View Poll Results: What is beauty?

Voters
68. You may not vote on this poll
  • Subjective

    17 25.00%
  • Objective

    22 32.35%
  • Both/neither subjective and/nor objective

    27 39.71%
  • No idea

    2 2.94%
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 49

Thread: Is Beauty Really Subjective?

  1. #31
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Last Online
    Thursday, May 13th, 2010 @ 01:33 AM
    Ethnicity
    Extraterrestrial
    Ancestry
    Germany/Saxons
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    Lower Saxony Lower Saxony
    Gender
    Age
    31
    Posts
    1,464
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Griffon View Post
    Haven't I explained it enough? It seems you don't actually read my posts.



    Do you get an idea of what "fitness" is? Being more fit means having a genetic advantage. Handsomeness and intelligence are obviously advantageous to the individuals who possess them.
    For the high IQ part, each trait has both advantage and disadvantage, the higher instance of social adaptive problems among higher-intelligence people does not negate its fitness, it's only when the disadvantage of lower social adaptiveness outweigh the advantage of higher intelligence will the individual becomes "unfit", for instance a person who is ultra-smart but too timid that he never dare speaking to strangers.



    Genes are the "codes" by which almost all organisms are built, they are fundamental.



    Each parent shares 50% genetic matters with his/her biological child, that's why parents love their children regardless of how good-looking they are, however, I doubt any parents would prefer to have ugly children instead of good-looking ones if they could choose. After all, more "fit" offsprings can be more successful in spreading their parents' genes after grown up.



    Again, read my posts please. I don't want to repeat what I said over and over.
    You have never explained anything about objectivity and that beauty was expression of fitness is not really an explanation.
    All the time, you to other people reading your posts but those things are simply not found there.
    If you had written the definitions of beauty, your objective beauty and objectivity already you could have just copied and pasted it.

    Genetic advantage? Whatever something is will be advantageous if it breeds and that's not the case for high IQ people usually. They often cannot relate to the commons in society and therefore won't breed either hence making it an unfavourable trait whereas people who are totally adapted to our shallow society willig take part in it and successfully breed thus making it a favourable trait.

    Genes consist of atoms which again consist of quantum particles and they consist of something we're not aware of. Strings maybe.

    Sure, they just love what they get but eventually, the difference between the genes of us and the genes of most animals aren't that big either. Through killing all the similarily coded animals in your life you might destroy more of your genes than you replicate

    PS: the article about avarageness is already a strong argument against an "objective beauty" since it the avarage person people encounter differs from area to area.
    Ceterum censeo Iudaeam esse delendam.

  2. #32
    Account Inactive
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Last Online
    Thursday, January 1st, 2009 @ 01:42 PM
    Age
    12
    Posts
    61
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus View Post
    You have never explained anything about objectivity and that beauty was expression of fitness is not really an explanation.
    All the time, you to other people reading your posts but those things are simply not found there.
    If you had written the definitions of beauty, your objective beauty and objectivity already you could have just copied and pasted it.



    Genetic advantage? Whatever something is will be advantageous if it breeds and that's not the case for high IQ people usually. They often cannot relate to the commons in society and therefore won't breed either hence making it an unfavourable trait whereas people who are totally adapted to our shallow society willig take part in it and successfully breed thus making it a favourable trait.

    Genes consist of atoms which again consist of quantum particles and they consist of something we're not aware of. Strings maybe.

    Sure, they just love what they get but eventually, the difference between the genes of us and the genes of most animals aren't that big either. Through killing all the similarily coded animals in your life you might destroy more of your genes than you replicate
    High IQ people don't breed? You are making an untestified and false generalization again. They do breed, and often have more successful offsprings than lower IQ ones. It seems that you are relating high IQ with "nerdness", which is far from the truth.

    What do genes have to do with quantums? They are the unit of evolution and have nothing to do with physics.

    You clearly lack an understanding of evolutionary biology, and that is most evident from your last paragragh. Funny you accuse me of being ignorant while you don't even know what you are talking about.

  3. #33
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Last Online
    Thursday, May 13th, 2010 @ 01:33 AM
    Ethnicity
    Extraterrestrial
    Ancestry
    Germany/Saxons
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    Lower Saxony Lower Saxony
    Gender
    Age
    31
    Posts
    1,464
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Griffon View Post
    High IQ people don't breed? You are making an untestified and false generalization again. They do breed, and often have more successful offsprings than lower IQ ones. It seems that you are relating high IQ with "nerdness", which is far from the truth.

    What do genes have to do with quantums? They are the unit of evolution and have nothing to do with physics.

    You clearly lack an understanding of evolutionary biology, and that is most evident from your last paragragh. Funny you accuse me of being ignorant while you don't even know what you are talking about.
    I do not necessarily equal them with nerds although nerds are a part of them. Let's equal it with education for example since it there was already research showing that people with a graduate degree have on avarage a higher intelligence than somebody who only finished highschool and yet we find that those highly educated people have on avarage less children,considerably less.

    Talking about quantums is just an even more radical approach than talking about genes. Afterall, genes are just a dead structure of atoms.

    Actually my last paragraph was far from being meaningless and would be a good explanation for the sympathy people have with animals and their detest of meaninglessly killing them.

    But again, you totally ignored most of my points and just went on with calling me things.

    It's still quite funny that you seem know completely everything about questions researches and philosophers are debating about and have not found any answer on so far.
    Ceterum censeo Iudaeam esse delendam.

  4. #34
    Account Inactive
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Last Online
    Thursday, January 1st, 2009 @ 01:42 PM
    Age
    12
    Posts
    61
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus View Post
    I do not necessarily equal them with nerds although nerds are a part of them. Let's equal it with education for example since it there was already research showing that people with a graduate degree have on avarage a higher intelligence than somebody who only finished highschool and yet we find that those highly educated people have on avarage less children,considerably less.

    Talking about quantums is just an even more radical approach than talking about genes. Afterall, genes are just a dead structure of atoms.

    Actually my last paragraph was far from being meaningless and would be a good explanation for the sympathy people have with animals and their detest of meaninglessly killing them.

    But again, you totally ignored most of my points and just went on with calling me things.
    Genes have nothing to do with atoms or quantums, gene is the unit of evolution and evolution is an mechanism. Atoms or quantums are irrevelent in this mechanism. Everything can be broken into atoms, this doesn't make it any less meaningless. You are confusing macro and micro here.

    A good explanation of what? What a joke, this "explanation" is laughable, clearly a product of someone who know very little about evolution.

    So now you are accusing me of ignoring your points? eyes: How ironic, in the previous posts I always refuted your points one by one. It's you who just quoted my ENTIRE posts and then just tried to refute a few points... how many points I made have you deliberately ignored so far?

    There is no point arguing with you any more, educate yourself with some knowledge first. Until then, I won't reply to your posts in this thread any more.

  5. #35
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Last Online
    Thursday, May 13th, 2010 @ 01:33 AM
    Ethnicity
    Extraterrestrial
    Ancestry
    Germany/Saxons
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    Lower Saxony Lower Saxony
    Gender
    Age
    31
    Posts
    1,464
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Griffon View Post
    Genes have nothing to do with atoms or quantums, gene is the unit of evolution and evolution is an mechanism. Atoms or quantums are irrevelent in this mechanism. Everything can be broken into atoms, this doesn't make it any less meaningless. You are confusing macro and micro here.

    A good explanation of what? What a joke, this "explanation" is laughable, clearly a product of someone who know very little about evolution.

    So now you are accusing me of ignoring your points? eyes: How ironic, in the previous posts I always refuted your points one by one. It's you who just quoted my ENTIRE posts and then just tried to refute a few points... how many points I made have you deliberately ignored so far?

    There is no point arguing with you any more, educate yourself with some knowledge first. Until then, I won't reply to your posts in this thread any more.
    Haha you can't stop telling me how little I seemingly knew, can you? Everything is laughable and just shows how little I knew about it and that to a degree that it's not even necessary to counter it with anything but calling me
    Nevertheless, you're a cute guy with your rhetorics so I can't be be that much annoyed by them.

    Your reply about quanta and genes is exactly what I wanted you to say to point out a weekness of that theory because you're doing exactly the same with your genocentrism on every phenomenon in complex organism, which are perfectly capable to be more than just a bag of geneticly determined traits, something even the best known representative of the "selfish gene" thesis explicitely mentions whenever he can.

    I guess you refuted all my points with the same invisible font you explained beauty, objectivity etc. with,right? I guess the same applies to the points I allegedly ignored.
    Ceterum censeo Iudaeam esse delendam.

  6. #36
    Sanity Is For The Weak
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Hanna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Norwedish
    Ancestry
    Norwedish
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    Norway Norway
    Location
    Trondheim
    Gender
    Family
    Precis når du vil
    Occupation
    Student
    Politics
    Logic
    Religion
    Perfectionism
    Posts
    988
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    Well it's subjective for those who don't have it.

  7. #37
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Schmetterling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    German
    Gender
    Age
    36
    Posts
    760
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    28
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    62
    Thanked in
    29 Posts
    Beauty is subjective, I think. Even the hunchback of Notre Dame can be beautiful. His gestures to defend his love were what made him beautiful. Beauty is not only what we see on the outside. I couldn't be with a sex symbol who has an ugly character. I would rather be with someone average looking but who has a big heart. Physical beauty fades with age, but inside beauty doesn't.

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Schmetterling For This Useful Post:


  9. #38
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Last Online
    Saturday, June 14th, 2008 @ 02:40 PM
    Subrace
    Baltid+Brunn+Atlantid
    Country
    Canada Canada
    Gender
    Age
    31
    Family
    Single
    Occupation
    Student
    Politics
    Disoriented
    Religion
    Atheist
    Posts
    386
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Griffon View Post
    As I have already said, we cannot see the fitness of a person directly, we see it through the ways that we can perceive, for instance, his look, his behavior etc. That's also why I said beauty is the expression of fitness.
    so what you are asserting is that beauty is the expression of fitness, but only a certain way of its expression (afterall, the scarred individual is fit, their appearance is an expression of their fitness, but it is an unconventional one).. well then how do you define which mode of expression of fitness is beautiful and which is not? i don't see how this can be done objectively

    Intelligence is not directly related to beauty, but it's one of the most important fitness traits. The more intelligent a person is the more "fit" he/she is. For example, almost all women like intelligent & handsome men. The combo is just deadly.
    right...that is what i hinting at...so your definition of beauty as an "expression of fitness" leaves out one of the most important characteristics of fitness (i.e. intelligence)...don't you think this puts its validity into question?

    What is life based on, anyway? It's the genes, almost all living organisms including you and me are gene-based. It's the fundemental factor and the basic selection unit in evolution.
    well, we're carbon based, with a bit of water thrown in ...we are more than just genes. if you splice a bunch of human dna into an e.coli it won't become any more human, if you isolate some dna in a test tube, you won't discover a life form the next day. yes genes are important, but there is more to life than just genes (not to mention that genes themselves are not just dna, strictly speaking)...and i happen to think that the individual is the basic unit of selection. that is why personality, even though it has not been strongly correleted to particular genetic profiles, is a major factor in partner selection.

    Quote Originally Posted by Griffon View Post
    Genes have nothing to do with atoms or quantums, gene is the unit of evolution and evolution is an mechanism. Atoms or quantums are irrevelent in this mechanism. Everything can be broken into atoms, this doesn't make it any less meaningless. You are confusing macro and micro here.
    no, you, and some others, *claim* that genes are the units of evolution, and many of you base this on a reductionist view of "genes are the smallest cohesive units that change"... but for all we know there might be quantum effects underlying genetics and the mechanism of selection...i.e. your, or i should say that dude's (the one from selfish gene) theory, is not waterproof...

    no one is confusing the macro with the micro (btw, genes are micro just as atom are ), if anything you're confusing the real world with its proposed simplified model...and not a very recent one at that....

  10. #39
    Account Inactive
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Last Online
    Thursday, July 5th, 2012 @ 06:07 AM
    Subrace
    Atlantid
    Country
    United States United States
    Location
    Metropolis
    Gender
    Age
    39
    Family
    Single
    Occupation
    Journalist
    Religion
    Protestant
    Posts
    6,675
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    10
    Thanked in
    10 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by a.squiggles View Post
    so what you are asserting is that beauty is the expression of fitness, but only a certain way of its expression (afterall, the scarred individual is fit, their appearance is an expression of their fitness, but it is an unconventional one).. well then how do you define which mode of expression of fitness is beautiful and which is not? i don't see how this can be done objectively



    right...that is what i hinting at...so your definition of beauty as an "expression of fitness" leaves out one of the most important characteristics of fitness (i.e. intelligence)...don't you think this puts its validity into question?



    well, we're carbon based, with a bit of water thrown in ...we are more than just genes. if you splice a bunch of human dna into an e.coli it won't become any more human, if you isolate some dna in a test tube, you won't discover a life form the next day. yes genes are important, but there is more to life than just genes (not to mention that genes themselves are not just dna, strictly speaking)...and i happen to think that the individual is the basic unit of selection. that is why personality, even though it has not been strongly correleted to particular genetic profiles, is a major factor in partner selection.



    no, you, and some others, *claim* that genes are the units of evolution, and many of you base this on a reductionist view of "genes are the smallest cohesive units that change"... but for all we know there might be quantum effects underlying genetics and the mechanism of selection...i.e. your, or i should say that dude's (the one from selfish gene) theory, is not waterproof...

    no one is confusing the macro with the micro (btw, genes are micro just as atom are ), if anything you're confusing the real world with its proposed simplified model...and not a very recent one at that....
    Griffon isn't stupid enough to agrue with you. Why don't you go read the Selfish Gene, and actually come up with valid Scientific points, not the drivel of a 9 year old. Your not saying anything of substance, just expanding on your own opinion. Why don't you quote Scientific studies and use Scientific terminology? Dropping out of high school wasn't your best move.

    But its not too late, you can still get your GED, its never to late to get an education.

  11. #40
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Last Online
    Saturday, June 14th, 2008 @ 02:40 PM
    Subrace
    Baltid+Brunn+Atlantid
    Country
    Canada Canada
    Gender
    Age
    31
    Family
    Single
    Occupation
    Student
    Politics
    Disoriented
    Religion
    Atheist
    Posts
    386
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by DriftWood View Post
    Griffon isn't stupid enough to agrue with you.
    he's that much smarter than you? (as you seem to seek out confrontations)

    Why don't you go read the Selfish Gene, and actually come up with valid Scientific points, not the drivel of a 9 year old
    you don't "come up with valid scientific points" by reading a 33 year old genetics theory...you regurgitate outdated drivel.

    Your not saying anything of substance, just expanding on your own opinion.
    actually, i'm trying to show that the oposite opinion is not valid, not that mine is


    Why don't you quote Scientific studies and use Scientific terminology?
    like what? the scientific terminology you use? and what should i quote the studies in support of? the objectivity or subjectivity of beauty is not a subject widely studied by empericists...

    Dropping out of high school wasn't your best move.
    duh. how could it be if i never made it?

    But its not too late, you can still get your GED, its never to late to get an education.
    is that what you are doing mr."student"?

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 193
    Last Post: Monday, December 14th, 2009, 09:41 PM
  2. Beauty Is Objective, Not Subjective
    By Ventrue in forum Fashion & Beauty
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Monday, December 12th, 2005, 06:55 AM
  3. Reality: Objective or Subjective?/The Object
    By Stríbog in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: Monday, September 19th, 2005, 03:14 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •