Are you sure this isn’t off-topic? Because I am sure it is. This thread has nothing to do with morality. You keep trying to hijack other people’s threads whenever opportunity arises.
And note that my initial post said nothing about what is truly beautiful and whether it is possible at all for humans to discover what is truly beautiful.
You’re putting words in my mouth. I merely said that two opposing beliefs cannot be both true. Only one of them can. So it does not have to be mine. It can be yours. But it’s also possible that neither is true.
Right, so you asked for a debate. But I didn’t suggest a debate. I suggested that you start a thread where you’d be discussing subjects (such as “The Psychology of Magnus Anderson”) you’re discussing in places where they shouldn’t be discussed (such as a thread about beauty.) I said nothing about my willingness to participate in such a thread. The entire point was that you’re being off-topic and that you should move your off-topic posts elsewhere.
And note that it is not me who said “Magnus Anderson is a dogmatist!” Rather, it is you who said “Magnus Anderson is a dogmatist!” Therefore, the burden of proof is on you.
Sure, that’s one way to actually avoid addressing the point that I am making here. Or you can accuse me of “derailing the thread”.
Instead, why don’t you actually respond to the points that I am making above? Or, okay, we can take it to another thread. But only if you are willing to address the arguments I make.
Okay, then in regard to those 100 human faces, 100 human bodies and 100 works of art, what are you saying? If different people have different personal opinions regarding beauty, what criteria would be used to establish what is “truly beautiful”?
So, let’s try to determine what you are saying.
If Joe thinks that Jane is beautiful and Jim things that she’s pretty but not beautiful, there is still the authority out there able to demonstrate which belief is the right one? Or to insist that, on the contrary, neither of them are beautiful?
Now, on her “so sad today” twitter page, she often complains about her looks. She just doesn’t think her face and her body are attractive enough. And I am myself ambivalent. In some photos she does seem beautiful to me, while in others, her face looks “funny”, and not so attractive.
Now, my argument is that in a God world, God, as an omniscient being, is able to tell us beyond all doubt which men and women are truly beautiful. He could let us know once and for all how we should react to Melissa’s face and body.
But, in a No God world, how exactly would mere mortals [far, far removed from omniscience] go about establishing it? Other than to insist that “in their head” they believe one thing rather than another.
And, again, that’s in regard to “just beauty”. When the objectivists also insist that this sort of logic can be used to settle moral conflicts in a No God world, the consequences can be considerably more drastic.
No - not HERE. He said start your own thread for that.
And if he doesn’t want to defend his “psychology” in that OTHER THREAD, I will take on that role for him.
Are you sure this isn’t off-topic? Because I am sure it is. This thread has nothing to do with morality. You keep trying to hijack other people’s threads whenever opportunity arises.
And note that my initial post said nothing about what is truly beautiful and whether it is possible at all for humans to discover what is truly beautiful.
K: I believe that the ancient Greeks did in fact connect Beauty with Morality…
so it is indeed possible to connect beauty with Morality as the Athenians did…
but more to the point, why not try to connect beauty to morality?
I don’t see any downside to at least try to connect them…
I remember reading about a court case a few years ago, where
the woman in question, I believe it was a teacher-student sex thing…
anyway, literally she stood up in court and said, I am too beautiful
to go to jail and they acquitted her… based on that one sentence…
I have no idea what you are telling me here, but I will let you start the new thread and choose the context in which to explore the “psychology of objectivism”.
I should warn you though that we will no doubt both go into this with absolutely no respect for the other’s intelligence. Out in the “is/ought” world, you are just another James S. Saint pinhead to me.
Iambiguous wasn’t “connecting morality and beauty”. He was dissing Mr Anderson for being a moral objectivist concerning beauty - as I see him do on almost every subject to everyone who disagrees with his own dasein objectivist morality.
There are idiots everywhere.
So you want ME to go start a thread on a different subject - always, as he said - trying to divert and change the topic to your own obsessions.
If you are not willing to start your own threads to spew your opinions on topic, then I think you should plug your facial bleedn douche hole concerning subjects that are not on topic in other people’s threads. How is that for being a “talking about what is true in your own moral objectivist head”.
Start it, don’t start it. Either way, the contempt I have for your intelligence in regard to conflicting goods at the existential juncture of identity, value judgments and political economy, is not likely to budge much at all. It never did with James.
Truth be told, if that thread ever does become a reality, my main aim would be to make a complete fool out of you. Or, rather, to continue to. On the other hand, how challenging could that be?
And no doubt you think the same of me.
So, sure, role the dice, start the thread, and we’ll let the others here decide.
An interesting issue is whether animals appreciate beauty and it seems they do. Darwin thought so. After a while it was considered a code for health, etc. But now animal appreciation of beauty is making a comeback in the scientific community. nytimes.com/2019/01/09/maga … nimal.html
Again, there’s no doubt that nature has programed one or another rendition of beauty into animal interactions. Including us.
Call it, say, the “peacock syndrome”.
But peacocks and all the other critters out there don’t contend with the vast multitude of historical, cultural and experiential memes that shape and mold our nature into clearly far, far, far more complex and convoluted and conflicting assessments.
Yes, I am avoiding addressing your point and I do so because I think that by addressing your point I would initiate an off-topic discussion.
I said nothing about what method should be used to discover what is “truly beautiful”. But I do have a rough idea. Note that it’s a rough idea. It’s not an idea you can take and implement straight away. Some details are missing and must be filled in. In other words, further work is required.
I also told him to provide an argument in favor of his claim (which is “Magnus Anderson is a dogmatist”) and he didn’t do that either.
Basically, he ignored everything I said
Only moderators can stop him – and they aren’t doing their job.
So, then what? Someone claims that someone is beautful and that someone is not, and the only criteria they need to “demonstrate” this is the fact that they believe it?
Well, when the work is finished note any definitive conclusions you come to in regard to objective beauty.
What’s this supposed to mean? If the moderators here were doing their job, what would you advise them to do?
On the other hand, the only moderator that’s left [to the best of my knowledge] is Dan.
Or Carleas. But if you click on him it notes this: Last visited: Mon Nov 02, 2020 12:57 pm
And if you click on The Team
MODERATORS
Dan global moderator
Flannel Jesus global moderator
Abstract Staff Emeritus
Alexistentialism Staff Emeritus
Janitorben Staff Emeritus
Janitorfelix dakat Staff Emeritus
Thinker Staff Emeritus
Jayson Staff Emeritus
Manifested Staff Emeritus
Only_Humean Staff Emeritus
PavlovianModel146 Staff Emeritus
Stoic Guardian Staff Emeritus
Uccisore Staff Emeritus
xanderman Staff Emeritus
Xunzian Staff Emeritus
