"Taste is relative" is the excuse adopted by those eras that have bad taste

Yeah but how does that affect the tastes of the sun or the moon?

I was looking at this guy's quotes last night too. Not as interesting as the other fags I found through that thread. Too much of a traditionalist for my taste.
This is quite true though:
>The left claims that the guilty party in a conflict is not the one who covets another’s goods but the one who defends his own.

How is the narrative of the capitalist defending his rightful property any different from the narrative of workers rising up to take the fruits of their labour? Both have just as much a claim to their "property."

Attached: 242cb16a15386d28b2620e51e7268025be392fa0b2583c3d7819eaf74f7ba3be.png (513x336, 129K)

When it comes to taste, it's either good or it's bad

the moon is a woman the sun is a man. has been since time began

brother sun sister moon

And as Genesis tells us the woman's existence is thanks to man.

Roasties and moonlets btfo

kek I wasn't expecting a good response but here we are

her existence is thanks to god
and the single grand theme in poetry is man's birth through woman and death in the arms of a woman

youtu.be/woTPLIYSn54
Not a bad thing, just different. Learn to appreciate femminity instead of traps. Unless you're actually gay.

Taste is both objective and relative. For example a symphony by Beethoven and Mozart are both objectively better than a child smashing a piano. However a symphony by Mozart is subjectively better than a symphony by Beethoven.

if taste is objective why do cows not like the same things we do

If tastes never change, could they be objective?

They're not real women. It's closer to 'waifu' than any real biological and ugly entity.

Both views are right, to an extent. The relativists are right about taste developing from particular cultural conditions. And the canonical scholars are right that human beings in all cultures throughout most of recorded time were basically the same as we are today (with the same evolved inherent psychology), and that certain aesthetic qualities better appeal to that inherent psychology than others.

Good aesthetics are like a road: you can drive in a bunch of different directions and get to different places, but you can't veer off the road entirely.

People who think this tend to have bad taste

>are both objectively better than a child smashing a piano.

nope. some people prefer chaos.

you can extract some value from everything

if this isn't true, then tell me how come your mom saw any value in your dad

some people pretend to enjoy chaos so as to appear edgy

Taste is pointless

I think you mean it's the strawman that uncreative people who want everything to be a clone of the basic canon stuff they read in Lit 101 throw at those who try anything new.

Anyone who studied any art form a bit knows not everything is subjective. Best example would be architecture. No impractical architecture can be as good as practical architecture. Sport cars are beautiful because they can drive fast. Beauty arose from usefulness. But some useless stuff can be beautiful in some way, if it is so useless, it's actually amazing, nowadays more and more so, because everything is becoming so practical. And the good is never fake. In architecture, best buildings are a combination of form and function, as the form is function as well. Now some things can be good because they convey a message, but some because they feel true to earth and life in general. Some things might show us something new, because of a new technology or in poetry and painting, technique. Good art is striving to be perfect, it's a man's try to challenge himself, to look up to God. It combines practicality, honesty, some internal desire and KNOWLEDGE of art before and even art after. I'm not a native speaker so idk if I explained it well. It also has to have a certain random twist to it, something irrational, like an intentional mistake. Because today, only computers don't make mistakes. Good artists know when to make a mistake and bad ones don't. Reminds me of a saying I read here, that good poets burn their teenage poetry and bad ones publish it. But how we view art is a bit subjective, some like it more, some less, depending on their cultural background, how it resonates with them intimely. Mostly, what people generally like usually has something good hidden in it, but for some art, you might have to explain something to them. And in my personal experience - although you have to just trust Kant on this one - even laics start to enjoy something, when you give them a reasonable explanation of the background, if you tell them why it's good. They look at it differently and start using their brain more to appreciate art. Now I can tell you ASAP Rocky's first mixtape has a really nice vibe because of very easy flowing beautiful beats and he's got a nice tone in his voice, or I can tell you that the instrumentals go nicely under his storyline, which he delivers not straightforward but follows a certain motive pattern along the whole album, he's paints a picture with his words. A willing ear listens to a more experienced musician as well as the music and is not afraid to dissect it. Don't do it too much if you really want to enjoy anything, but you'll find out the logic behind every great work. Then, you can start to create.