Miss Universe - An Objectification of Beauty

[Veritas Aequitas]

Intersubjective means independent from a subject[s] opinion, beliefs and judgment which is aka 'objective' as defined.

A question for aesthetic objectivists. If objectivity is independence from belief, judgement or opinion, could a thing be beautiful even if everyone thinks it's ugly? Or even if no collective-of-subjects thinks it's beautiful?

Whatever is a fact and objective is contingent upon a specific human-based FSERC of which the scientific FSERC is the gold standard of credibility and objectivity of reality.
There is no other approach to credibility and objectivity of reality.

It a thing is ugly within a specific U-FSERC, there is no way it can be beautiful within that specific U-FSERC.

There is no such thing as beauty-in-itself without any reference to and conditioned upon a specific human-based FSERC.
Whatever is conditioned upon a human-based FSERC is objective in varying degrees dependent on the credibility and objectivity of the FSERC of which the scientific FSERC is the gold standard.

There is a correlation between 'beauty' [attractiveness] and health, thus serves an evolutionary advantage.
In this case, there has to some sort of universality and objectivity to what is beautiful and attractive.
If subjectivity is allowed to prevail, there would be no evolutionary advantages to the human species or any other species that are inclined to attractiveness or beauty.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10781122/
Facial Beauty and the Correlation of Associated Attributes: An Empirical Aesthetic Database Study

Conclusions:
Our study illustrates a positive correlation between the positive attributes of health, happiness, femininity and attractiveness, with a negative correlation of all characteristics with increasing perceived age. This provides insight into the complexity of human interaction and provides a holistic view of attraction as being a gateway to the reflexive perception of other attributes. The implications encourage an aesthetic focus on facial reconstruction.

[accelafine]

Intersubjective means independent from a subject[s] opinion, beliefs and judgment which is aka 'objective' as defined.

A question for aesthetic objectivists. If objectivity is independence from belief, judgement or opinion, could a thing be beautiful even if everyone thinks it's ugly? Or even if no collective-of-subjects thinks it's beautiful?

Whatever is a fact and objective is contingent upon a specific human-based FSERC of which the scientific FSERC is the gold standard of credibility and objectivity of reality.
There is no other approach to credibility and objectivity of reality.

It a thing is ugly within a specific U-FSERC, there is no way it can be beautiful within that specific U-FSERC.

There is no such thing as beauty-in-itself without any reference to and conditioned upon a specific human-based FSERC.
Whatever is conditioned upon a human-based FSERC is objective in varying degrees dependent on the credibility and objectivity of the FSERC of which the scientific FSERC is the gold standard.

There is a correlation between 'beauty' [attractiveness] and health, thus serves an evolutionary advantage.
In this case, there has to some sort of universality and objectivity to what is beautiful and attractive.
If subjectivity is allowed to prevail, there would be no evolutionary advantages to the human species or any other species that are inclined to attractiveness or beauty.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10781122/
Facial Beauty and the Correlation of Associated Attributes: An Empirical Aesthetic Database Study

FSERC. All I could find was this: Field Science Education and Research Center. Is that what you are referring to? Or is it just another of your annoying made-up acronyms that you refuse to clarify?

[Veritas Aequitas]

So, homo sapians have varying tendencies to find certain things beautiful, though there are lots of differences across cultures and through time. We can, and do, study humans to find out what they tend to like. We could study another species, like crows, and what they seem to consider beautiful. We can be objective and find out what individuals like and what groups like and what specifies like. Then we meet the intelligent space-facing arachnic species and find, lo, their idea of a beautiful potential mate makes us want to puke. We can study it, we can predict which arachnids will have the most suitors. But whose preferences are objective, theirs or ours?

Why do we even need a god-like stamp of approval for our preferences?

and speaking of Wittgenstein....

From Philosophical Investigations:
"Aesthetic judgments, like other judgments, are expressions of taste and can vary among different cultures, times, and people."

From Lectures on Aesthetics:
"When we say, 'This is beautiful', and mean it, we do not have any criteria for beauty. This is what is remarkable about the word 'beautiful' — that it has no criteria."

Strawman as usual.

My principles [always presented] is this:
whatever is objective is contingent upon a specific human-based collective-of-subjects FSERC.
So my point is confined to the human species and not any non-human species.

Nevertheless we can consider the objectivity of 'beauty' or attractiveness to any other species as long as we qualify a "specific x-species-based collective-of-subjects FSERC" as evident from empirical evidences.

[accelafine]

Does anyone here know what the fuck FSERC is supposed to stand for?

[Veritas Aequitas]

A question for aesthetic objectivists. If objectivity is independence from belief, judgement or opinion, could a thing be beautiful even if everyone thinks it's ugly? Or even if no collective-of-subjects thinks it's beautiful?

Whatever is a fact and objective is contingent upon a specific human-based FSERC of which the scientific FSERC is the gold standard of credibility and objectivity of reality.
There is no other approach to credibility and objectivity of reality.

It a thing is ugly within a specific U-FSERC, there is no way it can be beautiful within that specific U-FSERC.

There is no such thing as beauty-in-itself without any reference to and conditioned upon a specific human-based FSERC.
Whatever is conditioned upon a human-based FSERC is objective in varying degrees dependent on the credibility and objectivity of the FSERC of which the scientific FSERC is the gold standard.

There is a correlation between 'beauty' [attractiveness] and health, thus serves an evolutionary advantage.
In this case, there has to some sort of universality and objectivity to what is beautiful and attractive.
If subjectivity is allowed to prevail, there would be no evolutionary advantages to the human species or any other species that are inclined to attractiveness or beauty.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10781122/
Facial Beauty and the Correlation of Associated Attributes: An Empirical Aesthetic Database Study

FSERC. All I could find was this: Field Science Education and Research Center. Is that what you are referring to? Or is it just another of your annoying made-up acronyms that you refuse to clarify?

I have provided the detailed FSERC as Framework and System of Emergence, Realization, and Cognition of reality; the scientific FSERC is the gold standard of credibility and objectivity.
I have posted this detail more than a 'million times' all over the Ethical Theory Section.

Other than claims from first person or a loose disorganized mob of people;
all propositional claims are FSERC-based i.e. contingent upon a collective-of-subjects.
There are no exceptions to the above.

[accelafine]

Whatever is a fact and objective is contingent upon a specific human-based FSERC of which the scientific FSERC is the gold standard of credibility and objectivity of reality.
There is no other approach to credibility and objectivity of reality.

It a thing is ugly within a specific U-FSERC, there is no way it can be beautiful within that specific U-FSERC.

There is no such thing as beauty-in-itself without any reference to and conditioned upon a specific human-based FSERC.
Whatever is conditioned upon a human-based FSERC is objective in varying degrees dependent on the credibility and objectivity of the FSERC of which the scientific FSERC is the gold standard.

There is a correlation between 'beauty' [attractiveness] and health, thus serves an evolutionary advantage.
In this case, there has to some sort of universality and objectivity to what is beautiful and attractive.
If subjectivity is allowed to prevail, there would be no evolutionary advantages to the human species or any other species that are inclined to attractiveness or beauty.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10781122/
Facial Beauty and the Correlation of Associated Attributes: An Empirical Aesthetic Database Study

FSERC. All I could find was this: Field Science Education and Research Center. Is that what you are referring to? Or is it just another of your annoying made-up acronyms that you refuse to clarify?

I have provided the detailed FSERC as Framework and System of Emergence, Realization, and Cognition of reality; the scientific FSERC is the gold standard of credibility and objectivity.
I have posted this detail more than a 'million times' all over the Ethical Theory Section.

Other than claims from first person or a loose disorganized mob of people;
all propositional claims are FSERC-based i.e. contingent upon a collective-of-subjects.
There are no exceptions to the above.

Nice word salad. Shame it doesn't mean anything.

[Peter Holmes]

Introducing the provisional SHCFSERCR.

Specific Human-based Collective-of-subjects Framework and System of Emergence, Realization, and Cognition of Reality.

[Iwannaplato]

Introducing the provisional SHCFSERCR.

Specific Human-based Collective-of-subjects Framework and System of Emergence, Realization, and Cognition of Reality.

I found this post unattractive and I want to know if my reactions is objective. I am not saying your post is incorrect. I am saying it lack beauty. In fact, it seems intentionally so.

[Peter Holmes]

Introducing the provisional SHCFSERCR.

Specific Human-based Collective-of-subjects Framework and System of Emergence, Realization, and Cognition of Reality.

I found this post unattractive and I want to know if my reactions is objective. I am not saying your post is incorrect. I am saying it lack beauty. In fact, it seems intentionally so.

Factual beauty is in the eye of a collective-of-subjects. Get with the programme.

[accelafine]

Mathemations and physicists talk about beauty a lot. They talk about 'beautiful equations'. Apparently there are beautiful equations and ugly equations.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Introducing the provisional SHCFSERCR.

Specific Human-based Collective-of-subjects Framework and System of Emergence, Realization, and Cognition of Reality.

Thanks to you, I have leveraged on your disagreement with me to expand my philosophical knowledge via my own research to counter your views.

My presentation is getting more precise from Specific Human-based Collective-of-subjects FSK to FSC to FSERC [final], the latter represent more precisely my original point.

When I first presented Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK], you interpret it as what-is-knowledge is not that-which-is-knowledge-of, i.e. the description is not the-described.

Then I introduced Framework and System of Cognition [FSC] which represent the-described arising from a cognitive process which cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions.
There is no such thing as an absolutely independent thing out there awaiting humans to discover its existence, i.e. as pre-existing.
Yet you still could not grasp the reality of it.

So I had to introduced FSERC, i.e. the-described as an emergence, realization and cognition of reality culminating as knowledge when processed linguistically as a description.
The point here, the thing [realized] has to emerge, realized inevitable in association with the human conditions [the specific human-based collective of subjects] before it is cognized [believed] and subsequently described as knowledge.

Your [primitive and common sense] view of reality as absolutely independent of the human conditions [collective of subjects] [philosophical realism] is not tenable nor realistic and throughout human history has generated loads of philosophical dilemmas especially radical skepticism.

The FSERC approach to reality avoided all past philosophical dilemmas on what is really real.

[Atla]

Introducing the provisional SHCFSERCR.

Specific Human-based Collective-of-subjects Framework and System of Emergence, Realization, and Cognition of Reality.

Thanks to you, I have leveraged on your disagreement with me to expand my philosophical knowledge via my own research to counter your views.

My presentation is getting more precise from Specific Human-based Collective-of-subjects FSK to FSC to FSERC [final], the latter represent more precisely my original point.

When I first presented Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK], you interpret it as what-is-knowledge is not that-which-is-knowledge-of, i.e. the description is not the-described.

Then I introduced Framework and System of Cognition [FSC] which represent the-described arising from a cognitive process which cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions.
There is no such thing as an absolutely independent thing out there awaiting humans to discover its existence, i.e. as pre-existing.
Yet you still could not grasp the reality of it.

So I had to introduced FSERC, i.e. the-described as an emergence, realization and cognition of reality culminating as knowledge when processed linguistically as a description.
The point here, the thing [realized] has to emerge, realized inevitable in association with the human conditions [the specific human-based collective of subjects] before it is cognized [believed] and subsequently described as knowledge.

Your [primitive and common sense] view of reality as absolutely independent of the human conditions [collective of subjects] [philosophical realism] is not tenable nor realistic and throughout human history has generated loads of philosophical dilemmas especially radical skepticism.

The FSERC approach to reality avoided all past philosophical dilemmas on what is really real.

Why are you so dependent on what a weird death-cultist such as PH thinks, anyway? Is he your father?

[Impenitent]

8 must be the most attractive number - doubly curvy
1 must be the least attractive number - not curvy

-Imp

[Iwannaplato]

OK, let's a different approach to the problem of objective beauty.

We have a guy who thinks ocean water contains less salt than rainwater.
We have another guy who thinks that a very overweight woman with beady eyes is more beautiful that models are.

The first guy is objectively wrong and we can demonstrate that.
The second guy is not wrong. He experiences more beauty and attraction for the woman matching his taste. He is neither objectively or subjectively wrong. He may have a taste that is less common - though there's probably an online discussion forum for him and his peers - but is not objectively wrong, and it would be confused to say he is.

[Iwannaplato]

8 must be the most attractive number - doubly curvy
1 must be the least attractive number - not curvy

-Imp

One is the loneliest number that you'll ever do
Two can be as bad as one
It's the loneliest number since the number one
-3 dog night