The Objective Definition of Beauty

[laklak]

Ass is quite important, that's very true. So T&A it is.

What is this "reason" you speak of, james? It sounds rather, well, dry. Non lubricious, I mean.

[Ian]

I think ass is more important than tits. But that's just my opinion.

Objectively, it depends entirely on which way each of you is facing.

Well, obviously. But a clever guy like me will make sure to see all sides before rendering judgment. And in that regard, ass is more important than tits.

[jamest]

My point - as should have been obvious - was whether reason/knowledge should have any say in what constitutes beauty. As such, your contribution failed dismally to address this point.

Errr, except in providing an unequivocal answer in the affirmative, you mean?

Seriously, I thought you could at least read competently.

There was nothing unequivocal about your response. My question essentially asked you to consider whether beauty was devoid of ALL of reason's influence; it didn't invite you to talk bollocks about whether 'influenced by reason' and 'leading from reason' are necessarily equivalent statements.

[jamest]

Ass is quite important, that's very true. So T&A it is.

What is this "reason" you speak of, james? It sounds rather, well, dry. Non lubricious, I mean.

There is no reason why you like tits on a woman. You just do. As do I (but not too big... and preferably with big nipples ).

I'm afraid that reason falls far short of explaining beauty. Therefore, God.

[laklak]

Ah. But if God determines what constitutes objective beauty, then why are there so many different standards across different cultures?

[JimC]

I think ass is more important than tits. But that's just my opinion.

Depends if you are a birdwatcher or an aficionado of donkeys, I suppose...

[pErvinalia]

Ass is quite important, that's very true. So T&A it is.

What is this "reason" you speak of, james? It sounds rather, well, dry. Non lubricious, I mean.

There is no reason why you like tits on a woman. You just do. As do I (but not too big... and preferably with big nipples ).

I'm afraid that reason falls far short of explaining beauty. Therefore, God.

I dunno about God, but I do agree that reason doesn't really explain my absolute obsession with breasts. They really are the most beautiful things on the planet. But I can't really explain why a curved bit of soft flesh is SO beautiful.

[Sean Hayden]

The horrifying realization that you're about to shit your pants if you can't get to a bathroom also causes goosebumps.

-anyway

[Sean Hayden]

That was a bit crude wasn't it?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

The clarinet intro from Rhapsody in Blue. FUCK, that's good!

And never better than when used here.

[JimC]

Only if you're a prude, dude...

[surreptitious57]

There is no such thing as an objective definition of beauty as it is by default entirely subjective. And so one does not need reason to appreciate
any thing but one does to understand it. They are therefore not the same thing. Some things such as music or literature are better appreciated
because they elicit emotional responses while other things such as physics or maths are better understood because they elicit logical responses
I find the older I get the less need I have for emotion and so have become more logical and less emotional since becoming an atheist. Although
that is no longer an important part of who I am anymore. And so also put it down to old age and simply accepting things as they are given that
I have not much time left on this world before my transition to the next one. And which does not bother me as long as the passage is pain less

[cronus]

I like Hopper but he never was a very good painter. His way of intriguing the eye was without peer, technique not so good...social/historical study type artist...a more refined American version Lowrie.