Venting "Beauty is subjective". This is ALWAYS said by the most ugly, heinous, soyboy/cumdumpster looking people. Have you noticed that?

[Lookslikeit]

Ofc, this doesnt comprise the people of this site, who are already enlightened about it.

I know there are a lot of copecels (who almost ruined the meaning of the word cope) BUT the ugliest mtfckr ever in my psychiatric retreat doesnt miss a CHANCE of saying that stupid, already debunked phrase. Its truly pathetic.

Its almost like he's desperately trying to convince others and himself of this BS phrase. Almost... JFL

And everyone nods and agrees like he said the most profound, life changing, revolutionary thing ever.

He has the looks that would make you get expelled of the tribe some thousands of yrs ago, and he has the nerve of trying to be "profound" and shit.

Now i know why people like this were so ostracized and vilified back then. they only spew shit that serves they cuniving little shit ways OR try to put others down to their level.

Misery truly loves company.

 

[THE TRUE DIGLET]

Or virtue signalling holes

 

[Lookslikeit]

Or virtue signalling holes

Thats a given.

 

[Moroccancel2-]

Beauty is intersubjective, because there is no beauty that exists in itself outside of the perception and genetic code of individuals.

But what these normies who have never read Kantian philosophy say is nonsense.

But it is impossible to talk about objective beauties per se.

 

[SociallyStupid]

Beauty is subjective, but ugliness isn't. This is true for humans, but also e.g. for music and art in general.

 

[Moroccancel2-]

Beauty is subjective, but ugliness isn't. This is true for humans, but also e.g. for music and art in general.

All is subjective if in the nature of perception. Most people would consider centipedes to be ugly, just like a cockroach, and yet they reproduce.

 

[Dr. Autismo]

its also said by ignorant normies with better genes than you and never experienced the blackpill

 

[SociallyStupid]

All is subjective if in the nature of perception. Most people would consider centipedes to be ugly, just like a cockroach, and yet they reproduce.

In the strict sense yes. My point is that there are more universally disliked features than universally liked ones.

 

[lifesucksandyoudie]

Beauty is intersubjective, because there is no beauty that exists in itself outside of the perception and genetic code of individuals.

But what these normies who have never read Kantian philosophy say is nonsense.

But it is impossible to talk about objective beauties per se.

All is subjective if in the nature of perception. Most people would consider centipedes to be ugly, just like a cockroach, and yet they reproduce.

Nice to see a fellow transcendental idealist here.

Even if objective truths exist (which I do believe exist for aesthetics), just due to our senses being imperfect instruments for observing phenomena and stimuli n the world and are thus rendered fallible and subjective, this means our subjective senses cannot perceive or detect objective truths non subjectively. For all intents and purposes, we can only perceive things subjectively, even if the subject of observation does have immutable qualities that do not change with subjective observational biases ingrained into our not 100% reliable and fallible human sensory organs' inherent limitations.

 

[Moroccancel2-]

Nice to see a fellow transcendental idealist here.

Even if objective truths exist (which I do believe exist for aesthetics), just due to our senses being imperfect instruments for observing phenomena and stimuli n the world and are thus rendered fallible and subjective, this means our subjective senses cannot perceive or detect objective truths non subjectively. For all intents and purposes, we can only perceive things subjectively, even if the subject of observation does have immutable qualities that do not change with subjective observational biases ingrained into our not 100% reliable and fallible human sensory organs' inherent limitations.

I'd not define myself as transcedental idealist but as reduccionist. Because I do not believe there is greater purpose or meaning in what we consider good and what we consider bad except for our genes and conditioning.

The problem is that we percieve "proportionality" as good and "disproportionality" as bad. The same we may percieve insects, snakes and so on and ugly, and dangerous -while many of them are not-. Proportionality is an objective thing, but not beauty, neither aesthetics. There are not aesthetics in the abscense of perception.

 

[lifesucksandyoudie]

I'd not define myself as transcedental idealist but as reduccionist. Because I do not believe there is greater purpose or meaning in what we consider good and what we consider bad except for our genes and conditioning.

The problem is that we percieve "proportionality" as good and "disproportionality" as bad. The same we may percieve insects, snakes and so on and ugly, and dangerous -while many of them are not-. Proportionality is an objective thing, but not beauty, neither aesthetics. There are not aesthetics in the abscense of perception.

Thanks for clarifying your distinction between beauty and proportionality. A lot of what we consider aesthetically pleasing in humans are only beautiful to the perception of other human beings and by the standards of their perception. Without a certain type of observer around to perceive the environment and the entities living in our surroundings within the world, most of what we consider aesthetic wouldn't have any deeper meaning to it like you said. But I think proportionality and abstract truths about reality that aren't discerned from sensory info translated into human concepts, which are in turn derived from subjective senses, are discovered rather than invented and operate under a different set of rules.

 

[wastedcodeine]

Or virtue signalling holes

In my experience it's usually virtue signaling retarded whores saying this shit