What is the concept of beauty ?

This could be the most autistic thing I've ever read on Veeky Forums.

Bravo sir.

The sun is unclaimed for now, but I've already cum in the atlantic. I like to think a part of me stretches across the world.

Oh shit.
More plz

Human definition of beauty is synonymous with anime girls. That's why they're drawn the way they are.

Right lick on it, search google. I afraid that mod will delete if i posted all of thems, those pics are very bold

Don't be a soft cock m8.
I'm far too lazy for such nonsense.

If something lacks a use value then it is inconsequential. To say that something is 'beautiful' is essentially meaningless, it's the height of a faux-intellect.

Rei is best girl, though.

...

...

...

attractive to many.

a lot of studies and dating site data will generally say that white men, asian women and white women are the most desirable, and black men and women are usually the least desireable.

though I suppose that data doesn't take mixed race into account and that'd be tricky to pull off without everyone screaming at you.
some mixed race people can be quite good if they get a good dice roll in the genetic lottery.

...

...

Goooooooddd leg.

[spoiler]red[/spoiler]

>thinking things are beautiful is is just pretension

Well then I guess every human but you and your autistic /r9k/ chums are faux-intellectuals.

I'm glad you finally realize this, normie scum.

>aesthetic isn't a an actual experience
beauty may be subjective but it is a real experience. have you never listened to music and thought "that was beautiful" without wanting to fuck the singer?

It's shit that appeals to you on a superficial level.

Show me one actual study and not a /b/ or /pol/ tier picture.Attractiveness always depends on your surroundings and influences depening on your culture, there is literally no way to determine such "facts" for the humanity as a whole.

"Beauty" is a comletely subjective thing if you let people discover their own tastes before media/friends/family tells you what you have to perceive as "beautiful".

There are some features that get recognized as beautiful for pretty much every human (like symmetric faces for example), but that's just the way our brains work.

>enter
>enter
my phone is fucking with me

No. At most music can be comfortable the same way any pleasant noise is, but I'd never elevate the experience beyond pleasing to the senses. To do so is to engage in intellectual masturbation, it is without merit.

It doesn't exist

>I'd never elevate the experience beyond pleasing to the senses
I'm not claiming it's some transcendent property, but it is more than just "pleasing the senses". art can evoke an emotional response. something sending shivers down your spine is a subjective experience, but it is quite powerful nonetheless

I'm carbing up on Sprite.

It's a ridiculous fantasy caused by self-delusion. You want to be affected by the art so you can feel elevated, cultured. It's the same sort of deception that people who claim to have undergone religious ecstasy are committing. You want to feel something transcendent so you manufacture it in your own mind. It does not exist beyond sensory input.

personally user i like woman who can kick my ass

>You want to be affected by the art so you can feel elevated, cultured.
How do you know that? that's a huge assumption on your part. perhaps you should reread what I said. or else do you think that emotion isn't real? I'm not some art snob, just a guy that wants to see and hear things that provoke my imagination, send shivers down my spine, creates a feeling of melancholy, etc

There is no mechanism to measure art's ability to evoke that kind of response, thereby it stands to reason that it can't and the claims that it can are instances of intentional deception or, at best, self-deception on the part of those eager to see an effect where none exists.

(citation needed)
do you really think art is incapable of provoking emotion reactions? of course there isn't some objective quality of art that will always produce such a reaction. as I've said this is a subjective experience caused by personal tastes.

>pseudo-intellectual autist who thinks he's better than everyone else because he lacks the empathy to sincerely find anything other than women beautiful.

Wow, this is good. I hope you're not trolling

>There is no mechanism to measure art's ability to evoke that kind of response, thereby it stands to reason that i
But that's wrong you fucking autist.

journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00626/full

Even if said study did not exist that's still a specious conclusion.

>subjective
>personal tastes
Utter faff. If it can't elicit a measurable response reliably then it is a specter in the minds of its viewer that simply allows them to have whatever reaction they want to have. It is devoid of value, it is a symbol for deception either of others or the self.

Isolated study, clickbait title. Congratulations, you're an idiot.

It's peer reviewed and posted in a prominent neuroscience journal.

Please point out any faults in their methodology if you can find them. Oh wait, you can't because you're not neuroscientist you're just an autist on Veeky Forums making edgelord, highschool tier arguments about something you have no knowledge base in.

>There is no mechanism to measure art's ability to evoke that kind of response, thereby it stands to reason that it can't

There is no mechanism to measure women's ability to evoke that kind of response, thereby it stands to reason that they can't

Also,
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroesthetics

Don't blame others if your brain isn't capable of perceiving beauty outside of a pair of tits

>If it can't elicit a measurable response reliably then it is a specter in the minds of its viewer that simply allows them to have whatever reaction they want to have
holy shit I don't disagree with you here but
>It is devoid of value, it is a symbol for deception either of others or the self.
you are a tremendous autist. of course it doesn't have fucking objective value, but that doesn't mean it is devoid of all value. it certainly has value to me. there is no "deception" to it. it makes me feel good. I like to feel good. thus it has value to me and anyone else that it makes feel good (excluding robots like you that have never felt anything within you shiver except when blood flows to your cock)

A 'prominent neuroscience journal' doesn't change the fact that it is an isolated study, which any scientist worth the title will tell you is of limited value. You can crow about it all you want but it doesn't change the fact that it's essentially worthless as anything other than a motivation for further research.

>it makes me feel good. I like to feel good.
So you admit that you produce the feeling you want from the art you view?

>Thinks beauty is only a hormonal reaction used to get humans to fuck
>The irony when this autism will keep him from ever fucking anything

I'm committed to celibacy.

In Japan, you can order a smile from McDonalds.

Jesus that's what I've been saying this entire time. but paintings and music are capable of producing a more complex feeling than say a piece of candy or some good porn

Yeah no shit sherlock, Neurology is a burgeoning field. But that study (and there are others like it) is good evidence that aesthetics have a quantitative neurological basis.

If the human experience takes place in the brain then in the normal (ie non-autist) human experience aesthetics has as much value as any part of our lives. The experience of art as a function of neurochemistry doesn't diminish its importance because EVERYTHING would then be a function of neurochemistry.

Including the sex drive you seem to value so much.

>mfw edgelord materialist posting ITT

Everything is a function of neurochemistry. Unless you're a degenerate dualist then you have to agree that all experiences are purely within the realm of the biological, they have no transcendent nature, they just stimulate some part of the brain the same way a running cold water over your hand does, or the taste of something sweet. It is pure sensory input, just tickling the meat.

Jesus no one is disagreeing with you. you are just being an autist that can't appreciate anything while knowing this

What do you mean then by 'appreciate'? Why do you need art to be some special thing when it can just be pleasing to the senses and that be enough? Does it devalue your appreciation of art to know that I have none? If so, then does that not only further illustrate how fragile that appreciation is? How illusory? If not, then why make the case for it at all?

Okay, but then you're also forced to conclude that who a person is, their personality, aspirations, what they plan to do with their lives, whether they will bring happiness or suffering into the world etc. is also a product of neurology as stimulated by the environment.

So therefore certain types of stimulus can be more or less enriching than others. Masturbating to chinese cartoons on a mongolian basket weaving forum is probably less likely to make you a thoughtful and compassionate person than say, listening to Vivaldi or learning how to paint.

Not all stimulus is equal just because they're being fed into into the same system.

>Why do you need art to be some special thing when it can just be pleasing to the senses and that be enough?
I'm not saying that it is some special thing. you fundamentally misunderstand me. the only real difference I'm claiming is that art can provoke an emotional reaction while porn for most people wouldn't. good porn has never made a tear well up in my eye

I never really liked full Asians

Happas are my cup of tea, though.

>Okay, but then you're also forced to conclude that who a person is, their personality, aspirations, what they plan to do with their lives, whether they will bring happiness or suffering into the world etc. is also a product of neurology as stimulated by the environment.

Yes, we live in a reality of biological determinism.

>So therefore certain types of stimulus can be more or less enriching than others.

How you rank the value of stimuli is entirely subjective, illusory, and thus utterly meaningless. Being thoughtful and compassionate only seem valuable because you attribute value to them, they have none on their own because they don't exist beyond culture and some very simple biological imperatives.

>Not all stimulus is equal just because they're being fed into into the same system.

Yes, actually it is.

I've always wondered, do mixed race people have better immune systems?

>I'm claiming is that art can provoke an emotional reaction while porn for most people wouldn't. good porn has never made a tear well up in my eye
You create an emotional response from art because you want to. It does not do this on its own. Seeing a painting and gasping or pretending to be deeply moved by it are entirely play acting by those who want to feel a deep connection to the art for either personal or cultural reasons. It's not the same as touching the hot stove or eating fast food, because those at least have actual sensory input that can cause a true physical reaction.

Art is, in essence, a pleasure placebo.

POST MOAR OF THIS

what is your criteria for something to actually be "valuable"?

what if you don't want to and you end up having a different kind of response to what you're expecting? just because you're a pseud who wants to seem cultured doesn't mean everyone else is

It fulfills or subdues a biological need that, when neglected, harms the organism.

This is only true if you don't have a system of values. But by your own reasoning your lack of a system of values is created by the same things that gave me a system of values. Therefore according to you, your argument has no more inherent truth than mine when I say compassion and thoughtfulness are important.

Do you see how fucking retarded nihilism is, yet?

>what if you don't want to and you end up having a different kind of response to what you're expecting?
If you don't want to have a response, you won't. If you didn't and did anyway then it's probably a subconscious desire rather than a conscious one, but make no mistake it is entirely in your head.

>Seeing a painting and gasping or pretending to be deeply moved by it are entirely play acting by those who want to feel a deep connection to the art

That's really not true dude. I see art all the time that I'm supposed to be moved by and it does nothing to me, but occasionally I see something beautiful and moved in spite of myself.

The fact that you've never felt this is a deviation in YOUR brain. You can blame your mom for drinking when she was pregnant with you.

this is total unfalsifiable nonsense. you actually believe this or are you trolling?

So you think that someone can subjectively like blond hair or smelly feet and this has real value because it's related to sexual attraction but if someone subjectively likes impressionism it's just a matter of them fooling themselves?

Only if you conclude continuation of the organism is important.

That seems like a value judgement to me.

>But by your own reasoning your lack of a system of values is created by the same things that gave me a system of values.Therefore according to you, your argument has no more inherent truth than mine when I say compassion and thoughtfulness are important.
I pursue truth and recognize self-delusion. You fail to. You see the same patterns I do, accept them, yet still fall to illusions of biology without recognizing them and identifying them for what they are.
>Do you see how fucking retarded nihilism is, yet?
No, but I recognized how fucking retarded your pathetic postmodernism is real quick.

yeah this. if you see a slideshow of different art works you're not going to have the same response to all of them just because you think you like art

It is. But, if an organism has no desire to continue existence then it's not a part of this discussion anyway because it has either been truthful and killed themselves or are a hypocrite and self-deluded.

Yes. Absolutely.

How do you know? How do either of you know? The reality is you're either both wrong or both right because you have nothing beyond your own experiences to base these on, especially if you don't think other people's experiences as told by them are reliable.

organisms do things all the time unrelated to promoting their survival without having no desire to live, humans listening to music being a good example. you are the real hypocrite here for exalting your value judgement of biological needs above others

No dude, I recognize what you recognize but choose to value things in spite of that. Giving up and saying 'none of this matters' is pathetic. It's a loser's way of dealing with a confusing world that is devoid of moral meaning.

I chose my values based on my own mix of utilitarianism and emotions. I choose values that I believe will benefit me and my society because those things are important to me. There is nothing wrong with accepting the occasional irrationality of human experience. That is a big part of art, love and passion.

You'd understand this if you weren't hiding from yourself.

>My belief in God is what makes him real!
>Evidence? Logic? Who needs those when I have what I -want- to be true?!

So it's okay to value 'the organism' but not okay to extend that system of values to things like art and culture?

That alone is a value judgement. You've chosen, arbitrarily to what extent things can and cannot be valuable.

You just agreed with me while pretending you're somehow disagreeing. You're an idiot.

Jesus christ man. you're the fucking stereotype of fedoras incarnate. as an atheist myself I've never felt the desire to promote that shitty meme but you are making it hard not to

Your postmodernist equivocations are powerless against me. I believe in what I experiences I can measure and point to a reliable source, not what is obviously illusion and self-delusion. There's nothing arbitrary about seeing someone grab their chest and scream "I've been shot!" when you've heard no gunshot, see no wound, etc. and thinking they're deluded.

my point was that the idea of there being one response to art based on how much you wanted to like the art was not universal because it was contradicted by my own experiences with viewing art.

That's not at all what I said and you know it.

Logic and irrationality should exist in some form of balance to make a person happy and fulfilled. Go to hard to one side and you get people like your carichaturing me as, go to far to the other and you get pathetic autists like yourself fighting a losing battle on an anime forum.

It's a meme because it's broadly misapplied, as it is in this case.

reality being devoid of inherent meaning doesn't require that I ignore the feeling that art can have evoke in myself. emotions maybe the result of chemicals in the brain but that does not diminish the power that they have on us

This is the epitome of self-delusion.

so you think that emotions do not affect us since they are just chemicals?

>I believe in what I experiences I can measure and point to a reliable source

Nigga your ENTIRE argument has revolved around the fact that the human experience IS an unreliable source.

And that's bullshit what you just said. Do you need a peer reviewed study to tell you what colour the walls of your bathroom are? Or to pick what kind of hotpocket to buy? No person is 100% rational and no one ever will be.This has been thoroughly proven by behavioral scientists. You make thousands of small decisions every day and the vast majority of them are made without a single thought.

The human experience IS largely irrational. There is literally nothing wrong with accepting and even enjoying that. You're just butthurt your stunted autist brain won't let you join in on the fun.

I think any affect is entirely biological and giving it any more credit than that is intellectual masturbation and nothing more.

Post more cute Asians

>the whole human experience is just chemicals
>but emotions don't matter because those are just chemicals
>I choose to trust reality as I perceive it, through chemicals

You're literally retarded dude.

>This has been thoroughly proven by behavioral scientists.
[citation needed]

I'd love to hear how a child getting on a roller coaster is engaging in intellectual masturbation

They're clearly trying to elicit the biological fear response and the shot of adrenaline that comes with it. Bad example on your part, it pretty much perfectly illustrates what I'm talking about.

what algorithm did you use to decide which shirt to wear this morning?