Blackpill blackpill and occam's razor

[Limitcel]

If you stop to think about it, the only thing that is really means to be used to judge attraction is appearance, objectively speaking it only exists for that reason.
the rest is subjective or transcendental, which requires more constructions to explain

"This philosophical razor advocates that when presented with competing hypotheses about the same prediction and both hypotheses have equal explanatory power, one should prefer the hypothesis that requires the fewest assumptions"

 

[Esoteric7]

but humans are more nuanced and complicated inkie

 

[Moroccancel]

Beauty cannot be objective.

A logical and Kantian analysis on beauty in correlation to the blackpill.

This post aims to explore Immanuel Kant's theory of beauty, delving into his ideas on aesthetic judgment, disinterestedness, and the sublime. From a link with the blackpill, we will critically analyze Kant's contributions to aesthetics and their implications. By examining his concepts in a...

incels.is

 

[Limitcel]

but humans are more nuanced and complicated inkie

Even if they were, the logical superiority of "just appearance matters in relation" to various subjective concepts that need to be invented to deal with this fact is still valid.

 

[Moroccancel]

appearance, objectively speaking it only exists for that reason.

There is no single proposition that establishes that the reason precedes the existence, that is, there is no proposition that support the idea that appearance is, a priori, to judge.

 

[Limitcel]

Beauty cannot be objectively objective.

A logical and Kantian analysis on beauty in correlation to the blackpill.

This post aims to explore Immanuel Kant's theory of beauty, delving into his ideas on aesthetic judgment, disinterestedness, and the sublime. From a link with the blackpill, we will critically analyze Kant's contributions to aesthetics and their implications. By examining his concepts in a...

incels.is

Kant argues that when we encounter an object of beauty, we engage in a subjective judgment based on our individual preferences, sensibilities, and cultural background. The qualities we find pleasing or captivating may differ from person to person, as our aesthetic tastes are shaped by our unique histories and perspectives.

Moreover, Kant acknowledges the influence of cultural and historical factors on aesthetic judgment. Different cultures and periods may have distinct aesthetic norms and preferences, shaping the way individuals perceive and evaluate beauty. However, Kant maintains that there are certain universal principles and standards that transcend cultural boundaries, allowing for shared judgments of beauty

appearance can be subjective in certain criteria such as hair color, fashion, things like that but the important part which is the bones, at least the ideal bones in the local culture is what really matters

 

[Limitcel]

There is no single proposition that establishes that the reason precedes the existence, that is, there is no proposition that support the idea that appearance is, a priori, to judge.

"there is no single proposition that establishes that the reason precedes the existence" but from the moment it exists and only serves that purpose and is the only thing that only serves that purpose, atleast it behaves like that

 

[Moroccancel]

appearance can be subjective in certain criteria such as hair color, fashion, things like that but the important part which is the bones, at least the ideal bones in the local culture is what really matters

Appearance is subjective by itself because it cannot objective, since beauty does not exist outside of perception and sensory mind. If there is no mind, there is no appreaciation of beauty, and therefore, it does not exist by itself.

Therefore, beauty is subjective, and more especifically, intersubjective, because most human share the genetic code that determines to us what is attractive and what is not.

But, by itself, it cannot be objective.

 

[InfernumOsculum]

appearance can be subjective in certain criteria such as hair color, fashion, things like that but the important part which is the bones, at least the ideal bones in the local culture is what really matters

“Reality is just a projection of your mind brooooo that means that ugly people aren’t really ugly !”

 

[Kina Hikikomori]

Beauty cannot be objective.

A logical and Kantian analysis on beauty in correlation to the blackpill.

This post aims to explore Immanuel Kant's theory of beauty, delving into his ideas on aesthetic judgment, disinterestedness, and the sublime. From a link with the blackpill, we will critically analyze Kant's contributions to aesthetics and their implications. By examining his concepts in a...

incels.is

Beauty is not subjective, it is objective. You are influenced by Kant according to this analysis, I don't need to say such a contradiction, at the same time that this idiot didn't know what he was talking about, he spread shit. He was a random moralist, at the same time that he was a positivist guy (scientist) who started the Enlightenment, which today we know as right and left and all positivist things, which even includes bioarchitecture as part of positivism itself, but only gained expansion because of the current ecology.Therefore, this analysis is superficial and does not fit into the world, it has already been transcended.


This is just a coping of yours ahaha

 

[InfernumOsculum]

With the exception of Kantian ethics when applied to an evolutionary lens to explain where morality comes from, Kantian “reality is just a projection of your mind bro” fags are the fucking worst

Why don’t you project some pussy then

 

[InfernumOsculum]

Appearance is subjective by itself because it cannot objective, since beauty does not exist outside of perception and sensory mind. If there is no mind, there is no appreaciation of beauty, and therefore, it does not exist by itself.

Therefore, beauty is subjective, and more especifically, intersubjective, because most human share the genetic code that determines to us what is attractive and what is not.

But, by itself, it cannot be objective.

Meant to reply to you

Keep coping, using nerd incel philosophy to crap out nonsense to explain why women don’t love you

It’s pathetic. If a caveman clubs you in the face, none of this outdated philosophical autism will save you

 

[Moroccancel]

Beauty is not subjective, it is objective. You are influenced by Kant according to this analysis, I don't need to say such a contradiction, at the same time that this idiot didn't know what he was talking about, he spread shit. He was a random moralist, at the same time that he was a positivist guy (scientist) who started the Enlightenment, which today we know as right and left and all positivist things, which even includes bioarchitecture as part of positivism itself, but only gained expansion because of the current ecology.Therefore, this analysis is superficial and does not fit into the world, it has already been transcended.


This is just a coping of yours ahaha

No single argument debunked. You are now talking by emotion without any argument refuted, at all.

 

[Kina Hikikomori]

With the exception of Kantian ethics when applied to an evolutionary lens to explain where morality comes from, Kantian “reality is just a projection of your mind bro” fags are the fucking worst

Why don’t you project some pussy then

These guys don't know what they're talking about, it's like I said above.

Beauty is not subjective, it is objective. You are influenced by Kant according to this analysis, I don't need to say such a contradiction, at the same time that this idiot didn't know what he was talking about, he spread shit. He was a random moralist, at the same time that he was a positivist guy (scientist) who started the Enlightenment, which today we know as right and left and all positivist things, which even includes bioarchitecture as part of positivism itself, but only gained expansion because of the current ecology.Therefore, this analysis is superficial and does not fit into the world, it has already been transcended.


This is just a coping of yours ahaha

 

[Kina Hikikomori]

No single argument debunked. You are now talking by emotion without any argument refuted, at all.

And you don't know what you're talking about. OTHERWISE, you would know that the contradiction in Kant would be in the very ecology of bioarchitecture discovered with the advances of positivism (scientific philosophy), which he also defended in part. Whatever, GO BACK!Go educate yourself, instead of quoting things from your head, just because you think they make sense. How absurd.

 

[Moroccancel]

Meant to reply to you

Keep coping, using nerd incel philosophy to crap out nonsense to explain why women don’t love you

It’s pathetic. If a caveman clubs you in the face, none of this outdated philosophical autism will save you

There is not outdate philosophy here. It is just the refutation that when you all say that "beauty is objective", it is not. There is no objective reality to beauty outside of perception. Beauty, by itself does not exist in nature, there is no quality of beauty outside of your mind, our human minds, who are encoded to, intersubjectively percieve determine things as beautiful and others as ugly.

 

[Moroccancel]

These guys don't know what they're talking about, it's like I said above.

Again, no single argument debunked. Ad hominem fallacy.

 

[Kina Hikikomori]

Beauty, by itself does not exist in nature, there is no quality of beauty outside of your mind, our human minds, who are encoded to, intersubjectively percieve determine things as beautiful and others as ugly.

Of course, because the point here is around anthropology (laughs), what matters are humans, and for us, beauty is objective.

 

[Kina Hikikomori]

Again, no single argument debunked. Ad hominem fallacy.

LOL, using schizophrenic perception while posing as an intellectual. I'm not making an ad hominem, because I'm not putting an adjective on you, I'm telling the truth, you don't know what you're talking about!

 

[Moroccancel]

Of course, because the point here is around anthropology (laughs), what matters are humans, and for us, beauty is objective.

No, it is actually onthology. Things either are or are not. Beauty objectively is not objective, even if in the use of the intersubjective matters, it may appear to be like that, because, we humans are coded to percieve determined things as beautiful and others as ugly by our own genetic coding. That, does not make beauty objective.

 

[opioidcel]

Beauty is not subjective, it is objective. You are influenced by Kant according to this analysis, I don't need to say such a contradiction, at the same time that this idiot didn't know what he was talking about, he spread shit. He was a random moralist, at the same time that he was a positivist guy (scientist) who started the Enlightenment, which today we know as right and left and all positivist things, which even includes bioarchitecture as part of positivism itself, but only gained expansion because of the current ecology.Therefore, this analysis is superficial and does not fit into the world, it has already been transcended.


This is just a coping of yours ahaha

400 iq response

 

[opioidcel]

Muh beauty is not objective bro!!!
Meanwhile if ur sub5 and get ur face rated by non bluepilled dudes who aint gonna gaslight u theyll all say the same shit

 

[Kina Hikikomori]

There is not outdate philosophy here

There is no outdated philosophy, there is only an idiot as an individual here. That's all.And your observation about this analysis, specifically, is a lie and false. As proven in the anthropological scenario through the positivist philosophy that appearance MATTERS AND IS OBJECTIVE.AND AS I SAID, Kant was a shitty moralist who quoted crap out of his mouth. And today most of them are refuted, including within the scenarios in which he was (Enlightenment) with the positivism itself in part that he defended; because, evolved. In all your comments, you have the tendency to spread words in the dark, thinking that those on the other side will not understand. I AM A PROFESSOR OF PHILOSOPHY, I KNOW, I AM A PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY, I KNOW, I AM A PROFESSOR OF GEOPOLITICS, I KNOW.

 

[Moroccancel]

LOL, using schizophrenic perception while posing as an intellectual. I'm not making an ad hominem, because I'm not putting an adjective on you, I'm telling the truth, you don't know what you're talking about!

No, it is not about "schizophrenic perception" it means that outside of perception, there is no measurable beauty. That's why Kant debunked that conception of "beauty is objective", because, a priori, there is no reality that supports it. Itself, beauty does not exist outside of perception.

Saying "these guys don't know what they're talking about" without addressing or refuting their arguments can be considered an ad hominem fallacy. The ad hominem fallacy occurs when someone attacks the character, motive, or other personal traits of the person making an argument rather than engaging with the argument itself. In this case, dismissing someone’s credibility without addressing their points is a personal attack that avoids dealing with the substance of the argument. It's a way of discrediting the source rather than providing a counter-argument.

 

[Kina Hikikomori]

No, it is actually onthology

"Being" is a reflection of what your body is, and what you do with it. It's GENETICS. Ontology is about being, and being means YOUR GENETICS.


You are what you are, above other nonsense, so no, beauty is not subjective, it is objective, it is something certain. Essence precedes existence.

 

[Moroccancel]

There is no outdated philosophy, there is only an idiot as an individual here. That's all.And your observation about this analysis, specifically, is a lie and false. As proven in the anthropological scenario through the positivist philosophy that appearance MATTERS AND IS OBJECTIVE.AND AS I SAID, Kant was a shitty moralist who quoted crap out of his mouth. And today most of them are refuted, including within the scenarios in which he was (Enlightenment) with the positivism itself in part that he defended; because, it has evolved.In all your comments, you have the tendency to spread words in the dark, thinking that those on the other side will not understand. I AM A PROFESSOR OF PHILOSOPHY, I KNOW, I AM A PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY, I KNOW, I AM A PROFESSOR OF GEOPOLITICS, I KNOW.

1. No one said that beauty mattered or not. It is out of this debate. You are just bringing it up from nowhere.
2. Onthologically, beauty is not objective and there is no proof or counter-argument that refutes Kant's postulations on this. Beauty itself cannot be objective, again, by all the arguments I have established here and in my original post. It has been argumented using formal and informal logic. Yet, no single counter-argument used or given.
3. The rest of the text is still irrelevant and does not debunk or refute any argument at all.

 

[Moroccancel]

"Being" is a reflection of what your body is, and what you do with it. It's GENETICS. Ontology is about being, and being means YOUR GENETICS.


You are what you are, above other nonsense, so no, beauty is not subjective, it is objective, it is something certain. Essence precedes existence.

We are talking about "beauty" as the entity of analysis, not myself, not you and no other one in this discussion. Genetics, makes, therefore, what we percieve as beauty, attractive, ugly and terrible, but, since it is our body, a genetic code, and it is inside ourselves, and not a thing that projects into all the world, we cannot consider beauty as objective, because, as said before, repeated times, there is no beauty nor measure of beauty outside of our perception, therefore, making beauty something that is impossible to be "objective".

 

[Kina Hikikomori]

1. No one said that beauty mattered or not. It is out of this debate. You are just bringing it up from nowhere.
2. Onthologically, beauty is not objective and there is no proof or counter-argument that refutes Kant's postulations on this. Beauty itself cannot be objective, again, by all the arguments I have established here and in my original post. It has been argumented using formal and informal logic. Yet, no single counter-argument used or given.
3. The rest of the text is still irrelevant and does not debunk or refute any argument at all.

"Being" is a reflection of what your body is, and what you do with it. It's GENETICS. Ontology is about being, and being means YOUR GENETICS.


You are what you are, above other nonsense, so no, beauty is not subjective, it is objective, it is something certain. Essence precedes existence.

There is no need for a reply anymore, see you later. You can try to distort concepts, things CONTINUE AS THEY ARE.

I will ignore you. Bye. The point here is, I am right and you are wrong.

 

[Moroccancel]

There is no need for a reply anymore, see you later. You can try to distort concepts, things CONTINUE AS THEY ARE.

I will ignore you. Bye. The point here is, I am right and you are wrong.

 

[Moroccancel]

Muh beauty is not objective bro!!!
Meanwhile if ur sub5 and get ur face rated by non bluepilled dudes who aint gonna gaslight u theyll all say the same shit

You, brocel, are not understanding the matter of the debate. It is not about beauty mattering or not. It is about the concept of "beauty being objective" or not. Objectively, it cannot be proven beauty exists an independent concept to human mind, so, it cannot be said, at all, that there is an objective reality to beauty outside our perceptions, or our genetic coding, which determines what we percieve attractive and ugly.

It is talking about what things are, not if looks matter or not -they do, the blackpill is undeniable-.

 

[opioidcel]

You, brocel, are not understanding the matter of the debate. It is not about beauty mattering or not. It is about the concept of "beauty being objective" or not. Objectively, it cannot be proven beauty exists an independent concept to human mind, so, it cannot be said, at all, that there is an objective reality to beauty outside our perceptions, or our genetic coding, which determines what we percieve attractive and ugly.

It is talking about what things are, not if looks matter or not -they do, the blackpill is undeniable-.

I mean obviously it only exists so long as we do cause its our brains pulling that shit off yeah but bro lol it being independent of ourselves doesnt matter cause its you cannot divorce yourself from your brain and neither can any other human so for all practical purposes since we are enslaved by our biology it might as well be an independent concept cause theres no other pov possible bro

 

[Moroccancel]

“Reality is just a projection of your mind brooooo that means that ugly people aren’t really ugly !”

Non sequitur fallacy. The argument jumps from "reality is a projection of your mind" to the unrelated conclusion that "ugly people aren’t really ugly." The connection between the premise and the conclusion is weak or nonexistent, making it a non sequitur. Even if reality were a projection of the mind (a philosophical stance), it doesn’t logically follow that ugliness (which could still be a perceived or genetically coded) isn’t real or doesn’t exist.

 

[Moroccancel]

I mean obviously it only exists so long as we do cause its our brains pulling that shit off yeah but bro lol it being independent of ourselves doesnt matter cause its you cannot divorce yourself from your brain and neither can any other human so for all practical purposes since we are enslaved by our biology it might as well be an independent concept cause theres no other pov possible bro

I agree with you that it does not matter, and I agree that this knowledge is not useful and of course, I do not want to divorce myself from my mind our nature. I am just fighting the idea, that beauty is objective, because it is by all arguments, debunked and false.

Better would be that we say that we are enslaved to our body and genetic coding than saying, aimlessly, that "beauty is objective".

 

[opioidcel]

Better would be that we say that we are enslaved to our body and genetic coding than saying, aimlessly, that "beauty is objective".

Makes sense