Isn't the west now in a nihilistic state where It can't assert objective measures of beauty and morality?

explain the damage done to fine arts where an empty canvas is shown in museums.

symphonic orchestra**

You're right and the Jews have made sure of that. I honestly think that western civilization (whatever that means to you) is on its way out.

It is amazing how complete is the delusion that beauty is goodness.
Leo Tolstoy, The Kreutzer Sonata

No one in the mainstream pays them any attention .

Are there units with which to measure morality, or is it a comparitive scale like hardness in minerals? How reproducible are the results?

Is beauty measured in the same way?

Explain it yourself you're the one lamenting the downfall of art. If you want to see classical pieces they're still displayed in Museums. Rembrandt & Monet aren't going anywhere. If that's the peak of art in your mind, they still exist. They still cause a stir when they're displayed in galleries.

Who are you to say 'this is the final plateau of artistic achievement and everything should be modeled like them'. But even those masters were an evolution from previous masters. Art has never 'stood still'. Where was art suppose to 'stop'? Impressionism was decried by the Academy because it WAS a chance from realism but now its bonafide 'classical genius'.

It all seems very arbitrary to me what you are railing at.

>You know there's modern day composers right?
and they're all shit
>You know there are modern day 'geniuses' who have been trained in classical composition from when they were little and are creating music like Beethoven or Chopin today right?
Wrong.

Nobody in the 'mainstream' payed Mozart attention, he played for the courts. Do you think the average jackoff cared about Mozart? I'm sure he preferred his ribald drinking songs.

>It all seems very arbitrary to me what you are railing at.
because you don't actually believe in anything and your defining trait is apathy.

The courts WERE the mainstream dumbass.

I have never in my life envied a human being who led an easy life; I have envied a great many people who led difficult lives and led them well.
Theodore Roosevelt

>modernists trying to systematize
>muh white civilizashun
indians had government btw

I didn't know the "mainstream" meant only the top ~5% of people in society.

Beauty is defined as a catharsis when you experience it, akin to watching a baby laugh, a little girl smile, your first love, praying.

Is like asking:
But do experiencing beauty will make me a better person?
Do sharing a conection with the original creator (source god) will have an influence over me?

Go smoke some ayahuasca, pls.

>morality exists in animals as well.
No it doesn't.
'muh law' on any level is not morality

>morality sciences
STEMspergs calling it 'le science' doesn't make it objective. For one, STEMspergery is not objective.

Art that makes more money must be more beautiful. Seems simple enough to me.

that's actually wrong and you could simply google : morality on animals.

social animals show the same moral behaviours human shows.

>theyre bad becuz i sed so weres me firetruks?!

You can't even articulate your argument beyond a petulant fit that modern art isn't 'as good' as old art.

>moral behaviors
Not morality, STEMsperg.
Humans aren't moral either. They're legalistic.

He who loses money, loses much; He who loses a friend, loses much more; He who loses faith, loses all. –Eleanor Roosevelt

That doesn't sound very objective to me, and how does the consumption of psychedelics rate on the morality chart?

youtube.com/watch?v=GcJxRqTs5nk

you're wrong and haven't even watched some intro to the topic retard.

social behaviours in animals show the same moral rules humans abide.

most moral codes have actual survival advantages.

morality can be explained with evolutionary psychology.

even animals enjoy music.

but you're a pleb redditor.

beauty is an spiritual conection to the source creator.

have you ever cried watching a movie?

>Go smoke some ayahuasca
It's a brew, dumbass.

Yes.
That's why I think that Muslim immigration to Northern Europe in the long run will be a positive development. There are many problems in the Muslim community, but at least Islamism is better than modern Western nihilism. They still have some standards other than "if it feels good do it" and while they do have some problems with hypocrisy, I frankly think hypocrisy is better than moral nihilism.

That top ~5% dictated the culture for the rest of society, itwasn't dictated by the social trends of street thugs and prostitutes like ours is.

READ MY POST YOU RETARD
THOSE BEHAVIORS AREN'T MORALITY
EVOLUTION AND EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY ARE NONSENSE
LEGALISM IS NOT MORALITY, IT IS LAW-ABIDING. MY FUCKING ASS DO THEY NEED TO START TEACHING YOU STEMSPERGS ETHICS INSTEAD OF HAVING YOU REGURGITATE 'MUH BEHAVIOR MUH BEHAVIOR'

I do think muslim inmigration at least make western people ask the important questions.

do we have a purpose?
do we have a morality?
is our moral codes superior?
is christianity good to us?
is our history something we should cherish?

I say at least making such questions under the flag of nationalism is making the west wake up from suicide.

There's no point in ariculation when dealing with nihilists like you who will default to asking "but why" over and over again like a child.

Calm the fuck down Ahmad Fardid.

But what is the objective measure of beauty. How is that objectively measurable?

>abloobloo stop askin queshuns ;c

Our cultural trends still are set by a small elite. I think that the difference is that Habsburgs, Bourbons and Wittelsbachs were better and had better taste than our current Media CEOs.

>they're good because...
?

ok, let me explain in baby terms with playdoh:

>caring for the childen
this implies the adults will give the cubs a chance to survive.

>motherhood
this implies the offspring chance to survive while in a weak state as a children.

>raising other male children
this stem from the fact weak and beta males will protect kids that are from his same group, in the sense that maybe I wont have kids, but my brother DNA could survive.

>caring for the elders
group survival protection, since the older guys have more wisdom.

>following authority
group survival strategy, social order.

>slut shaming
the problem of the cuck kids and STD propagation.

most other morality axis can be explained by using evolution.

>muh survival
NOT A REASON YOU STUPID FUCKING STEMSPERG
NOT MORALITY YOU STUPID FUCKING STEMSPERG
EVOLUTION DOESN'T OCCUR YOU STUPID FUCKING STEMSPERG

Yes, that actually is a perfect valid response in this age of post-modernism that we have been ushered into.

Just like everything else, questions have no objective value, so stopping wasting everyone's time by asking them.

I think they should, but at least in our cultural elites we don't have much thinking on this. They basically think morality is solely about reducing sexism/racism and gay stuff.

I'm certainly not Muslim. To me, the best alternative would be a revival of traditional Christianity.

But Islam leads to better people than Western nihilism. Society is better with more pious Muslims (of the non-violent kind) than with more Nihilists (of the non-violent kind, to make the comparison fair).

>EVOLUTION AND EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY ARE NONSENSE
>EVOLUTION DOESN'T OCCUR YOU STUPID FUCKING STEMSPERG

Could you explain?

Objective value doesn't exist. Why do you STEMspergs fetishize objects so much?

>AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
>failed philosocuck triggered because evolution explain better morality than his failed 2k history of mental circlejerk

You complain about STEMspergs, but what have you studied to claim there is no objective value?

I'd still like to know what the objective measures for beauty are.

>believing in progressivist memes made up to justify a way of thinking
But that isn't morality, it's legalism
Why are you so illiterate?
>circlejerk
Said the MUH FUGGIN WHITE CIVILIZASHUN
/pol/cuck
>study
STEMsperg fuck off

>STEMsperg fuck off
So, I take you didn't go to college.

I'm not a professional philosopher.
but I've come to the following definition:

Art is basically a combination of:
Technique (old rules of the craft, gained through trial and error during centuries).
Vision (the original idea, can be measure in terms of historical importance)
Emotion (how much emotion does the work produce on average people).

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalism_(Chinese_philosophy)

>legalism
what?

I'm talking about morality in the sense how is understood by morality scientists.

all you can possibly argue with this that some sort of behaviors resembling 'morality', which is an extremely abstract concept to apply to animals, is a useful tool for survival nothing else.

morality evolved because of evolution, it didn't appeared magically in humans.

both humans and animals share the same forces that developed morality.

there's ingroup morality in terms of interspecies moral behaviours where a specie helps another and protect each other from depredators.

It's ironic because it was objective STEMspergism that got us to the point where only objects are real, and consequently most of the human experience gets written off as irrelevancy to be deconstructed by idle ivory tower "intellectuals".

The fucking assholes killed God.

what do you mean by that? how some animal infants fool other animals and appeal to their motherly instincts to survive with the other animal's help?

>But Islam leads to better people than Western nihilism.

No, it absolutely does not. For all it's faults the West has produced a morality that is vastly superior to that desert religion, and it shows. Islam has had a civil war for 1200 years, and they still think righteous behavior is cutting off thieves' hands and murdering their sisters for extra-marital sexual relations.

Any man who demands that others assume the burdern of defining beauty for him is a dishonest man with a bankrupt soul operating with ill intent.

>For all it's faults the West has produced a morality that is vastly superior t
And abandoned it for nihilism.

This is your country on nihilism

dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-4856092/Bella-Thorne-shares-video-dancing-sexy-dress.html

all of morality can be explained using evolutionary psychology, since all the morality axis can be defined by some survival force.

A system of morality which we promptly abandoned in favor of hedonistic atheism.

That's all well and good to propose a system, but I'm wondering what the objective measures of beauty previously used in the west were, as per the OP.

Seems pretty subjective to me tbqh

my example just points at how abstracted of a concept this 'morality' is, in the case of animals caring for other species the other species is prdating on the motherly instinct of the host, like the cuckoo(yes the cuck bird) what it does is decisively amoral yet functions through 'morality' of another species and it literally could not survive without this amoral behavior. How do you categorize that? In my mind morality is too abstract of a concept to apply to the animal kingdom

This doesn't prove anything you fag. You can't point to an individual's behavior and then generalize to the entire culture.

beauty in art can only be compared to traditionally works considered masterpieces.

but is pretty obvious to read shakespeare and see it's beauty compared to an average fanfic.

same with movies.
I would say the average plebian has a better sence of beauty than intelectuals, because most intelectuals have been brainwashed by cultural marxists to destroy art.

is not abstract, our psychology didn't evolved magically in separation from other animals.

animals are as well moral creatures, at least social dynamics tend to evolve the same moral codes we have.

we're not magically unique beings.

This is someone who is pushed as some sort of role model by our cultural elites

dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-4515600/Jennifer-Lawrence-refuses-apologize-strip-club-fun.html

you have not adressed my example, you just restated your point

This applies to all forms of association. Cohabitation of two individuals under the same roof may lead to the enslavement of one by the will of the other, as it may also lead to liberty for both. The same applies to the family or to the co-operation of two persons in gardening or in bringing out a paper. The same with regard to large or small associations, to each social institution. Thus, in the tenth, eleventh and twelfth centuries, we find communes of equals, men equally free - and four centuries later we see the same commune calling for the dictatorship of a priest. Judges and laws had remained; the idea of the Roman law, of the State had become dominant, whilst those of freedom, of settling disputes by arbitration and of applying federalism to its fullest extent had disappeared; hence arose slavery. Well, of all institutions or forms of social organisation that have been tried until this day, Communism is the one which guarantees the greatest amount of individual liberty - provided that the idea that begets the community be Liberty, Anarchy.
dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/comanar.html

The same thing applies moron.

you haven't adressed a good argument why morality is imaginary.

I stated my point, you came with huh duh adhominens.

>ad hominem
what, do you identify as a cuck bird now?

This post annoys me for the simple reason that he thinks that competition and cooperation are mutually exclusive. Which it is not, and never has been.

Nobody brings a chess board to a hockey game.

So the objective measure of beauty is comparitive, again, a bit like Moh's hardness scale. But in that you simply see if one mineral will scratch another; how do you compare two similar works to see which one is better and how reproducible is it?

also, I think you're mixing me up with someone else, I think morality is an unstable and too abstract concept as a whole to ever have an objective form that we can find

you need to let time pass before claiming a piece of art is a masterpiece.

many of popular ancient works stopped being important when the culture change.

masterpieces in art are pieces of art that speak to people from diferent cultures and generations.

If a piece of art can still evoque emotions on people from centuries apart, then is a masterpiece.

Most people would claim popular art to be masterpieces, but we don't have enough time to see if they will have any historical impact.

actually morality is a concept well understood, is not some vague concept.

many claim to understand it but people always differ on what it is, as of now it is not stable

>How can I compete with other cultures when they don't have such self defeating problems?

Overcome those problems.

The logical end to evolutionary based nihilism is a return to family and nationalism. If we only exist to survive and reproduce, your duty is to survive, reproduce, and protect those who you share common legacy with.

Previously this was your countrymen, now it is more likely your race within your country.

uneducated retards.

your entire legal system is based around the concepts of good and evil.

...

actually it is based on what holds together a properly functioning society, I've been to law school
the morality part is still getting figured out, as is the law part actually

morality is nothing more than the concepts of good and evil.

Is killing good?
Is raping babies good?
Is abortion good?

Some of those questions are muddied by ideology, but overall morality is well understood.

So the objective measure of beauty is simply the sum of opinion plus time? That's interesting. I do wonder why such a simple clarification took so long and such a great amount of prodding to tease out, but thankyou.

repeating the same thing over and over again does not make morality more well understood, it is a complex topic still. Even morality systems that offer objective morality(like religions) are embroiled in internal disputes

because most people have ideologies.

wanna talk about food?

ask people who cook.

I do write, draw, zbrush, poetry, animations (3D), compose music for fun.

So, I've learned mediocrelly around the basics of pretty much all classical arts, so I have a basic understanding of what art is.

because some stuff contradict each other.

by example, abortion:
Is abortion good or bad?
Neither and both.

>neither
because both positions are valid.

>both
because killing the baby will allow the mother to survive in some cases and will allow the mother to not suffer from cases where she can't raise the kid because she's a slut, she's poor, she's mentally ill.

killing the baby is wrong because life is precious and the baby have the right to be alive, also is a bad economical decision when you have a declining population.

So, both positions have arguments and you can't argue for one without being in favour of that ideology.

>You can't point to an individual's behavior and then generalize to the entire culture.
You can when that individual is a major icon of that culture.

Now we just need all moral philosophers to agree with your specific dedudctions of what is moral and we have a stable durable system.
Oh and we need consent of others because morality finds its use in a social context.

No, sorry, you can't. People in the West have individual liberty, they can do almost whatever they want to, and none of it reflects on anyone else.

>18th century
>modernist
>indians had government btw
Get off this board.

>they can do almost whatever they want to
So in other words we can use the behavior of this cultural icon to generalize the state of the culture in general.

That doesn't measure morality, it measures people's beliefs about morality.

that's how morality is measure among morality scientists.

You can't study morality scientifically.