THW Prefer A World Where Aesthetic Beauty Doesn't Exist
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 1 vote and 3 points ahead, the winner is ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- One week
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
This resolution was taken directly from a debate tournament I once participated in. I'll try to emulate it as best I can.
THW = This house would
'Would prefer a world where' implies that this is a world where aesthetic beauty doesn't exist and does not indicate that we should remove aesthetic beauty from this world. Any arguments stemming from the transition period between having aesthetic beauty and not having aesthetic beauty are invalid as the resolution envisions a hypothetical world where it doesn't and hasn't existed. Moreover, any arguments discussing the ability of a world like this to exist are also invalid, as the resolution is, again, hypothetical.
'Doesn't exist' means that humans do not perceive it.
What exactly constitutes 'beauty' is up for debate. While it's safe to assume a person's appearance, visual art, or things relating to vision can be beautiful as beauty is most often non-metaphorically used to describe what involves vision, but does music or a story also count as beautiful? Who's to say. The definitions I included refer to 'the senses', but as to what senses or what actions that relates to is up for debate. I only mention this because I think the question of "what is beauty" beyond mere dictionary definition has the potential to be interesting.
The resolution doesn't imply that a sense/senses wouldn't exist, only that we would only be unable to perceive the things that are pleasurable to the sense(s).
Aesthetic: Appreciative of, responsive to, or zealous about the beautiful / responsive to or appreciative of what is pleasurable to the senses
Beauty: The quality or aggregate of qualities in a person or thing that gives pleasure to the senses
Sense(s): Could, but, in the context of the resolution, does not necessarily refer to vision, taste, physical feeling, hearing, and/or scent.
This debate is fairly abstract and I'm not particularly confident in how I modelled it, but I think I did okay (let me know if this isn't fair/doesn't make sense). Comment to request changes or ask questions, constructive feedback always welcome!
- Constructive Arguments/Analysis
- Beauty’s relation to the visual
- The absurdity of using beauty in relation to the other senses
- Aesthetic beauty’s effect on the unattractive
- The cost and emotional taxation on appearance
- The harm a focus on appearance causes
- The time/effort saved
- The reduction of gender roles/gender expectations
- The focus on beauty
- Removing wealth as a symbol of societal status and encouraging being a better person
the quality of being pleasing to the senses or to the mind
the quality or aggregate of qualities in a person or thing that gives pleasure to the senses or pleasurably exalts the mind or spirit
“The definition of beauty I 100% challenge, it isn't restricted to a person at all, in fact what Pro should be arguing is that a 'person' doesn't have beauty, that's just the body they're encased in so yeah I helped Pro realise what to even begin to argue..."
"...and now that Pro has incentive to remove the 'person' from their definition, I will define 'beauty':“the quality of being pleasing to the senses or to the mind”There is of course validity in Pro's definition but I'd like to embolden precisely what part of it to focus on for this debate:“the quality or aggregate of qualities in a person or thing that gives pleasure to the senses or pleasurably exalts the mind or spirit”Note that both definitions explicitly state that it's also about mental pleasure in and of itself and if we piece that together with the word 'aesthetic' and how I defined it we get the fuller comprehension that 'aesthetic beauty' ultimately refers to the very essence of beauty with the only restriction being they are physical.”
- Con never defines what it means to ‘pleasurably exalt’ nor what ‘the spirit’ means
- Con never explains how 'beauty' under their definition is only limited to the physical, which is a necessary linchpin of their definition, as if it were applicable to the non-physical, it would fall apart (per the definition of the resolution).
- Con also defines beauty as “Mental pleasure in and of itself,” despite limiting beauty to the physical. This muddies the water about if it truly is only about the physical.
- Con never tells you what he means when he says “the very essence of beauty”
... if you run only on Pro's definitions, the beauty of a song in terms of the quality/tier/creativity of the song would be disallowed to be part of aesthetic beauty of it. Furthermore, a song isn't something you look at and Pro hints that in the context of the resolution, only sight/looks matter but this is a fallacious way of twisting things. Is Pro suggesting that a blind person doesn't experience aesthetic beauty? I directly challenge that third definition.
Senses matter, each and every one. The aesthetic beauty of a meal in fact has four senses involved. You have the look of the meal, the instant taste and smell as it hits your mouth vs the aftertaste (which if you don't separate by time, you separate the senses anyway) and the texture/feel of the meal, which includes spiciness in which sense is involved.Pro would imply that only the appearance matters, this is simply not the case. Even with a sexy as fuck looking person, they open that mouth and their breath stinks? Yikes. Their voice and accent don't appeal? Didn't think of that? How does their hair feel, how nice are their hands when they're all over your body? Too graphic? Sexuality and aesthetic beauty are heavily intertwined but even there is something beyond looks. Heck, you can resent aspects of their physical body for non-looks reasoning. Let's say someone has really long fingernails with dirt in them, it's not the actual sight of the filth that necessarily triggers the 'yuck' feeling, it's the logic of knowing what danger that poses to you, it's aesthetic but mind-based, which is why the explicit focus on 'mind' being in 'beauty' matters here.
- The physical qualities of a a person, place, or thing regarding its ability to be perceived as pleasurable or desirable by one's sense of sight, or
- A quality of anything, physical or non-physical, that causes it to bring about feelings of amazement or inspiration when it is experienced; a different way of saying the quality of being amazing/extremely good.
Rather than suggest we shift our culture, media etc to not as heavily push forth a certain agenda as what's too beautiful, we instead push forth an agenda to remove beauty entirely.
Your mother will have to have either an identical look to all other things and people or alternatively your brain and hormones will need to be reconfigured that you feel nothing but dullness at the sound of her voice and looks. I know, not everyone had a great mother, I did/do but not everyone does/did, I get it. How about your father? How about your best friend? Don't fucking tell me even if they are in a wheelchair, even if they have as severe a disfiguration as this......That you can't love them, even find them beautiful due to non-aesthetic elements of what they are. That's right, the non-aesthetic beauty can make you experience altered perception of their very aesthetic features. It's why you always hate people that look like, talk like or have that unique movement/quirk of your toxic ex.
What do you think that hot as hell chick experiences? She experiences a life where her looks are what she's used for. Friendships with males or with females can be for the social status that comes with beauty. What does the sexy male experience? He has to walk on eggshells female or male around him of their 'real agenda'. Heck, even some friends of people are going to befriend him and just use him as a 'you owe me' to their other friend once a date is arranged. If you think hot people don't suffer, you are someone who is not hot nor has known someone who is on a deep level. The sexiest people to walk the planet suffer in a way that is even more cryptic and twisted of a hell than the ugly, because the ugly blatantly suffer, their very appearance is blatantly a reason for those close to them to feel pain with them as they're insulted and empathise with as they struggle to find a mate, but sexy people suffer in a way that even those close to them may scoff at. It's not just being used for your looks aspect either, the very advantage they have is a problem for them too. In the same way that while feminism was in its early stages, many women did and even still today people talk of Kamala Harris only being in their job for their gender and looks, it's fucking disgusting, it's a hell that is hard to get sympathy for. They suffer so deeply and yet can't tell most people about it. People who are bullied for being ugly or being learning-disabled can happily go to a news reporter and talk of their life and childhood trauma and get sympathy but a severely sexy person or extremely intelligent person can't do the same because the very article implies an arrogance in them that people despise (an no, not all geniuses doubt their own intelligence, Dunning-Kruger effect is overrated, many anomalies to it exist).
See, even with all the agony of the aesthetically beautiful and even with similar of the aesthetically hideous, nothing explains why you'd want a world where everybody, everything was perceived as equally dull and hideous to you. The roses may still be red in this world but the only way colours and visuals are still in tact is if our brains are rewired in this alternate reality to not perceive any beauty whatsoever... Imagine that for me.
See, what you need to understand is without suffering there is not any pleasure on the other side of it. Without the ugliness of whatever and whoever you find ugly, you cannot ever enjoy the smile of the beautiful mother, father, sister, brother, best friend, spouse, client etc you interact with and want to bring joy to......Don't tell me that those born superficially hideous can't be deeply loved, it's just not true.
Work the other stuff you got going for you then, be a champion and live your life! It's that damn simple, so what if you're too ugly for most movie roles and want to be an actor? Play the hunchback of notre dame, follow your passion, accept your setbacks and end up as a director if need be...
- Unattractive people suffer
- Therefore if we remove all beauty (which the unattractive are low on the spectrum of) we end that suffering
- Attractive suffer too, differently
- Attractiveness / aesthetic-beauty in perception of people even aesthetically is open to change with a beautiful or ugly personality. Let me prove this right now. Every single person's face I linked to in Round 1 I intentionally didn't mention a single thing about, you can assume I meant them in a certain way but that presumption would indeed change once you saw the later images and the smile on the last guy's face as he's marrying the love of his life. They are all beautiful, even aesthetically, to those close to them and that is appreciated by them. If you think otherwise, it doesn't matter to them.
- If attractiveness / aesthetic-beauty is negatively zero-sum but positively pleasant to experience it then follows that the actual slant is towards Con. The world ends up much duller of an experience with the 'suffering' something worth the tradeoff unless Pro can prove otherwise. It takes the unappealing for the appealing to exist in the eyes, ears, noses and tongue (as well as general touch sensors) of all beings that can perceive said aesthetic beauty.