LuckyR wrote: ↑Wed Jul 24, 2024 6:30 am
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.
The ego, the experience of selfness, has nothing to do with beauty and ugliness.
bahman wrote: ↑Tue Jul 23, 2024 5:48 pm
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.
Beauty is what we as biological creatures find most pleasing, and what that is, is a subject inanimate or animate that is the fittest in function and form and therefore most well adapted for survival or fit for the task at hand. The ugly is the opposite situation lacking in function and/or form and to its highest degree, it is then called a monstrosity, and death or destruction is at hand.
