Philosophy Now Forum

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 9:33 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 9:25 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 9:22 am 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.

I find being given orders attractive, but it's a minority taste, so you were objectively wrong to do so.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 12:32 pm 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.

Being attracted to someone doesn't mean the person is beautiful.

There are certain universal standards of excellence that any sane, normal person agrees with because they happen to be true.

Someone might not like the music of Bach, but that same person can't claim that Bach wasn't a great genius just because that person is an ignorant twat with no taste.

accelafine wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 12:38 pm Being attracted to someone doesn't mean the person is beautiful.

There are certain universal standards of excellence that any sane, normal person agrees with because they happen to be true.

OK, but I'm arguing with someone who is saying that we determine objectivity through popularity - with beauty (and he uses the word beauty, not for example something more relational like 'attractive'. The point in that post is that I don't think it makes sense to say that someone who is attracted to what a majority consider less beautiful is wrong. I think that's a category error.

Someone who think trees are a type of canine is wrong.

Someone might not like the music of Bach, but that same person can't claim that Bach wasn't a great genius just because that person is an ignorant twat with no taste.

Sure, but what if they just can't stand his music but love the best classical Indian composer. Are they wrong? If the world decides that Western Classical Music is the best, via FSERC which ends up being popularity, are the people who like their own culture's music more, less correct?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 12:51 pm

accelafine wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 12:38 pm Being attracted to someone doesn't mean the person is beautiful.

There are certain universal standards of excellence that any sane, normal person agrees with because they happen to be true.

OK, but I'm arguing with someone who is saying that we determine objectivity through popularity - with beauty (and he uses the word beauty, not for example something more relational like 'attractive'. The point in that post is that I don't think it makes sense to say that someone who is attracted to what a majority consider less beautiful is wrong. I think that's a category error.

Someone who think trees are a type of canine is wrong.

Someone might not like the music of Bach, but that same person can't claim that Bach wasn't a great genius just because that person is an ignorant twat with no taste.

Sure, but what if they just can't stand his music but love the best classical Indian composer. Are they wrong? If the world decides that Western Classical Music is the best, via FSERC which ends up being popularity, are the people who like their own culture's music more, less correct?

Who said they would be wrong? Personal taste can't be 'wrong'. If a man is attracted to ugly women then that's his personal taste. I'm not attracted to Angelina Jolie but I can still see that she's beautiful.
It's not something 'the world' randomly 'decides'. There are a lot of factors that are taken into account. Body of work. Complexity. Beauty. Harmony. Skill. Influence. Innnovation....

accelafine wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 12:57 pm Who said they would be wrong?

VA is saying that beauty is something that can be objectively determined. In the OP he keeps using objectifiedt, but that's because it's not his native language. His position is that we can determine what is objectively beautiful, just as we can determine what is objectively the case, for example in science. With scientific conclusions we can be right or wrong (with partially correct in the grey areas in between.) I am saying beautify is not objective, in part because it doesn't make sense to say that someone sense of beauty cannot be wrong. We can be free to think they are weird. It can be called a minority position. But to call their attraction wrong is a category error, which is not the case with objective claims.

Personal taste can't be 'wrong'.

Which is my point.

If a man is attracted to ugly women then that's his personal taste. I'm not attracted to Angelina Jolie but I can still see that she's beautiful.

and if you don't consider the near anorexic models in the fashion world beautify, yet statistics show they are consider beautiful are you wrong? If somone doesn't consider Angelina Jolie beautiful, are they wrong, or is it a taste thing.

It's not something 'the world' randomly 'decides'.

I'm not saying it's random. I'd call it intersubjective. Probably some mix of things we look for due to genetics and some things that are culturally affected.


Someone says that water is 90% salt, we can show they are not only wrong, but by how much they are wrong.
Someone says that person X is the most beautiful, but most people think that person is too plain. I don't think they are wrong. I don't think that makes sense. Unless they are lying and we can show they don't actually find that person beautiful.

Taste varies.

Garlic ice cream.
Wasabi ice cream.
Licorice ice cream.

These are liked by a small percentage of people, and an even smaller percentage think they are the best. I don't think those people are wrong to like what they like best. I think that's a confused conclusion.

VA wants it to be an a par with scientific facts. I don't think it is.

We can actually demonstrate to people that their conclusions are false - they may not admit it and some are too stupid to understand - but there is a process one can go through. You think salt water freezes at a higher temperature than fresh water, we can show you that you are wrong.

How do I show someone that their sense of beauty is wrong?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 12:35 pm

Impenitent wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 11:11 am 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

that's just cold man...

-Imp

Impenitent wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 1:35 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 12:35 pm

Impenitent wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 11:11 am 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

that's just cold man...

-Imp

Oh, my love
I know, I am a cold, cold man
Quite slow to pay you compliments
Or public displayed affections
-Saint Motel

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 12:51 pm

accelafine wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 12:38 pm Being attracted to someone doesn't mean the person is beautiful.

There are certain universal standards of excellence that any sane, normal person agrees with because they happen to be true.

OK, but I'm arguing with someone who is saying that we determine objectivity through popularity - with beauty (and he uses the word beauty, not for example something more relational like 'attractive'. The point in that post is that I don't think it makes sense to say that someone who is attracted to what a majority consider less beautiful is wrong. I think that's a category error.

Someone who think trees are a type of canine is wrong.

Someone might not like the music of Bach, but that same person can't claim that Bach wasn't a great genius just because that person is an ignorant twat with no taste.

Sure, but what if they just can't stand his music but love the best classical Indian composer. Are they wrong? If the world decides that Western Classical Music is the best, via FSERC which ends up being popularity, are the people who like their own culture's music more, less correct?

It's not 'Western' music. It's music. Thousands of years of musical evolution that culminated in the miracle that was JS Bach. It belongs to all humans. Funny you should mention Indian music because so many strands of music have their roots in India, including 'Western' music.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 1:29 pm
VA wants it to be an a par with scientific facts. I don't think it is.

Strawman as usual.
I have never made the above claim.

What I had said, whatever the FSERC [beauty in this case] it has to be contrasted with the scientific FSERC as the gold standard of credibility and objectivity.

If we index the scientific FSERC at 100/100, then I would rate [grounded on rationality] [best estimate] the Miss Universe FSERC at most 20/100 in term of credibility and objectivity because it is based on some empirical evidences.

For a theistic FSERC, I would rate [estimate] is relative credibility and objectivity at 0.1/100 because there is no empirical basis to it.

In all the above cases, there is objectivity based on intersubjectivity via a collective-of-subjects human-based FSERC within a continuum of objectivity.

Viral Baby Pygmy Hippo Moo Deng: Scientists Break Down Her Pookie Appeal
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCssGyDeu90

The above objectification of Cuteness is the same as objectification of Beauty.
Both has an evolutionary basis.

Your ridiculous acronyms make your posts unreadable. They are clumsy and hurt the brain.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2024 9:20 am Viral Baby Pygmy Hippo Moo Deng: Scientists Break Down Her Pookie Appeal
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCssGyDeu90

The above objectification of Cuteness is the same as objectification of Beauty.
Both has an evolutionary basis.

..but that ain't cute.

I've never found hippos of woteva size 'cute' - they look like they'd make tasty burgers.

My dog is cute, probably the cutest dog in the Milky Way and the most gentle placid loving little rascal..ya, I love my dog. If he was ugly, I'd have sold him by now.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2024 9:15 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 1:29 pm
VA wants it to be an a par with scientific facts. I don't think it is.

Strawman as usual.
I have never made the above claim.

Meaning it is objective in the same way. Not that it gets your same rating. Exactly as you go on below. Yes, you give it a different rating but you consider it as having the same kind of objectivity. Kind.

What I had said, whatever the FSERC [beauty in this case] it has to be contrasted with the scientific FSERC as the gold standard of credibility and objectivity.

If we index the scientific FSERC at 100/100, then I would rate [grounded on rationality] [best estimate] the Miss Universe FSERC at most 20/100 in term of credibility and objectivity because it is based on some empirical evidences.

For a theistic FSERC, I would rate [estimate] is relative credibility and objectivity at 0.1/100 because there is no empirical basis to it.

In all the above cases, there is objectivity based on intersubjectivity via a collective-of-subjects human-based FSERC within a continuum of objectivity.

accelafine wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 2:29 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 12:51 pm

accelafine wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2024 12:38 pm Being attracted to someone doesn't mean the person is beautiful.

There are certain universal standards of excellence that any sane, normal person agrees with because they happen to be true.

OK, but I'm arguing with someone who is saying that we determine objectivity through popularity - with beauty (and he uses the word beauty, not for example something more relational like 'attractive'. The point in that post is that I don't think it makes sense to say that someone who is attracted to what a majority consider less beautiful is wrong. I think that's a category error.

Someone who think trees are a type of canine is wrong.

Someone might not like the music of Bach, but that same person can't claim that Bach wasn't a great genius just because that person is an ignorant twat with no taste.

Sure, but what if they just can't stand his music but love the best classical Indian composer. Are they wrong? If the world decides that Western Classical Music is the best, via FSERC which ends up being popularity, are the people who like their own culture's music more, less correct?

It's not 'Western' music. It's music. Thousands of years of musical evolution that culminated in the miracle that was JS Bach. It belongs to all humans.

That's lovely and I don't think I said anything about music not belonging to someone, but rather about their preferences. My point was that if we follow VA's logic, Indians who even vastly prefer different music could be considered wrong. Also, a study could prove that Bach was better than, sure, Taylor Swift, while another study could prove that her music was better than his. From your earlier post, comparing their sheet music, it seems you might think other criteria than popularity might decide whose music is better. Now Bach is so well know that he likely outsells Taylor Swift, but there are lesser known composers who do not and yet their music is also vastly more complicated than hers and meeting all sorts of criteria that hers does not. But in VAs world, objectivity is intersubjective agreement.

And, well, the other stuff I mentioned in my earlier post.