Asthetics

Yes, but there is very little of it in artifice.

Only unspoiled nature is beautiful enough to be fulfilling. Anything manmade is ugly by comparison.

this pretentious Idealization of the greeks annoys me. The greeks lived in the moment and appreciated the beauty of it, but still they weren't a bloody masterrace. They were not better than us, their culture just had a different outlook on existence than us

>implying we're not the worst, weakest pieces of shit to walk the earth so far

take the ancenstorpill

read "the decline of the west", by oswald spengler, it will give you a better outlook on all cultures, especially ours

>he doesn't appreciate the importance of the Beautiful
>a culture that believes in a poetic ideal and strives toward that goal

we can prepare for the decline though

yeah, that's what the book is partially about, btw getting of track. i think to appreciate beauty is crucial to survive in this shitshow of a world

Naaaaaaaaaaah. Kierkegaard was right in "Either/Or." Beauty is unreliable. Anhedonia can easily take it away from you.

Take the leap into the ethical stage, bois.

beauty is merely the splendor of divine truth so yes

The robot sharing his neet manisfesto on r9k and biz seems to think so.

The Greeks are so obviously superior intellectually, physically, spiritually that it makes the balls of puny moderns like you shrivel up!! So you start to talk about that you have mayonnaise in your working fridge...you bread-and-butter progressivist chink!!

I wanna dedicate my life to a sense of beauty, to aesthetics.

Yes but only when you can access it

>Kierkegaard was right in "Either/Or." Beauty is unreliable. Anhedonia can easily take it away from you.
Sounds like I need to read him

This guy thought fucking underage boys was beautiful so he's not one to really talk about objective aesthetics

The meaning of life is to cuddle with a thiccc woman who loves you after waking up.
+you have a window to the ocean showing the dawn
+and you wake up to great music

There's no greater feeling.

So did the greeks, what's your point?

No, beauty is just mind processing effect of varius sensory stimuli that we identify as beautiful.

Neither is beauty in any way connected to truth.

That we can agree to disagree

Stop this talking about truth, I much rather prefer a well crafted beautiful lie.

Fuck off postmodernist.
Go and wallow in hell.

You scared of science, user? That is how our brains work, there is no true beauty, just how we identify various things around us.

Nothing to do with post modernism. Try again.

you need to improve your shitposting skills, son

I know this is projection.
Hello teenage me! But how's it feel being 16? How's that depression going? Still virgin?
You're still young, too caustic, too self-conscious to take anything seriously.
What you write is the first conclusion every intellectual makes.
Good luck.

It is fascinating how Oscar Wilde, who was a pedophile is made out into some philosopher of aestheticism. Truly disgusting. His critics are right, he was a failure as a artist and simlpy sought some justification for his sickness.

You know how basic biology works, user? Why do you want to add mystery where there is no need for it? That is just how our brains work, no edgelord crap there. It is what it is.

You lack any rational counter argument.

Do you enjoy Caravaggio paintings?

The point is it's a statement as pointless as it claims everything else is.
>2+2=4.
Amazing!
It adds nothing to anything, it gives nothing, you learn nothing.
It's nothing but meaningless nihilism.
Knowing pain is an illusion doesn't take away the fact that your bleeding wound hurts and you have to do something about it.

No.

i feel like vomit

Post a picture you think is aesthetically pleasing

I am on poor shitty phone, can not upload pictures.

You want a example, I find marine paintings by Ivan Aivazovsky beautiful.

>was a pedophile

How is that contradictory?

Yes they can, you goober.

t. pedophile

yeah, we'll talk again in 25 years after your wife dumped you and you have to pay for her and your three kids and hang out drinking on your one room apartment while she bangs her new lover

What else is there?

Man loves woman as woman loves child

>there is no true beauty, just how we identify various things around us
>Is pure beauty fulfilling enough to be the essence of life?

Isn't life just a collection of instances of identifying various things?

If so, then beauty being merely an instance of identification is irrelevant to the question being asked by op.

>Man loves woman as woman loves child
of course, because they are biologically the weaker sex and need protetion.

To come back to the topic: Man often makes the mistake of calling women "beautiful", but they are not in the philosophical sense. THey look beautiful in order to secure humanity procreating, but they are not beautiful in the sense of something divine, that is so great it can be the meaning of life for people.

link?

This

as strange as it may sound to your moral compass, you have to differenciate between aesthetic beauty and sexual drive. Admittingly, Wilde got that mixed up some times, but that doesn't change the fact he saw a greater beauty, for examplex in greek sculptures. Romantics saw a bigger beauty in Nature and Loneliness, but it doesn't matter if they were straight, gay or whatever. Even though some aesthetics couldn't differenciate because it's hard to sometimes, you still can to appreciate true beauty

I think beauty and truth are insepersble.

I am the op by the way and really like what this thread is turning into. keep going guys. :) This is why I like Veeky Forums, even the biggest jerks here have good arguments most of the times

>of course, because they are biologically the weaker sex and need protetion.

Bearing children is the essence of life for women. I'd say the beauty a woman sees in her children can be considered divine to answer op's question in regard to women.

Men are used by women in this process. Without men women can't create children and without children the species dies. Holding all of this together is beauty. A woman's beauty is the impetus for men to work (i.e. make things for women) and a child's beauty ensures maternal love and therefore survival of the species.

>They look beautiful in order to secure humanity procreating

Yeah, and that beauty is essential

>but they are not beautiful in the sense of something divine, that is so great it can be the meaning of life for people.

If, like women, the meaning of your life is to propagate the human race then beauty is the essence of a fulfilling existence for you.

Profound revelation isn't special like you think it is. There is no ultimate truth at the bottom of the universe.

good points, first of all, but I think we have to fundamentally different starting points in our thinking. Let's take this as jump- off point:

>There is no ultimate truth at the bottom of the universe.

I agree with that, but this is where our view starts to differ

>Profound revelation isn't special like you think it is

I still think it its. If we are left in a meningless universe, but with enough mental capacity to question our existance, isn't it our task to discover or create something meaningful in our lives, in order not to go completely insane?

>If, like women, the meaning of your life is to propagate the human race then beauty is the essence of a fulfilling existence for you.

That was the meaning initially, but as I sad, "burdened" bei semi-autonomous thinking as we are, this doesn't hold up. I also do not see my purpose in life in banging chicks and protecting them from the dangers of the world, because in our society this behaviour would be irrational.

> I'd say the beauty a woman sees in her children can be considered divine to answer op's question in regard to women.

That is a point I have never thought of before and have to agree with the divine part in the sense it comes from god, but it isn't aesthetic. It isn't a way for mankind to achieve meaning in life trough beauty, because our sexual procreation can not achieve that anymore

I hope you see what I am getting at

sorry for all the typos, I am not a native speaker and I am getting really tired,for I have not slept in 2 days

Define beauty

No, 'pure beauty' is employed often as shorthand for the ideal or the absolute. But it is only a representation, not a presentation. Life is felt not seen.

>If we are left in a meningless universe, but with enough mental capacity to question our existance, isn't it our task to discover or create something meaningful in our lives, in order not to go completely insane?

Yes, but elevating the mundane seems to be a better way about that then searching for profundity.

>That was the meaning initially, but as I sad, "burdened" bei semi-autonomous thinking as we are, this doesn't hold up.

I think it does hold up because reflecting on our existence it's easy to see that without beauty we'd cease to exist in a generation.

>I also do not see my purpose in life in banging chicks and protecting them from the dangers of the world, because in our society this behaviour would be irrational.

It's not about banging chicks, but having children, i.e. ensuring continuation of the species.

>That is a point I have never thought of before and have to agree with the divine part in the sense it comes from god, but it isn't aesthetic. It isn't a way for mankind to achieve meaning in life trough beauty, because our sexual procreation can not achieve that anymore

What's your definition of aesthetic?

True, what we conventionally call 'life' is just a series of simultaneous, dumb processes. Life (the essence) is the state of self-resolution of those processes.

>It adds nothing to anything

That's the point I believe. It adds nothing to anything (being) so it is 'becoming'. This is why people keep getting sidetracked with beauty and the material. Linear perspective in art doesn't create architectural space, it projects the infinite.

>you have to differentiate between aesthetic beauty and sexual drive
>Wilde got that mixed up

So why, again, are you defending him if 1: you just said that you need to differentiate between the two and 2: you just admitted to him being unable to do so?

>Yes, but elevating the mundane seems to be a better way about that then searching for profundity.

this is something everyone has to decide individually. I tried that a lot in my teenage days, even in the sense of valuing the beauty of procreation, but in the end it didn't work

>I think it does hold up because reflecting on our existence it's easy to see that without beauty we'd cease to exist in a generation.

as said, I don't see procreation as aesthetically beautiful

>It's not about banging chicks, but having children, i.e. ensuring continuation of the species.

That was what I meant, sorry, as I sad, really tired

>What's your definition of aesthetic?
Beauty, that can be inspired by life, but Outshines it. It is a vague concept, but something we feel is dvine, not because of it being part of our survival instincts, but something that can exist apart from them. As Goethe said, the most beautiful thing in human history was man actually exceeding his nature and discovering meaning in something new: in a kind of beauty, that is not bound by earthly rules. A beauty, that is able to detach man from the cruel place he is in and take his mind in other dimensions. That was why I initially asked if it can be powerful enough to be the essence of life, as it can man make see more than just the world he was sorrounded with
and his instincts, because I am really not sure about that.

that is also why I hate political art, btw, it can't be art in the true form.

If you are more interested in this read some of Wilde's essays, like "the critic as artist" or "the decay of lying"

Brace for autism:

youtu.be/KAExa9P7hME

>Anything manmade is ugly by comparison.

That picture is manmade nigga. Nature doesn't look like that and still gave you a boner.

Except valuing things from their symmetry and patterns, in humans also abstract exploration.
It's universal. "All" animals have a sense of aesthetics, it's what drives sexual selection.

It didn't, it's merely a weak representation.

>"All" animals have a sense of aesthetics, it's what drives sexual selection.

Yes this is what I'm saying -- aesthetics (beauty) is a means to an end (life), not the end itself. Beauty is the = in the logical expression A = A.

Me too.

cheeky

Yeah but one day you'll wake up besides an old, putrid whore with saggy tits, not even decent enough to give you a boner. That's when you'll turn your endeavors to the pursuit of an aesthetic ideal, itself more fulfilling than cumming with your lover or any notion of mental peace you thought that puny window ever gave you.

yes jesus christ yes

you want terror? check
you want confusion? check
you want to remember your ancestral origins? check

you want to forget everything and experience anew now and forever? check

beauty is what is, in different shades

Aesthetics is a means to find the most healthy partner so you get the most healthy off-spring.
Biggest question is "wtf is life".
Either it's nothing but a universe achieving maximum complexity through entropy. All through nothing but physics.
Or life is the source, whatever "started" the universe is the same thing that started life. Like a yet undiscovered a law of physics.

Either way, it doesn't matter how or why, life has meaning, cause life has meaning.
Maybe contradictory and ironic, but what is meaning? "Something applying value to something else."
Why can't something apply value to itself? After all aesthetics and stuff makes us feel good.
People who claim existence is meaningless or "relative", fail to comprehend what meaning means.

Purpose is to work towards a life that achieves the greatest "feeling of good" for longest possible time.
Not cheap pleasures.
Hell is looking back at a pointless life.

>Aesthetics is a means to find the most healthy partner so you get the most healthy off-spring.

Aesthetics is different between sexual selection and art. The beauty in art is composite, comprising of the beautiful from multiple sources. Beauty is subject to the ideal, it is not the ideal. The ideal, that is the essence of life, is the end point of beauty. What we have now, the dumb processes of the universe or physics, is not life. In a way, it is what started the universe, but it is also the end point of that universe. The only way that process knows how to act itself out is because it is already complete. A = A. The fragmented materiality of the universe will be reconciled in some way.

>Aesthetics is a means to find the most healthy partner so you get the most healthy off-spring.

aesthetics is the mental extrapolation into linguistic conceptualization and poetics of a priori appreciated feelings, body-sensual or mind-sensual, before words, and later translated as words.. the vehicles we inhabit are not superfluous or marginal and ought to be given due consideration as to their appreciative and dismissing capacities. I often see a strange blue and red ring around the rims of leaves if i allow my eyes to stare long enough at them and it seems to me that the full spectrum comes to bloom when you consider prolongedly any vessel of gods creation with the eyes

Aesthetics is apprecation, which extends beyond what you've mentioned.

I'm talking about animals, and "why" it exists.
Not how it exist and has transformed in humans.

I guess you're just saying what I'm saying with more DMT.

humans are animals, and are also more than animals, so you must take into consideration that additional propensity, possibility we carry

Humans through our sheer brain size in addition to crazy grooves.
Has resulted in all other animals instincts becoming abstract and perplexing.
I was writing holistically, aesthetics is mostly used to to find healthy males by females. Cause a male fish that can create "perfect" symmetry must a superbly healthy fish.

In humans its no-longer symmetry in spheres or in a dance. But perfection in all fields. I wasn't denying this.

What we have now is life, because that's what you are, life, you're inside it, you are it, anything you convey as a thought or conception has at its core the life which is you, you are projecting concepts outward from your source of life so what are you even talking about

the "ideal" if you want a capitol I is beauty itself, buckminster fuller had these words to say about any formula he intuited: "If it was beautiful to me, I knew it was wrong".

They are one and the same. Life, truth, beauty, ...science is a kind of appreciation of the unfolding process, given symbolic arbitraries which carry forward certain prolonged mythological processes as yet not comprehendded by us.

>aesthetics is mostly used to to find healthy males by females.

It seems then you cannot fathom the life of a solitary artists totally enamored with the form and refinement of his/her vision which has absolutely nothing as far as they are concerned with finding someone to create genetric progeny with, perhaps rather to create progeny in the minds of those who inhabit the space of their art as they have in the form of the fire of the creative spirit which is more than the physical vessel, the organism. There are parrallells, and then certain parrallells dissolve.

"if it wasn't beautiful" *

>I guess you're just saying what I'm saying with more DMT.

Maybe. I'm attacking the idea that "pure" (I suppose I don't know what this means) beauty is fulfilling enough to be the essence of life based on the assumption that this argument leads to the promotion of craft. But my idea is that while there is beauty (again, don't know what 'pure' means in this context so I could be mischaracterising the argument), the ideal woman is comprised of 100 different beautiful women, indicating something beyond beauty, that often uses beauty in its service as a pictorial shorthand like how the crucifix is often employed as a representational stand-in for Christ -- it is sufficient in a way, but not all-sufficient when considering everything else that Christ is supposed to be. The ideal or the 'absolute' is supposedly all-sufficient in this way -- it is true life, and 'everything' as opposed to 'being/something/anything' and 'nothing' -- that is, by being something and nothing it is 'becoming' (towards what? itself, in its fullness). And again, in Christian thought, God is the beginning and the end of 'life' as a temporal process. But he is also life.

It's "just" entropy.
Began as zero/one, and will end with infinite separation of everything.
We're in-between nothing and nothing, in the middle of this, there's immeasurable complexity. I'll leave you to imagine what that can achieve.

>is mostly used to
I wasn't denying anything, definitely not the esoteric side of mankind.

You'd like this guy.
That's pretty much what he's talking about, ignore the memes and contrarians. Maybe you already do.
youtube.com/watch?v=Urd0IK0WEWU
The last 30 min is enlightenment itself.

lmao men bask in the accolades of peers for being self-proclaimed unloving dogs of lust and champions of muggy dark filled rooms. But when someone gets a leash around their damn necks they tuck tail and bark and snarl at all who touch their chain or the doghouse built for 'em. Yeah, the comfort of a lovers breast ain't nothin to trifle with, but so's a warm bed on a cold morning. Eventually you'll be torn from the imagined nirvana of people un-changing, what you gonna do then baby? Remain under the roof of a dismantled house with no rope to hold you there? Good way to starve. Better to wander out into the street, might catch mange, might be cute enough for someone else to let you frolic in their yard. Every dog has more than one day. Stop pissing in your water bowl, you stupid fuckin mutt.

Also never get married lmao I never understood why anyone would do that

Maybe I would but I also believe the postmodernists were fundamentally right. There's probably a point (given what I have said so far) where the two are reconciled. These ideas mainly come from what I have been exposed to from Rousseau, Hegel, Marx, Freud, the Surrealists (including Bataille), Debord, Foucault, Derrida, off the top of my head.

So does he.

Congrats on using so many words to say absolutely nothing.

>16
>still virgin
wtf is it with you faggots and virginity? I haven't lost mine until 24; it's not even that big of a deal. Jesus.

Unless you're saving yourself for marriage thats weird.

Maybe in America

Not knowing love by 24 is normal in other countries? Where you from, boyo?

I'm fully aware that losing virginity does nothing to your maturity, it might even make you behave more immature.
It's more the fact that a virgin neet, "feels" poster on Veeky Forums, is likely to hold nihilistic believes. Mostly out of spite.
I said I was projecting.
After all...
>The physical pleasure from pounding pussy is nothing compared to a real powerful emotional connection.

Literally this, I had same it like you.

>losing virginity does nothing to your maturity, it might even make you behave more immature

Maybe it's just me but the ability to forge a social/romantic connection with another human of the preferred sex is a requisite for FullMaturity(tm).

What I meant with.
>Having sex with an aesthetically lovely woman, both physically and personally.
>Then waking up with her and cuddle the morning for hours.
There lies heaven, enlightenment, fulfillment, dying afterwards would seem like no big deal.

What? No. Thats wack. What you're saying is wack.

True beauty lies in the feminine form.

Oh my god can you leave that grand purpose, life's a miracle bullshit behind.
"True beauty." Jesus christ.

All I said was: If you are a virgin past a certain age, chances are you're bad at connecting with other humans on an emotional level.

WOMEN MAN
THE MEANING OF LIFE IS TO FUCK, SLEEP AND CUDDLE WITH BEAUTIFUL WOMEN