Beauty/morality/art are subjective

>beauty/morality/art are subjective

its true you know

>anything is objective

post something beautiful opie, let's see the goods

>even "nothing is objective"

But where's the argument?

It's weird to group morality with the other two. Why collapse everything when you could've had a nice discussion? Did Peterson inspire your post?

Which means, the good is whatever anyone pleases it to be, which means that they must be able to please it to be something, which means they must at least regard their ability to please to be good, which means they must value their own life, which means everyone must value their own life, which means the good is at least in one aspect objective.

>which means they must value their own life
>which means everyone must value their own life

so we have actual retards here on Veeky Forums eh?

The plebs must have their illusions of relevance, otherwise we'll have a riot on our hands.

>Our mind has some sort of magical power wherein it can objectively experience anything

the subjective character of aesthesis will always be in contradiction with the objectivity of aesthetic norms.

Hm? I think its wrong to call someone else a retard whilst throwing out ad hominems like that.

What is beauty to a creature with buttholes for eyes?

I went full ad hom because the contradiction is right fucking there.

>>
Eh its not all relative yah know?

>tfw phenomenology

>tfw I actually had to select post signs on the captcha

you got baited. he made another tautology

>it's wrong to call someone a retard [ie, to throw out ad hominems]
>whilst throwing out ad hominems [ie, calling someone a retarded]
>>it's wrong to insult someone at the same time that you insult them
>>>it's wrong to do something while you do it

But surely it is apparent I'm referring to everyone by 'they' as it is the focus of my reply in the first place?

Well, now its apparent.

The only thing I don't find subjective is morality.

>baiting this hard

-their ability to please to be good,
-which means they must value their own life

Can you explain the connection here because that does not follow.

Oh, please do show me the way to this mystical realm in which men (spirits, then, I guess) keep forming opinions of things even though they are not alive?

>Pynchon is better than DeLillo

what the fuck

Now look here, little user, to be able to value, i.e. please something to be good, necessitates that one is alive. You see, life is what makes your brain work, and your mouth go blablablabla as you babble nonsense. Understand now, little user?

Im not that other user who replied to you. Why does the fact the opinions have a source mean that one automatically values that source - which in this instance is also a source of pain and problems?

Why is it not that only the pleasurable emanations from this source hold value rather than the source itself?

Only in the sense they can be observed from multiple perspectives. Ie. political, theoretical, economical, ecological, and so on.