brilliant diamond is aesthetically less beautiful than a pile of barf? Is it possible that a perfectly symmetrical face is aesthetically less beautiful than a deformed and maimed face?

Yes, yes, and yes.

Beauty is the result of an emotional reaction we have to an observation. Our ability to analyze what makes us react this way to any given observation does not mean there is some sort of objective criteria behind it.

And if that is not enough, just look at the definition:

Beauty: "a combination of qualities, such as shape, color, or form, that pleases the aesthetic senses, especially the sight"
https://www.google.com...

Aesthetic senses must belong to a subject, making beauty subject-to those senses.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2015 6:48:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/3/2015 2:55:48 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/1/2015 8:31:06 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
We've all heard the phrase "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" but is that true? Is it possible that a brilliant diamond is aesthetically less beautiful than a pile of barf? Is it possible that a perfectly symmetrical face is aesthetically less beautiful than a deformed and maimed face?

Yes, yes, and yes.

Beauty is the result of an emotional reaction we have to an observation. Our ability to analyze what makes us react this way to any given observation does not mean there is some sort of objective criteria behind it.

And if that is not enough, just look at the definition:

Beauty: "a combination of qualities, such as shape, color, or form, that pleases the aesthetic senses, especially the sight"
https://www.google.com...

Aesthetic senses must belong to a subject, making beauty subject-to those senses.

So let's say that human beings are hard wired to always find diamonds more aesthetically pleasing than barf. Diamonds are *subjectively* more aesthetically pleasing than barf?
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2015 6:58:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/2/2015 2:12:37 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 12/1/2015 10:15:15 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/1/2015 10:04:38 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 12/1/2015 9:38:47 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/1/2015 9:27:25 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 12/1/2015 9:03:37 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/1/2015 8:50:05 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 12/1/2015 8:31:06 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
We've all heard the phrase "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" but is that true? Is it possible that a brilliant diamond is aesthetically less beautiful than a pile of barf? Is it possible that a perfectly symmetrical face is aesthetically less beautiful than a deformed and maimed face?

How about in music? Is it possible that some songs are objectively more beautiful than other songs? Some songs illicit strong emotions based on lyrical content. Some songs illicit a deep connection in some of us just based on melodic content. I find myself listening to songs in different languages that I can't understand because of the melody alone.

What do you think? While certainly there is a great deal of subjectivity in these matters I think there must be an objective component.

I would say that a consensus of opinion is not indicative of objectivity. If beauty is objective, there would be some means of testing or measuring it without relying on human opinions.

I would argue that it's not an opinion but more of something that you apprehend. If everyone apprehends a sense of beauty from something then we can say that objective beauty exists.

Not necessarily. There are plenty of things that are incredibly appealing to some while utterly repulsive to others. You would have to argue that in the other direction, I believe. "If beauty is objective, then everyone will apprehend a sense of beauty from something."

There are definitely different opinions about what is considered beautiful and what isn't. The difference is that some people may actually be wrong in their assessments. If beauty is subjective, nobody's assessments can be wrong. If I said "a brilliant diamond is aesthetically more pleasing to the eye than dirt" and someone said "no, the dirt is aesthetically more pleasing to the eye than a brilliant diamond" would it be a stalemate? Or would the person who thinks dirt is more beautiful just be wrong? I'd argue that the person would just be wrong.

The two possibilities here are indistinguishable. That's why there has to be a measurable aspect to it in order for it to qualify it as objective. Until then, everyone's assessment of beauty is equally valid because there is no objective value to it.

Measurable in what sense? Mathematics and logic are objective but not "measurable" per se. Beauty is something that we apprehend intuitively. It's qualitative rather than quantitative. It appears reasonable to say that brilliant diamonds are actually more aesthetically beautiful than barf, George clooney is actually more good looking than the elephant man, some songs are actually better than others.

How are mathematics and logic objective? Math doesn't actually exist. It is a means of describing the observable universe: the relationships and workings within it, just like literary definitions. These are structures, conceptual models that only exist in the mind. Certainly, the same model can arise independently, but that is because it is derived from the same source: it is a means of describing the observable universe. Mathematics is as objective as the word "apple". If the objects we describe as apples exist on an alien world, then they will have their way to describe it, similar to us.

Math and logic are objective because mathematical and logical truths are invariable. A person can't make 2 + 5 = 2. A person can't validate his own logic with circular reasoning. Math and logic have set objective standards that would remain unchanged even if everyone tried to change them. Our universe is mathematically structured. That's why Einstein was able to develop accurate theories of relativity. Mathematics is an abstraction of axioms that underlie mathematical language.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,673
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2015 1:24:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/3/2015 6:58:15 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/2/2015 2:12:37 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 12/1/2015 10:15:15 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/1/2015 10:04:38 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 12/1/2015 9:38:47 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/1/2015 9:27:25 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 12/1/2015 9:03:37 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/1/2015 8:50:05 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 12/1/2015 8:31:06 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
We've all heard the phrase "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" but is that true? Is it possible that a brilliant diamond is aesthetically less beautiful than a pile of barf? Is it possible that a perfectly symmetrical face is aesthetically less beautiful than a deformed and maimed face?

How about in music? Is it possible that some songs are objectively more beautiful than other songs? Some songs illicit strong emotions based on lyrical content. Some songs illicit a deep connection in some of us just based on melodic content. I find myself listening to songs in different languages that I can't understand because of the melody alone.

What do you think? While certainly there is a great deal of subjectivity in these matters I think there must be an objective component.

I would say that a consensus of opinion is not indicative of objectivity. If beauty is objective, there would be some means of testing or measuring it without relying on human opinions.

I would argue that it's not an opinion but more of something that you apprehend. If everyone apprehends a sense of beauty from something then we can say that objective beauty exists.

Not necessarily. There are plenty of things that are incredibly appealing to some while utterly repulsive to others. You would have to argue that in the other direction, I believe. "If beauty is objective, then everyone will apprehend a sense of beauty from something."

There are definitely different opinions about what is considered beautiful and what isn't. The difference is that some people may actually be wrong in their assessments. If beauty is subjective, nobody's assessments can be wrong. If I said "a brilliant diamond is aesthetically more pleasing to the eye than dirt" and someone said "no, the dirt is aesthetically more pleasing to the eye than a brilliant diamond" would it be a stalemate? Or would the person who thinks dirt is more beautiful just be wrong? I'd argue that the person would just be wrong.

The two possibilities here are indistinguishable. That's why there has to be a measurable aspect to it in order for it to qualify it as objective. Until then, everyone's assessment of beauty is equally valid because there is no objective value to it.

Measurable in what sense? Mathematics and logic are objective but not "measurable" per se. Beauty is something that we apprehend intuitively. It's qualitative rather than quantitative. It appears reasonable to say that brilliant diamonds are actually more aesthetically beautiful than barf, George clooney is actually more good looking than the elephant man, some songs are actually better than others.

How are mathematics and logic objective? Math doesn't actually exist. It is a means of describing the observable universe: the relationships and workings within it, just like literary definitions. These are structures, conceptual models that only exist in the mind. Certainly, the same model can arise independently, but that is because it is derived from the same source: it is a means of describing the observable universe. Mathematics is as objective as the word "apple". If the objects we describe as apples exist on an alien world, then they will have their way to describe it, similar to us.

Math and logic are objective because mathematical and logical truths are invariable. A person can't make 2 + 5 = 2. A person can't validate his own logic with circular reasoning. Math and logic have set objective standards that would remain unchanged even if everyone tried to change them. Our universe is mathematically structured. That's why Einstein was able to develop accurate theories of relativity. Mathematics is an abstraction of axioms that underlie mathematical language.

Math is derived from the universe, not the other way around. Math and logic are means of describing our universe. You cannot prove that 2+2=4 without demonstrating it in the universe. "Subjective" doesn't mean that everyone can have their own math, it means that it is a conceptual notion. Everyone can describe an apple or make a description of an apple, but that is subjective, as well, even if multiple people (or even everyone), has the same description. Axioms are assumptions that are taken as true because we have never seen (and cannot imagine) a contradictory scenario. They are still representations.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2015 2:55:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/3/2015 6:48:00 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/3/2015 2:55:48 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/1/2015 8:31:06 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
We've all heard the phrase "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" but is that true? Is it possible that a brilliant diamond is aesthetically less beautiful than a pile of barf? Is it possible that a perfectly symmetrical face is aesthetically less beautiful than a deformed and maimed face?

Yes, yes, and yes.

Beauty is the result of an emotional reaction we have to an observation. Our ability to analyze what makes us react this way to any given observation does not mean there is some sort of objective criteria behind it.

And if that is not enough, just look at the definition:

Beauty: "a combination of qualities, such as shape, color, or form, that pleases the aesthetic senses, especially the sight"
https://www.google.com...

Aesthetic senses must belong to a subject, making beauty subject-to those senses.

So let's say that human beings are hard wired to always find diamonds more aesthetically pleasing than barf. Diamonds are *subjectively* more aesthetically pleasing than barf?

Yes. To be objectively true is to be true independent of the mind. Beauty, by definition, is a reaction found within a mind.
Midnight1131
Posts: 1,643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2015 3:48:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/1/2015 8:31:06 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
We've all heard the phrase "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" but is that true? Is it possible that a brilliant diamond is aesthetically less beautiful than a pile of barf? Is it possible that a perfectly symmetrical face is aesthetically less beautiful than a deformed and maimed face?

How about in music? Is it possible that some songs are objectively more beautiful than other songs? Some songs illicit strong emotions based on lyrical content. Some songs illicit a deep connection in some of us just based on melodic content. I find myself listening to songs in different languages that I can't understand because of the melody alone.

What do you think? While certainly there is a great deal of subjectivity in these matters I think there must be an objective component.

Probably based on some universal elements of everyone's upbringing. A perfect, symmetrical face is almost always going to appear more beautiful because every living person is aware of the process of maiming and disfiguring your face, and know it's very painful and undesirable.
#GaryJohnson2016
#TaxationisTheft
#TheftisTaxation
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2015 4:08:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/4/2015 2:55:33 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/3/2015 6:48:00 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/3/2015 2:55:48 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/1/2015 8:31:06 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
We've all heard the phrase "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" but is that true? Is it possible that a brilliant diamond is aesthetically less beautiful than a pile of barf? Is it possible that a perfectly symmetrical face is aesthetically less beautiful than a deformed and maimed face?

Yes, yes, and yes.

Beauty is the result of an emotional reaction we have to an observation. Our ability to analyze what makes us react this way to any given observation does not mean there is some sort of objective criteria behind it.

And if that is not enough, just look at the definition:

Beauty: "a combination of qualities, such as shape, color, or form, that pleases the aesthetic senses, especially the sight"
https://www.google.com...

Aesthetic senses must belong to a subject, making beauty subject-to those senses.

So let's say that human beings are hard wired to always find diamonds more aesthetically pleasing than barf. Diamonds are *subjectively* more aesthetically pleasing than barf?

Yes. To be objectively true is to be true independent of the mind. Beauty, by definition, is a reaction found within a mind.

What part of reality isn't a reaction found within our minds?
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2015 2:38:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/4/2015 4:08:16 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/4/2015 2:55:33 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/3/2015 6:48:00 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/3/2015 2:55:48 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/1/2015 8:31:06 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
We've all heard the phrase "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" but is that true? Is it possible that a brilliant diamond is aesthetically less beautiful than a pile of barf? Is it possible that a perfectly symmetrical face is aesthetically less beautiful than a deformed and maimed face?

Yes, yes, and yes.

Beauty is the result of an emotional reaction we have to an observation. Our ability to analyze what makes us react this way to any given observation does not mean there is some sort of objective criteria behind it.

And if that is not enough, just look at the definition:

Beauty: "a combination of qualities, such as shape, color, or form, that pleases the aesthetic senses, especially the sight"
https://www.google.com...

Aesthetic senses must belong to a subject, making beauty subject-to those senses.

So let's say that human beings are hard wired to always find diamonds more aesthetically pleasing than barf. Diamonds are *subjectively* more aesthetically pleasing than barf?

Yes. To be objectively true is to be true independent of the mind. Beauty, by definition, is a reaction found within a mind.

What part of reality isn't a reaction found within our minds?

Every part except our minds.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2015 2:59:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/5/2015 2:38:21 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/4/2015 4:08:16 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/4/2015 2:55:33 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/3/2015 6:48:00 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/3/2015 2:55:48 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/1/2015 8:31:06 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
We've all heard the phrase "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" but is that true? Is it possible that a brilliant diamond is aesthetically less beautiful than a pile of barf? Is it possible that a perfectly symmetrical face is aesthetically less beautiful than a deformed and maimed face?

Yes, yes, and yes.

Beauty is the result of an emotional reaction we have to an observation. Our ability to analyze what makes us react this way to any given observation does not mean there is some sort of objective criteria behind it.

And if that is not enough, just look at the definition:

Beauty: "a combination of qualities, such as shape, color, or form, that pleases the aesthetic senses, especially the sight"
https://www.google.com...

Aesthetic senses must belong to a subject, making beauty subject-to those senses.

So let's say that human beings are hard wired to always find diamonds more aesthetically pleasing than barf. Diamonds are *subjectively* more aesthetically pleasing than barf?

Yes. To be objectively true is to be true independent of the mind. Beauty, by definition, is a reaction found within a mind.

What part of reality isn't a reaction found within our minds?

Every part except our minds.

Isn't self-awareness a reaction that occurs within our minds?
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2015 3:04:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/5/2015 2:59:18 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/5/2015 2:38:21 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/4/2015 4:08:16 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/4/2015 2:55:33 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/3/2015 6:48:00 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
So let's say that human beings are hard wired to always find diamonds more aesthetically pleasing than barf. Diamonds are *subjectively* more aesthetically pleasing than barf?

Yes. To be objectively true is to be true independent of the mind. Beauty, by definition, is a reaction found within a mind.

What part of reality isn't a reaction found within our minds?

Every part except our minds.

Isn't self-awareness a reaction that occurs within our minds?

Yes.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2015 3:19:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/5/2015 3:04:02 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/5/2015 2:59:18 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/5/2015 2:38:21 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/4/2015 4:08:16 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/4/2015 2:55:33 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/3/2015 6:48:00 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
So let's say that human beings are hard wired to always find diamonds more aesthetically pleasing than barf. Diamonds are *subjectively* more aesthetically pleasing than barf?

Yes. To be objectively true is to be true independent of the mind. Beauty, by definition, is a reaction found within a mind.

What part of reality isn't a reaction found within our minds?

Every part except our minds.

Isn't self-awareness a reaction that occurs within our minds?

Yes.

Is self-awareness not real?
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2015 3:44:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/5/2015 3:19:50 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/5/2015 3:04:02 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/5/2015 2:59:18 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/5/2015 2:38:21 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/4/2015 4:08:16 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/4/2015 2:55:33 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/3/2015 6:48:00 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
So let's say that human beings are hard wired to always find diamonds more aesthetically pleasing than barf. Diamonds are *subjectively* more aesthetically pleasing than barf?

Yes. To be objectively true is to be true independent of the mind. Beauty, by definition, is a reaction found within a mind.

What part of reality isn't a reaction found within our minds?

Every part except our minds.

Isn't self-awareness a reaction that occurs within our minds?

Yes.

Is self-awareness not real?

Yes, it's a product of a functioning mind.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2015 3:49:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/5/2015 3:44:58 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/5/2015 3:19:50 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/5/2015 3:04:02 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/5/2015 2:59:18 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/5/2015 2:38:21 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/4/2015 4:08:16 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/4/2015 2:55:33 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/3/2015 6:48:00 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
So let's say that human beings are hard wired to always find diamonds more aesthetically pleasing than barf. Diamonds are *subjectively* more aesthetically pleasing than barf?

Yes. To be objectively true is to be true independent of the mind. Beauty, by definition, is a reaction found within a mind.

What part of reality isn't a reaction found within our minds?

Every part except our minds.

Isn't self-awareness a reaction that occurs within our minds?

Yes.

Is self-awareness not real?

Yes, it's a product of a functioning mind.

Is self-awareness real or not real?
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2015 3:50:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/5/2015 3:49:21 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/5/2015 3:44:58 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/5/2015 3:19:50 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/5/2015 3:04:02 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/5/2015 2:59:18 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/5/2015 2:38:21 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/4/2015 4:08:16 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/4/2015 2:55:33 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/3/2015 6:48:00 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
So let's say that human beings are hard wired to always find diamonds more aesthetically pleasing than barf. Diamonds are *subjectively* more aesthetically pleasing than barf?

Yes. To be objectively true is to be true independent of the mind. Beauty, by definition, is a reaction found within a mind.

What part of reality isn't a reaction found within our minds?

Every part except our minds.

Isn't self-awareness a reaction that occurs within our minds?

Yes.

Is self-awareness not real?

Yes, it's a product of a functioning mind.

Is self-awareness real or not real?

I just answered that. First word.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2015 4:01:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/5/2015 3:50:11 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/5/2015 3:49:21 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/5/2015 3:44:58 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/5/2015 3:19:50 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/5/2015 3:04:02 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/5/2015 2:59:18 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/5/2015 2:38:21 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/4/2015 4:08:16 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/4/2015 2:55:33 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/3/2015 6:48:00 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
So let's say that human beings are hard wired to always find diamonds more aesthetically pleasing than barf. Diamonds are *subjectively* more aesthetically pleasing than barf?

Yes. To be objectively true is to be true independent of the mind. Beauty, by definition, is a reaction found within a mind.

What part of reality isn't a reaction found within our minds?

Every part except our minds.

Isn't self-awareness a reaction that occurs within our minds?

Yes.

Is self-awareness not real?

Yes, it's a product of a functioning mind.

Is self-awareness real or not real?

I just answered that. First word.

So self-awareness is the only thing that isn't real?
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2015 4:42:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/5/2015 4:01:27 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/5/2015 3:50:11 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/5/2015 3:49:21 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/5/2015 3:44:58 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/5/2015 3:19:50 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/5/2015 3:04:02 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/5/2015 2:59:18 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Isn't self-awareness a reaction that occurs within our minds?

Yes.

Is self-awareness not real?

Yes, it's a product of a functioning mind.

Is self-awareness real or not real?

I just answered that. First word.

So self-awareness is the only thing that isn't real?

Self awareness is real. I missed the "not" in your question above. I really don't know why you would ask it like that anyway.

And by saying it's real I'm not saying that it's floating around somewhere. Like I said, it's a product of a functioning mind.

Please make your point.