Is beauty really subjective or is it objectively determined by God?

[GaryTaylor]

‘Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder’.

Yes indeed how those desires change. But good objective or subjective is for sure a debate not a fact but fringe theory? Perhaps you desire it to be subjective?

science.jrank.org/pages/9554/Good-Subjective-versus-Objective-Accounts.html

Anyway carry on. Btw how do think this theory squares with ID?

 

[ynotzap]

Actually Bradski, the simple fact that individuals disagree on what is “beautiful” is a tacit assent to the objective nature of beauty. If beauty were purely subjective, there could be no disagreement, whatsoever.

“I like ice cream,” is not a disputable proposition.

If I claim, “That painting is beautiful!” and you – being your typical disagreeable self – say, “No it isn’t, it’s ugly,” what you are admitting is that an objective standard of beauty exists and that painting doesn’t meet the standard.

If determinations of beauty were merely preference statements, no one would argue either way. There could be no disagreement, in principle, because it would be senseless to dispute preference claims.

It can’t be the case that “That painting is beautiful!” is semantically identical to “I like that painting,” because the first is a claim about the painting and the second is a claim about the “I” that has a particular affinity towards the painting.

To claim that determinations about beauty are nothing more than preference statements is to claim that the idea of beauty is an empty and meaningless concept that has no common ground when two individuals express their opinions about it. How could THAT be known a priori?

Yet, that “common ground” is assumed whenever disagreements about beauty are expressed. For you to claim that people do not always agree about what is beautiful and what isn’t assumes that some common notion of beauty exists that can be applied to objects even though individuals may disagree to which objects the concept, in fact, does apply.

It is true, the denial of the existence of something is the very proof that that something exists, because if it didn’t exist then there would be nothing to deny, and the occasion for denial would never arise.

 

[Bradski]

It is true, the denial of the existence of something is the very proof that that something exists, because if it didn’t exist then there would be nothing to deny, and the occasion for denial would never arise.

So global warming must be real…

Btw how do think this theory squares with ID?

Sorry, but I can’t see a connection.

 

[ynotzap]

So global warming must be real…

Yes, if there is objective evidence to support it. We have to discern what is subjective, and what is objective in the evidence. Were the supposed facts interpreted objectively. What conclusive facts (that which exists) support the judgement.

 

[Bradski]

Yes, if there is objective evidence to support it.

We don’t need evidence. As you said:

…the denial of the existence of something is the very proof that that something exists.

So if someone denies the existence of global warming, then that is the very proof that it must exist. Please get in touch with your local Republican representative immediately. They will want to know this.

I have to say that the level of argument leaves something to be denied in recent posts. This is what we’ve had just in the last few hours:

If people don’t agree on the aesthetic quality of something (because it is a relative concept) then that proves it is objective.
If someone denies that something exists, then therefore it does.

It’s like Alice through the looking glass…

 

[Peter_Plato]

Beauty and goodness are subjective and relative concepts. Each person decides whether it exists and to what degree in whatever is being discussed.

Okay, Brad, let’s go here. Goodness, like beauty, is a subjective and relative concept. Each person decides whether eitherr exist and to what degree.

That would mean with regard to both beauty and goodness there is no objective ground for making claims about what actions are actually good or which objects are actually beautiful. Since no objective ground exists, there is NO sense in which some actions are objectively good and which are bad. which are beautiful and which are not. Have I got that right?

There is NO sense in which some actions are objectively good for much the same reason there is NO sense in which some things are objectively beautiful.

That’s simply a common useage of language. Really, I shouldn’t have to argue that when someone insists that a painting is beautiful if someone else claims it is ugly then they are making a statement about their personal preference. It appears that it might only be you who is actually insisting it IS more beautiful.

Moral and aesthetic language merely reflects common useage and not common reality.

It seems that it appears to be only ME, then, who would insist that a painting IS objectively more beautiful just as it would appear to only be me who would insist some acts are objectively good and others objectively evil.

For the sake of efficiency, I will offer you a peek at something which I, alone apparently, would view as BOTH objectively evil AND objectively ugly.

Here you go…

In newly released undercover footage from the pro-life Center for Medical Progress, seasoned abortionist Dr. Deborah Nucatola, who serves as national senior director of “medical services” at Planned Parenthood, chitter-chattered eagerly about fulfilling the bloodthirsty demand for “intact hearts,” “lower extremities” and lungs.

Price tag? “You know, I would throw a number out,” she babbled breezily as she twirled her fork. “I would say it’s probably anywhere from $30 to $100” per specimen.

Hollywood couldn’t conjure monsters this chillingly, banally evil.

Nucatola exulted at how fetal livers have become tres chic: “A LOT of people” want them.

She then spoke of the new hot trends in body-parts trafficking as if she were raving about the latest craze for crop tops or artisanal cheese.

“I was like wow,” she gushed to her potential clients about the market for unborn baby hearts, “I didn’t even know!”

Like wow.

This master of murderous euphemism repeatedly referred to an unborn baby’s head as a “calvarium” and casually described the tricks and techniques she and her fellow abortionists use to “increase your chance of success.” Rotating the babies so they are delivered breech before being mutilated and slaughtered by the practitioners of Planned Butcherhood works fabulously, in case you were wondering.

Pausing only to swig more luxury libations from her jumbo wine glass, the loquacious death doc explained to investigators posing as fetal tissue company executives how her “providers” use “ultrasound guidance” to target the coveted body parts – “so they’ll know where they’re putting their forceps.”

In a singsong recitation, this lettuce-chomping Mengele in a silk tank top detailed how the “providers” use ultrasound to become “cognizant of where you put your graspers.”

This method is not employed to reduce the pain and suffering of unborn baby and mother, mind you. It’s to get “good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that – so I’m not gonna crush that part. I’m going to basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact.”

Think about that. Planned Parenthood has officially declared it “torture” for women to see their unborn children through ultrasound before submitting to abortion.

The billion-dollar abortion industry has lobbied vociferously against increasing ultrasound access to pregnant women on the fence about abortion.

But when the same imaging technology is used to help Planned Butcherhood’s “providers” place their forceps strategically to protect their precious organ commodities, it’s invaluable “guidance.”

realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/07/15/the_wine-sipping_butchers_of_planned_parenthood_127386.html

Recall YOUR words, Bradski:

**Beauty and goodness are subjective and relative concepts. Each person decides whether it exists and to what degree in whatever is being discussed. **

That would mean Bradski, that according to you BOTH ethics and aesthetics are “up to each person” to decide whether they exist and to what degree. That would mean that it is your considered opinion that Nucatola’s views on dismembering unborn children and selling their parts for profit are no more or less objectively correct in both the realms of ethics and aesthetics than anyone else’s on this planet (or anywhere else, really.)

If you think I stand on my own, fine. I am perfectly willing to defend that both aesthetics and ethics are grounded in reality whether or not anyone else on the planet sees it or not.

It’s like Alice through the looking glass…

Yes…yes… it is. And Nucatola believes herself to be the Queen of Hearts.

And YOU, apparently, think her view to be as legitimate, because subjective, as anyone else’s, yes?

 

[Pallas_Athene]

It is true, the denial of the existence of something is the very proof that that something exists, because if it didn’t exist then there would be nothing to deny, and the occasion for denial would never arise.

Some people say that if there would be no God, then there would be no atheists. Therefore the existence of atheists is “evidence” (or maybe “proof”?) that God exists. Well, I deny the existence of invisible pink unicorns, therefore this lack of belief is “evidence” (or maybe “proof”?) that invisible pink unicorns exist. How easy it is to “prove” something. All we need to do is find someone who denies the existence of “it” (whatever “it” might be)… and voila! there is the proof…

 

[Bradski]

It seems that it appears to be only ME, then, who would insist that a painting IS objectively more beautiful just as it would appear to only be me who would insist some acts are objectively good and others objectively evil.

Well, you and everybody else who has the same loose fitting, ill-defined and transparently nonsensical ideas about the difference between objective and subjective.

It seems that you believe that something about which everyone would agree is wrong therefore shows it to be objectively wrong. Which is patently absurd. You seem stuck in the mind-set that says: ‘How can you say something is beautiful or ugly, right or wrong if it’s just a subjective view?’ Why on earth can’t you? There is no dichotomy in stating that as far as I am concerned, X is wrong and will always be wrong whilst maintaining it to be a subjective view, even if everyone agrees with me.

It’s easy to bring up Blue Poles versus the butcher’s apron or Bach’s cello suite versus chopsticks. Any moron will tell you which is more beautiful. But if you are going to insist that something like beauty is objective, then literally everything will have that inherent property to a greater or lesser degree. As not all things can be equally beautiful, there must be a God-given hierarchy of beauty that is determinable (deathly silence on that…).

So why would God instil a greater degree of beauty in one tree than another? What was the reason for making one piece of rock more pleasing to the eye than another? Why did he decide that a blues riff will sound better on a guitar than on a banjo? Was it His call that cows would taste better than grass?

Because that’s what you’re saying. Read the OP again. Is all this objectively determined by God? You are saying ‘Yes’.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Some people say that if there would be no God, then there would be no atheists. Therefore the existence of atheists is “evidence” (or maybe “proof”?) that God exists. Well, I deny the existence of invisible pink unicorns, therefore this lack of belief is “evidence” (or maybe “proof”?) that invisible pink unicorns exist. How easy it is to “prove” something. All we need to do is find someone who denies the existence of “it” (whatever “it” might be)… and voila! there is the proof…

I am very glad that you brought this up because it does highlight a difference between what Bradski contends to be the case and what ain’t necessarily so.

Take invisible pink unicorns. Anyone who denies their existence must have a very clear idea of what is meant when the phrase is used. It isn’t that they are disputing what invisible pink unicorns are, exactly. An invisible pink unicorn denier does not contend that the concept is hazy, unclear or “subjective.” The IPU denier merely holds that no invisible pink unicorns actually exist, because the concept is clear and just as clearly IPU is not represented among existent beings.

In fact, the IPU denier and the IPU contender MUST have the exact same reality in mind in order for them to actually have a valid dispute over the existence of the thing in question. The denier denies that any reality fitting the description of IPU actually exists, whereas the contender holds that the very same entity – invisible pink unicorns – actually do exist. Note, again, that they must be speaking of the very same entity in order to actually have a disagreement.

If one of them had in mind visible orange cats when they used the words invisible pink unicorns, there wouldn’t really be a dispute, now would there?

Now let’s move to beauty.

An individual, like, say, Bradski, isn’t merely contending that beautiful things don’t exist, he is claiming the idea of beauty cannot even be consistently used among all users. That suggests everyone who uses the idea means different things, which is why a common ground CANNOT be found, not even in principle.

His claim is that the idea of beauty, even though it is used almost universally in common parlance, is not only not descriptive of real entities but also that no beautiful things can possibly exist because the idea is, in some, sense incoherent, or, at least, that it is not possible for individuals to be referring to the same concept of beauty since it can, in principle, have no objective referent. The question might be asked how that can be known and why it should be accepted without argument.

Simply put, the denier of the existence of objective beauty is – to use the analogy of invisible pink unicorns – not only contending invisible pink unicorns do not exist (beautiful things don’t really exist) but also insisting that the words “invisible pink unicorn” (beauty) means different things to different people because they cannot, in principle, be using the words in the same way.

Yet, the question still to be answered is how such a position is logically tenable. How would the beauty denier insist beautiful things don’t “really” exist at the same time as insisting that the concept of beauty means different things to different people, i.e., can ONLY be subjective, in principle.

It remains to be explained how an “invisible pink unicorn” denier could plausibly deny the existence of invisible pink uncorns all the while freely admitting that what he means by the words “invisible pink unicorns” isn’t anything like what anyone else means by those same words.

If the words “invisible pink unicorn” did not have a consistent referent then any dispute over the existence of IPUs could not be settled, not even in principle, until a common understanding was reached regarding which referent was actually being argued over.

This is where Bradski’s position gets sketchy. He waylays every attempt at discussing possible definitions of beauty by a circular argument. By insisting without compromise that beauty is “subjective,” Bradski simply hand waves off any attempt to arrive at a plausible accounting of beauty by insisting, “Well, that is your subjective view and since it isn’t accepted by everyone it does not qualify as objective. Heads I win. Tails you lose.”

 

[Peter_Plato]

Well, you and everybody else who has the same loose fitting, ill-defined and transparently nonsensical ideas about the difference between objective and subjective.

Could you explain how my definitions of objective and subjective are “loose-fitting, ill-defined and transparently nonsensical?”

Refer to post #22

“**Subjective” means that the quality assigned to an entity is entirely dependent upon the subject doing the assigning ** and NOTHING of the determination depends upon the objective nature of the object itself.

Where an object has some discernible quality that exists independently of any or all subjects, then the quality is objective – it depends upon the object, not a subject.

I suppose you are including in “everybody else” who has the same “loose-fitting, ill-defined and transparently nonsensical” ideas the sources for similar definitions that I included in my posts #59 and #60. These include the American Heritage Dictionary, The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Online Dictionary of Philosophy.

Not that I expect you to concede a point. That won’t happen because too much – for you – hangs on doing so. However, you could, at least be fair-minded in representing what I write. Thank you.

 

[Bradski]

An individual, like, say, Bradski, isn’t merely contending that beautiful things don’t exist, he is claiming the idea of beauty cannot even be consistently used among all users. That suggests everyone who uses the idea means different things, which is why a common ground CANNOT be found, not even in principle.

Things that have objective beauty do not exist. Things that people describe as beautiful do. I find some things to be beautiful. Therefore if you ask me if I believe beautiful things exist, I will say yes, they actually do. I think you might find that literally everyone will say the very same thing. It’s remarkably simple to understand.

Now that’s out of the way, perhaps we can look at your unicorn. Which either exists or doesn’t. It’s on or off. Black or white. Here or not. Fact or fiction. A one or a zero. I think that’s clear. Now are you suggesting by comparing that to beauty that beauty is either there or not? If not then why the devil are you using such a lame analogy? And if so, what happens to the hierarchy of beauty which is an undeniable feature of your proposal? Is there some point where it flips from a little bit ugly to just a little bit beautiful?

Maybe just bend that note a fraction more and all the ugly disappears and now we have something beautiful. Just another dab of paint and all of a sudden we switch from no objective beauty to some objective beauty (but just a little).

You know, I think that you think you’re putting forward a reasonable argument. Although I also think you may feel you have painted yourself into a corner – hence the misrepresentation in your last post (and let’s face it, what you posted in no way represents any point I have ever made or will ever make – it’s becoming par for the course, I’m afraid). But one thing I know you haven’t done is work through how all this would actually work if what you propose held any water whatsoever.

It’s always difficult getting a direct response to a direct question, but here goes anyway…

Do you really think that there is a fixed hierarchy of beauty that God has decided to implement?

 

[Bradski]

Could you explain how my definitions of objective and subjective are “loose-fitting, ill-defined and transparently nonsensical?”

“**Subjective” means that the quality assigned to an entity is entirely dependent upon the subject doing the assigning ** and NOTHING of the determination depends upon the objective nature of the object itself.

Where an object has some discernible quality that exists independently of any or all subjects, then the quality is objective – it depends upon the object, not a subject.

Well, no surprise that you are reading what you want to read rather than what I wrote. I said your ideas are loose-fitting etc, not your definitions.

I actually think the definitions that you use are quite accurate. I have no problem with them. In fact I am still bemused at you calling Inocente to task as he appears to be using the same definitions as you.

But maybe you are going to go ‘Aha!’ and furiously type something along the lines of this:

“It says ‘nothing of the determination depends upon the objective nature of the object!’ Well, OK. But we make subjective statements about beauty because we find an object is aesthetically pleasing. ‘Aesthetically pleasing’ is not an objective quality of that object.

Surely you are not going to suggest that we can’t make a subjective decision on anything because we have to consider the objective qualities of the object? If you are, then the term ‘Subjective’ ceases to exist. Surely not…

 

[GaryTaylor]

I can’t see how you get around objective truth. When we discern what is good ultimately we reach what is the truth which arrives through honesty and humility? So there is no objective truth or there is? Whats it rooted to the fad of the day which modern psychology then ignores self destructive behavior contrary to honesty. Darwin survival of the fittest? I don’t see it, we are interconnected as the human species for sure, but, as humans we for sure share an interconnected reality with emotions and behavior. The list of common bonds which interconnects is very long. If thats not rooted to the teaching of love your neighbor as yourself then you have no truth or honesty and movable posts. Thats the problem today not the solution, and how does modern psychology resolve a theory of truth-honesty when its rooted to nothing but perhaps a novel innovative secular theory which results in self destructive behavior.

 

[inocente]

English dirges? Sir, you have no taste. But then, each to his own (well, except for Peter).

Señor, go back 400 years for the master of Englisher dirge, John Dowland - youtube.com/watch?v=f7vLOjzG4no

 

[Peter_Plato]

I actually think the definitions that you use are quite accurate. I have no problem with them. In fact I am still bemused at you calling Inocente to task as he appears to be using the same definitions as you.

Let’s be clear about what inocente’s definition attempts to do, shall we?

It is a very subtle distinction to be drawn, so do this slowly.

His definitions:
Subjective = based on personal feelings, tastes and opinions.
Objective = not influenced by personal feelings, tastes or opinions.

Think deliberately here. His definition of “objective” says nothing about what objective actually means or by what positive grounds a determination of “objective” can be made, merely that it MUST not be “influenced” by anything about the subject. In other words, objective and subjective are mutually exclusive by definition. What comes from a subject is one thing, everything else is another.

Now, my definition appears to do a similar thing, but doesn’t because I give a positive accounting of objective – that which derives from or is dependent upon the object for its truth value. Unlike inocente’s subjective / not subjective dichotomy, my definition allows that there is a middle ground between subjective and objective. It would be possible under my definition (but impossible under inocente’s) that some qualities may partially be constructed from facts about objects and partially from the very nature of what it means to be a subject. In other words, the twain CAN meet.

One of the reasons it can meet is because subjects can be regarded as objects in their own right and under their own unique set of objective determinations. Subjects can be viewed as objects and, therefore, can be assessed objectively.

Which takes us here…

It seems that you believe that something about which everyone would agree is wrong therefore shows it to be objectively wrong. Which is patently absurd. You seem stuck in the mind-set that says: ‘How can you say something is beautiful or ugly, right or wrong if it’s just a subjective view?’ Why on earth can’t you? There is no dichotomy in stating that as far as I am concerned, X is wrong and will always be wrong whilst maintaining it to be a subjective view, even if everyone agrees…

Think carefully. Being stuck in the “mindset” that saying if “something is beautiful or ugly, right or wrong … it’s just a subjective view” is the logically necessary outcome of inocente’s definitional dichotomy – everything that is not subjective is objective and everything not objective is subjective – especially since he gives NO positive accounting regarding to what “objective” actually refers.

By my definition, the source for the determination of the qualities in question becomes the grounds for defining the qualities as subjective or objective, but leaves entirely open the possibility that some qualities may be objective or “about” objects, but recognized by subjective determination, which means the two are NOT mutually exclusive.

But maybe you are going to go ‘Aha!’ and furiously type something along the lines of this:

“It says ‘nothing of the determination depends upon the objective nature of the object!’ Well, OK. But we make subjective statements about beauty because we find an object is aesthetically pleasing. ‘Aesthetically pleasing’ is not an objective quality of that object.

Surely you are not going to suggest that we can’t make a subjective decision on anything because we have to consider the objective qualities of the object? If you are, then the term ‘Subjective’ ceases to exist. Surely not…

Well, that WOULD BE the logical implication of inocente’s definitional dichotomy, but not mine.

I have argued several times before that three kinds of propositions exist:

1. Statements of preference: where the statement expresses a truth about the subject and only the subject. (I like ice cream.)
2. Statements of objective fact: where the statement expresses a pure truth or “fact” about an object and only the object. (Cat bodies are capable of temperature regulation.)
3. Statements of judgement: where the statement expresses a qualitative truth which takes into account or pulls together objective facts about subjects and objective facts about objects. In other words, subjects can be regarded as “objects” with their own distinctive set of facts which give rise to a unique category of qualitative determinations. Judgements (as distinct from preference statements or statements purely about objects) can be made and assessed on their own merit which is neither purely about the subject nor quantitatively about an object, but seeks to explain the qualitative standing between subjects and objects.

The other issue I have with inocente’s defintion is that it seeks to define “objective” as anything not having to do with any subject. An act such as “harvesting the body parts of unborn human beings” could not possibly, under his view, be “objectively” bad in any sense. Or if it were merely objective, it couldn’t be susceptible to any subjective determination whatsoever, since there can be no overlap between the two, by definition.

The truth of the matter is that harvesting human organs is objectively evil because the object in question – human beings – has a distinctive kind of existence unlike other objects in the world, so it is completely appropriate to view the qualities of subjects and those determinable by subjects as objectively true or false. This is where the possibility of “judgement” comes in. Refer back to 3) above.

Judgements should be accorded as much credibility as fact statements because fact statements are, in fact, judgements by subjects about objects qua objects; whereas judgement statements are judgements by subjects about subjects qua objects.

I know the above will be confusing to you, but read it slowly and let it sink in.

 

[inocente]

Well, we can just skip by all the preliminaries, then.

Your version suffers from precisely the same issue as Bahman’s

How do you know “beauty is subjective and only based on personal feelings, tastes and opinions” absent an objective definition or concept of what “beauty” is?

If there is no common understanding of beauty AND, according to you, none is possible, then you cannot possibly insist – with any objective certainty – that “beauty is subjective” is objectively true nor that it means anything at all.

YOU, too, along with Bahman, may just as well insist that “(&%$^#T is subjective!” for all THAT means, since (&%$^#T is as semantically and objectively empty as the word “beauty” according to the implicit assumption grounding your entire argument.

Implicit in your use of the word “beauty” is an underlying assumption that individuals are talking about the same thing, when they say “beauty,” otherwise it would be senseless to claim, “Beauty is subjective,” as if that means anything at all.

How can you possibly know you are talking about the same thing as (or argue with, for that matter) someone who claims “Beauty is objective,” WITHOUT an implicit understanding that you are talking about the same thing as they are?

Ergo, you assume the word “beauty” means something objectively real and definable in your very assertion that “BEAUTY IS SUBJECTIVE.” That, together with your tacit admission that everyone you are addressing understands precisely what you mean by the word “beauty,” implies that you give away the argument in the very act of trying to defend it.

If you want to bolster your argument at all, your BEST next move is to close your lips and say no more on the matter because with each attempt at defending your assertion you dig a little deeper in the trench called “Argument Refuted.”

If nothing else, you are persistent. All the evidence is that beauty, what is pleasing to the eye, is in the eye of the beholder. The history of aesthetics is that different cultures in different periods find beauty in different things. We all know that people like different things, your tastes are not my tastes.

Above, you wrote, as if I said it, “only based on personal feelings, tastes and opinions”, but you added the “only”, I never said that. You do seem to think that subjective is less important than objective, but I disagree, for two reasons. First, the words subjective and objective are not about importance, or meaningfulness, or significance, they just describe the origin.

Second, ethically, we are each a unique creation, we are not off an assembly line. We are allowed to be different, there never has been or will be another you, we each bring something special to the party, none of us is surplus, and our individual feelings, tastes and opinions are part of what makes each of us unique. “You are a child of the universe, / no less than the trees and the stars; / you have a right to be here.” - Max Ehrmann, Desiderata

So, given the lack of evidence, the lack of ethical support, and the lack of theological support, why persist in arguing for it?

 

[inocente]

That he is not talking about beauty is certain. The subject is about human frailty, as you say.

But this does not overcome the remark by Jesus about the God given objective beauty (splendor) of his Creation. This beauty of the flowers is not merely imaginary. It is objectively real. If you can spin that passage to say the Jesus is not talking about objective beauty of the flowers, go right ahead.

κατανοήσατε τὰ κρίνα, πῶς ‹αὐξάνει οὐ κοπιᾷ οὐδὲ νήθει›· λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν, οὐδὲ Σολομὼν ἐν πάσῃ τῇ δόξῃ αὐτοῦ περιεβάλετο ὡς ἓν τούτων.

Consider the lilies how they grow not labor nor do they spin I say moreover to you not even Solomon in all the glory of him was arrayed as one of these.

biblehub.com/text/luke/12-27.htm

 

[inocente]

Actually Bradski, the simple fact that individuals disagree on what is “beautiful” is a tacit assent to the objective nature of beauty. If beauty were purely subjective, there could be no disagreement, whatsoever.

:ehh: Wot? ¿Que?

And the dog got up and slowly walked away.

 

[ynotzap]

We don’t need evidence. As you said:

So if someone denies the existence of global warming, then that is the very proof that it must exist. Please get in touch with your local Republican representative immediately. They will want to know this.

I have to say that the level of argument leaves something to be denied in recent posts. This is what we’ve had just in the last few hours:

If people don’t agree on the aesthetic quality of something (because it is a relative concept) then that proves it is objective.
If someone denies that something exists, then therefore it does.

It’s like Alice through the looking glass…

It is evident that you do not understand my statements: The denial of the existence of something… the existence of something means that it’s existence has been validated, confirmed, verified! By denying its real existence is giving credence to it’s existence, because if it didn’t exist in the first place, why would you deny it’s existence, that is not logical, and is self-contradictory, self-refuting. It is self-evident that if a thing does not exist, there wouldn’t be anything to deny. Self evidence in not self evident to some. You are saying nothing in your denial. I have never said global warming is an existing truth, and I gave a criterion to determine if it was true. You misunderstood what I stated and went on to make your supposedly logical statements like Alice looking in a mirror.

As for the axe, which seems to be an obsession with you. An axe is a beautiful thing because it exists, and it exists for a purpose. It is made of a fine quality steel that is designed to hold and edge, and a good solid wood handle that make a fine quality tool to use for splitting wood, building a home, and all of this bring delight to it’s owner. It’s beautiful in it’s design. It can be used to kill another human and that betrays the ugliness in irrational human behavior, the axe is still beautiful.

As for the lion and the gazelle: Both are beautiful because they exist, one is a predator, the other is a prey. When the lion eats the gazelle it does so to survive. In the act of it’s survival it does a wonderful thing. It insures the survival of the fittest, and ,also insures the control over devastating conditions to the environment produced by over-population of animals, it is a beautiful plan when it all comes together.

Beauty has many facets (ref: my post #6) like a diamond, and all of those facets are objective, because the diamond exists, like beauty.

 

[inocente]

The other issue I have with inocente’s defintion is that it seeks to define “objective” as anything not having to do with any subject. An act such as “harvesting the body parts of unborn human beings” could not possibly, under his view, be “objectively” bad in any sense. Or if it were merely objective, it couldn’t be susceptible to any subjective determination whatsoever, since there can be no overlap between the two, by definition.

The truth of the matter is that harvesting human organs is objectively evil because the object in question – human beings – has a distinctive kind of existence unlike other objects in the world, s.o it is completely appropriate to view the qualities of subjects and those determinable by subjects as objectively true or false. This is where the possibility of “judgement” comes in

Even for you, the arguments in that post were extraordinarily convoluted. Again, the definitions are not mine, they are in all the online dictionaries and used by everyone except for you.

I have to leave, but just to use those standard definitions in what you say above. The morality of “harvesting the body parts of unborn human beings” ought not be determined subjectively (based on personal feelings, tastes and opinions), since that would amount to it-feels-good-so-it-must-be-good. Instead the morality obviously ought to be determined objectively (not influenced by personal feelings, tastes or opinions).

Which, using the standard definitions, is so obvious that it hardly needs to be stated. There’s no need for tortured arguments.