Pineapple Express: Someone Is Wrong on the Internet?

[Ryujin]

Damn, Mannahnin!

You need to watch out.... you are so on my wavelength that if you vibe any harder, you may end up with a pile of dead bards in your attic.

 

[RealAlHazred]

In other unrelated news, my submission for $2 million worth of funding for my scientific experiment where I reduce 100 tons of surplus modern art into component particles in order to identify particles that correspond to "Beauty," has been rejected once again by the philistines of the board.

 

[Alzrius]

In other unrelated news, my submission for $2 million worth of funding for my scientific experiment where I reduce 100 tons of surplus modern art into component particles in order to identify particles that correspond to "Beauty," has been rejected once again by the philistines of the board.

They were right to turn you down, we already know that's the beauty quark.

 

[CleverNickName]

I am both professionally and intellectually insulted when people on Twitter, etc., claim that hurricanes can be 'engineered.' If you are one of the people who honestly believe that (or any) conspiracy theory, you have my profound sympathy.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I am both professionally and intellectually insulted when people on Twitter, etc., claim that hurricanes can be 'engineered.' If you are one of the people who honestly believe that (or any) conspiracy theory, you have my profound sympathy.

Still good.


If you haven't seen it, it's worth the investment of time. It's "about" flat earthers, but really not, and speaks to a lot more. The discourse (and disinformation) around the recent natural disasters, with another coming down the pipe, is truly disheartening.

If you haven't experienced a natural disaster before ... well, you are lucky. But they are bad enough without people piling on with BS.

 

[overgeeked]

If the viewer finds that certain qualities, which are themselves objective, are what makes something beautiful, then the state of being beautiful exists regardless of whether or not it's observed. They might be the ones making that judgment, but their judgment is that such qualities exist regardless of whether or not anyone observes them.

If you think that a sunset on a cloudy day, and which makes the clouds appear pink while the sky turns orange, is beautiful, then any such sunset-and-clouds combo that results in those colors is going to be considered beautiful even if there are no humans left on Earth to observe it. The sun will still set, there will still be clouds, and at least some of the time the result will be that combination of colors. All of those things will be true even if no one sees them.

While the definition of what's considered to be beautiful might be individualistic, that definition will (unless it's something truly unique and unable to ever be reproduced) be met in the wider world regardless of whether or not the individual in question is there to witness it.

This is great stuff and really shows why people get into intractable arguments on the net about preferences and why it will literally never stop.

You think that because you subjectively think-believe-feel something is beautiful that somehow transforms the object in such a way to make it objectively beautiful. The traits you find beautiful exist intrinsically in the object itself, so they are objective in that sense, yes. But it's your subjective judgement, inside your own head, that labels them beautiful. That's the point. It's literally you finding it beautiful. You're doing the thing. It's beautiful to you. It's not objectively beautiful. If it were, there'd never be disagreements about what's beautiful. Because it would be an objective, measurable thing. Rather beauty is literally in the eye of the beholder.

For a real world example. Look at someone else's spouse. Look at someone else's kids. They sure seem to think they're beautiful. But you might pull a face just looking at them. What's beautiful is a judgement call made by people.

 

[Alzrius]

This is great stuff and really shows why people get into intractable arguments on the net about preferences and why it will literally never stop.

Which is a very meta take, considering the rest of your post.

You think that because you subjectively think-believe-feel something is beautiful that somehow transforms the object in such a way to make it objectively beautiful.

I'm going to stop you right here, because no one said anything about "transforms" anything. The rest of your reply seems to be based on this idea, and so isn't actually responding to what I said. No "transformation" is happening; the subjective definition is entirely subjective, it's just that it's being objectively satisfied in its criteria even without someone acknowledging it.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

For a real world example. Look at someone else's spouse.

Come on over, baby, whole lotta covetin' goin' on
Yes I said come on over, baby, baby, you can't go wrong
Gonna be discoverin' a whole lotta covetin' goin' on

Well, I said come on over, baby, I got an ox in the barn
Come on over, baby, I got my neighbor's house too
Gonna be discoverin' a whole lotta covetin' goin' on

Well, crave, baby, crave
I said sin, baby, sin
I said covet, baby, covet
Let's transgress, baby, transgress

Come on over, whole lot of covetin' goin' on
Ah let's go!

 

[prabe]

For a real world example. Look at someone else's spouse. Look at someone else's kids. They sure seem to think they're beautiful. But you might pull a face just looking at them. What's beautiful is a judgement call made by people.

I think it's important to separate out beauty and preferences and competence and execution.

This photo is from our trip to Big Bend NP in March.

This pic is from our trip to New River Gorge NP in May.

This pic is from our trip to Shenandoah NP a couple of weeks ago.

They're very different kinds of (natural) beauty, but different people will reasonably find the different landscapes to be differently attractive to them; and it's very possible that they aren't all equally good as photographs, in the sense that I might not have executed them all equally well. I think it is possible in many instances to at least judge competence of execution--if you know what someone was trying to do.

 

[overgeeked]

Which is a very meta take, considering the rest of your post.

I'm going to stop you right here, because no one said anything about "transforms" anything. The rest of your reply seems to be based on this idea, and so isn't actually responding to what I said. No "transformation" is happening; the subjective definition is entirely subjective, it's just that it's being objectively satisfied in its criteria even without someone acknowledging it.

What a weird argument. It's either, or. Subjective or objective. Not both. Beauty is either an objective quality of an external object or it's a subjective aesthetic judgement about an external object. Pick one.