Yes, however, I ve got a bit side tracked, because I was trying to establish why “I” thought the beach was beautiful that day, when it was the same place I no longer thought beautiful on the overcast day. — Brett

Perhaps it WAS that ideal combination of circumstances that you prefer that hasn’t gotten old yet?

I was going to say that I’ve seen some powerful storms I thought beautiful, but then I thought, maybe beauty isn’t what I was experiencing, just something similar. — Brett

Have you ever seen the movie, American Beauty? The drug dealing teenager with the Army dad found beauty in ordinary things, even macabre things. Maybe it’s a matter of seeing things with “fresh” eyes/perspective?

You might still prefer that certain combination of sun, sand, and sea; but if it became ordinary it would somehow lose value to you. No?

I’m not sure if being rare or less common works towards beauty. I think there must be things we only occasionally see that are truly horrible. — Brett

I think rarity is a necessary condition of beauty. I think horrible things can be rare or ordinary.

I think aesthetics are all preferences really. Many people agree on certain beautiful things, but this doesn’t imply objective beauty. We just have certain things in common. Many people would agree with me that Van Gogh’s Cafe de Nuit is beautiful, but those same people might disagree with me that Anne Hathaway is beautiful.

I think something has to be less common in order for people to see beauty in it, yes.

But what about that ideal combination makes it beautiful to you? You prefer it somehow. However, if that experience of that perfect combination became ordinary, then you might no longer prefer it. Do you agree?

Suppose that ideal combination occurred every day?

I was referring to experiences. If you had the Mona Lisa hanging on your living room wall for ten years, would it have the same quality on the tenth year as the first day? Likewise, sunsets are considered beautiful by many. If the sun was always on the horizon, would it be a big deal?

Well, the saying “familiarity breeds contempt” came from somewhere. Perhaps we don’t find ordinary things so beautiful?

Reminds me of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. What happens to the quality of a song that has been listened to a zillion times? If it was good the first time, then why was it not so good the zillionth time?

I don’t have an argument in mind as to why we should be gentler with the youth, as I’ve never thought I needed to give one. I guess it’s because they don’t deserve ill treatment yet. They’re not yet responsible for the fucked up world.

Kid or not, I treat everyone with the respect I deem they’re due. — I like sushi

We should be gentler with the young. I was just warning you to go easy.

S/he’s very mature for his/her age.

He or she is just a kid as s/he reported to me in a PM. Go easy.

Well, it’s already here and has lasted long enough to call it “lasting” I’d say? — I like sushi

Not in all parts of the world, but, yes, it is relatively peaceful; the most peaceful it has ever been.

The curious don't know what is happening. — Valentinus

I don’t know what is happening right now.

Did someone open up the gates of Winnebago Mental Health Institution?

Somebody ask me how I know true, lasting peace will eventually come, because I happen to know. — OpnionsMatter

LOL I’ll bite. How?

It is interesting to me to consider a gap between self-identification and the desire to know how one's opinions relate to others. — Valentinus

This assumes thinking in terms of an abstract relation, and there are billions of people who have difficulty thinking in the abstract.

I finally read that post I was referring to in its entirety. I agree that choosing the “better” option is what normative ethics is based on, similar to my previous suggestion of choosing the “lesser of two evils”. That said, meta-ethically I believe that ethics is based on a duty to do no harm (instinctive avoidance of pain in conjunction with finding oneself living in a community). I think the positive duties (duties to perform some actions) are more problematic epistemically than the negative duties (duties to abstain from certain actions), as telling someone they MUST act in a certain way is not descriptive of the variations we see in different societies; and in order to have a moral truth, it is easier to know what all societies abstain from than what they all commonly do.

I find it cognitively underwhelming to only read or write in curt and simplistic fashion :wink: . — VagabondSpectre

Not what I was saying at all.

I think it is more engaging to mix up sentence lengths. I find it cognitively exhausting to read many consecutive complex sentences.

I just read a little more of your post but gave up again. I would find it more enticing to read if you mixed in some short sentences with your more complex ones. But, you don’t have to take my advice.

Despite my addiction to verbosity and post length, I think I'm getting a clearer picture of the differences between our views as our discussion progresses. Thanks for your patience! — VagabondSpectre

I don’t even read your posts because they’re so long. I’m being lazy, though. I just read your opening few sentences, then skipped to this last part.

Do you get your view of “individualism” from Ayn Rand?

I think “empty bellies” is the cause of the strifes of history, not a subconscious fear of death. “Empty bellies” being a placeholder for any given want or need.

I think hatred is not created by speech. It's created by direct experiences with people who have conflicting interests with you, and who are not willing to compromise on those interests. — Hallucinogen

It also can leap from an individual to a group that it is perceived an individual belongs to. For example, a lazy thinker might have a bad experience(s) with a Latino, for example, then make the mistake of attributing that bad experience(s) to Latinos in general.

Also, the emotion of disgust can easily lead to hate. Sometimes we feel disgust for no good reason, and that can lead to hate if the feeling isn’t rationally analyzed. We should all get into the habit of analyzing our negative emotions lest they lead to poor judgements and decisions. Something I for one need to work on.

But that would put communism on the far right where some put laissez faire capitalism on the far right. I think there is a spectrum for capitalism all its own.

I believe there is a spectrum from libertarianism to authoritarianism. There is also a spectrum from anarchism to communism for economics.

This is a very productive discussion.

Thanks for the opportunity to use that word. — T Clark

Haha! That’s funny. :up:

You would probably agree that the sea is the sky, so long as whoever said that said it in disagreement with me. — S

Ah, Jeez Rick. I already said you are good at philosophy.

Yes, they created the White Album. My original point was that saying that @T Clark was saying that morality was somehow created was a straw man, but then I got confused by your reply to that.

You mean to tell me that you don't understand what people are referring to when they say that "the Beatles created the White Album"? — Terrapin Station

I understand what that means, and I agree with it in the conventional sense. But in a metaphysical sense? Never mind. It doesn’t matter much.

The point is that we don't say that society, earlier musicians, etc. were just as much the creators of the White Album as the Beatles were. — Terrapin Station

But doesn’t that suppose by the regression of causality that the Beatles created themselves? I’m not saying that society should also be paid for the album, but what does that say about morality?

Point/counterpoint. Nothing more, nothing less. No right/wrong, good/bad intended. — Mww

Okay. I appreciate your viewpoint even if I don’t totally agree with it. I am tired, and I probably shouldn’t be posting right now. I think I will just let it stand there. :smile:

rather than saying that what created it was a complex of societal, cultural, artistic, musical, etc. institutions that created it, — Terrapin Station

I don’t think he is saying that. That’s a straw man.

I'm not sure that anyone here has ever unequivocally agreed with me before. — T Clark

That’s a shame.

Although you copied my quote directly, you misquoted me in what you wrote. I said "It involves a complex interaction of societal, governmental, religious, and cultural institutions." Do you really think you created your morality out of nothing but your own self? Your parents had nothing to do with it? Do you really believe you created your mind and heart without being influenced by the society and culture around you. To me, that shows a profound lack of self-awareness.

I do think, although I didn't mention it, that a lot of our morality does come from "human nature" whatever that means, I guess it means some sort of genetic predisposition, to behave in a way that makes it easier for us to live together. As I've said many times, we are social animals. We are born to like each other. — T Clark

I unequivocally agree.