Beauty and ugliness are intrinsic features of our experiences

[bahman]

If they are not intrinsic features, then we are biased and things are not beautiful or ugly in themselves. This means that the impression of beauty or ugliness is embedded in our experiences by something else. But that other thing also is biased toward beauty and ugliness. This leads to an infinite regress. The infinite regress is not acceptable therefore the title holds.

[Impenitent]

the observer's individual taste and judgment are not inherent of nor intrinsic of that which is observed...

-Imp

[bahman]

the observer's individual taste and judgment are not inherent of nor intrinsic of that which is observed...

-Imp

I think you are mixing like or dislike with beauty and ugliness.

[Impenitent]

no, a thunderstorm can be a beautiful display of power to one while being a ugly display of power to another

the thunderstorm itself is neither beautiful nor ugly

-Imp

[bahman]

no, a thunderstorm can be a beautiful display of power to one while being a ugly display of power to another

the thunderstorm itself is neither beautiful nor ugly

-Imp

I think you are mixing like or dislike with beauty and ugliness.

[Impenitent]

I don't think I'm mixing anything...

an individual judgment of a thing is not necessarily a universal quality of a thing

-Imp

[bahman]

I don't think I'm mixing anything...

an individual judgment of a thing is not necessarily a universal quality of a thing

-Imp

How does a person judge?

[LuckyR]

Beauty and ugliness are not only subjective, they're also relative.

[bahman]

Beauty and ugliness are not only subjective, they're also relative.

Correct!

[Walker]

Beauty and ugliness are not only subjective, they're also relative.

Correct!

The ego’s illusion of controlling what is beautiful and what is ugly does not explain autonomic, involuntary reactions to 1.
beauty and 2. ugliness.

- For example 1, a man can have an involuntary erection in response to the sight, sound, fragrance, touch, taste and even thought of a beautiful woman. Then again, he may not have that reaction and that's also beyond his control, however if he does, his involuntary response is an intrinsic reaction. Even if his taste in women is considered suspect by other men, his intrinsic physical response to that taste will be involuntary.

- For example 2, the first time finding the ugliness of a body torn apart by a car wreck or other violent trauma will likely cause involuntary vomiting from the finder, however repeated exposure to such ugliness will numb that natural, sensitive, human intrinsic physical reaction, so there will be no vomit from the finder, for the rain to wash away.

[LuckyR]

Beauty and ugliness are not only subjective, they're also relative.

Correct!

The ego’s illusion of controlling what is beautiful and what is ugly does not explain autonomic, involuntary reactions to 1.
beauty and 2. ugliness.

- For example 1, a man can have an involuntary erection in response to the sight, sound, fragrance, touch, taste and even thought of a beautiful woman. Then again, he may not have that reaction and that's also beyond his control, however if he does, his involuntary response is an intrinsic reaction. Even if his taste in women is considered suspect by other men, his intrinsic physical response to that taste will be involuntary.

- For example 2, the first time finding the ugliness of a body torn apart by a car wreck or other violent trauma will likely cause involuntary vomiting from the finder, however repeated exposure to such ugliness will numb that natural, sensitive, human intrinsic physical reaction, so there will be no vomit from the finder, for the rain to wash away.

Very true... for a single individual. The same woman may not elicit an erection from a different observer. Does this reality change the woman's level of beauty? No, because the "beauty" was in the mind of the first man, not in the woman herself.

[Age]

If they are not intrinsic features, then we are biased and things are not beautiful or ugly in themselves. This means that the impression of beauty or ugliness is embedded in our experiences by something else. But that other thing also is biased toward beauty and ugliness. This leads to an infinite regress. The infinite regress is not acceptable therefore the title holds.

Is it not possible, to you, that some things are actually, intrinsically, beautiful or ugly, while other things are just, perceived to be, beautiful or ugly, and just gained from, or learnt from, 'past experiences', 'along the way' as some might say?

[Age]

If they are not intrinsic features, then we are biased and things are not beautiful or ugly in themselves. This means that the impression of beauty or ugliness is embedded in our experiences by something else. But that other thing also is biased toward beauty and ugliness. This leads to an infinite regress. The infinite regress is not acceptable therefore the title holds.

Why, on a lot of occasions, you end up talking about or referring to so-called 'infinite regress'?

Which, by the way, to you is an absolute impossibility?

Have you ever considered that your own personal interpretation of what 'infinite regress' is could be Wrong, or False?

I know you like to say, write, and end with something similar to, 'This leads to an infinite regress, which is not acceptable', when you are trying ever so hard and desperately to get your own personal beliefs accepted and agreed with. But, 'this way' of trying to argue for 'your own believed to be true position' has not yet worked for you so far, so why bother continuing on with 'that way'?

[Age]

I don't think I'm mixing anything...

an individual judgment of a thing is not necessarily a universal quality of a thing

-Imp

How does a person judge?

On their own 'past experiences', obviously, and only.

What else do you think you people could and do 'judge' upon?

[Age]

Beauty and ugliness are not only subjective, they're also relative.

Correct!

The ego’s illusion of controlling what is beautiful and what is ugly does not explain autonomic, involuntary reactions to 1.
beauty and 2. ugliness.

- For example 1, a man can have an involuntary erection in response to the sight, sound, fragrance, touch, taste and even thought of a beautiful woman.

Or, a, supposed, so-called "beautiful man", or a "beautiful foot", or a "beautiful breast", or a "beautiful face", or a "beautiful doll", or a "beautiful any thing". Or, even an "ugly some thing".

Also, if a male body is having an erection in 'response to some thing', then it could be said, and argued, that, in fact, that erection is not 'involuntary' at all.

Then again, he may not have that reaction and that's also beyond his control,

How is having, or not having, some thing 'in response to something else', supposedly, 'beyond one's control'?

And, I am not sure how what you are saying and claiming here is going to help "bahman" in its dilemma here.

however if he does, his involuntary response is an intrinsic reaction.

LOL 'Intrinsic' to 'who' and/or 'what', exactly? Obviously what is a so-claimed "beautiful woman" to one is not necessarily at all to another.

Even if his taste in women is considered suspect by other men, his intrinsic physical response to that taste will be involuntary.

But, an intrinsic, natural, or essential response of the human body, or what I just call and refer to as 'action' and/or 're-action' has absolutely nothing necessarily at all to do with what one finds 'beautiful' or not. In fact the 'concept' of 'beauty' or 'ugly' can come many years after the body' responds naturally and/or essentially 'the way' that it does.

- For example 2, the first time finding the ugliness of a body torn apart by a car wreck or other violent trauma will likely cause involuntary vomiting from the finder,

Here is another prime example of when one thinks what it would do, then this will 'likely' occur to others.

I would suggest that the chances of a 'human body' vomiting at just coming across another 'human body' so-called 'torn apart' would have to be further examined and 'looked into' before any conclusion could be made about the 'likelihood' of the first 'human body' vomiting, or not.

And, there are just way too many variables here for absolutely any conclusive finding that could be made.

however repeated exposure to such ugliness will numb that natural, sensitive, human intrinsic physical reaction, so there will be no vomit from the finder, for the rain to wash away.

Yet, it is, only, after repeated exposure to what are just intrinsic, natural, and/or what some might say, essential experiences in Life, of human bodies being so-called 'torn apart' when some bodies actually first vomit.

So, what you are trying to 'get to' or 'allude to' here, exactly, is not really being expressed that well. After all, one might call the 'tearing apart of human bodies' ugly, another might call 'beautiful'. After all you adult human beings go 'to war' to kill and/or 'dismember the bodies' of other 'human bodies'. And, when this happens you are known to say, and even shout out, 'great shot', or 'that was beautiful'.