Is Beauty a Objective or Subjective element?
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 2
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Pro will argue that beauty is subjective and con will argue that beauty is objective.
The use of beauty in this debate constitutes not only human beauty but nature, architecture, poetry, literature, and abstract ideas. Below is a link to a poster that will better explain the different things that hold beauty.
https://i0.wp.com/scenicsolutions.world/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Aesthetics.jpg?resize=685%2C404&ssl=1
Subjectivists believes that beauty is not universal and changes from individual to individual.
Objectivists believes that everything has beauty and is not something that man can manipulate.
Neither side does a particularly good job at arguing their case.
Con cites the views of philosophers to argue that beauty is objective, but he would have done better by laying out the framework for what is objectively beautiful. A hierarchy of standards. Then he should have laid out empirical evidence indicating that either the majority of society perceives this the same way, or somehow demonstrate it is true. Now Con does a good job at explaining the differences between taste and beauty, arguing that exploring the diversity of beauty of different things is how the perceiver develops his taste. But nothing conclusive that suggests to me objective beauty is even a thing. As I don't even know what meets the standard for objective beauty.
Pro wisely lays out the definitions and explains that beauty manifests in different forms/categories. He even slightly elaborates on how not all women chase after the same man and the point he goes for suggests that beauty is relative, differing from person to person. However, he would have done better by providing more examples and situations to demonstrate how differently people think. He should have explored this a little more in depth. As this doesn't really retort Con's position about 'taste,' which would have been an epic comeback retort if Con hadn't forfeited.
As both sides rely only on their own personal opinions and anecdotal evidence and agree that God exists. I am simply left to conclude that arguments are a tie.
Sources are a tie.
But Con forfeited, so Pro wins the conduct point.
Pro missed half the debate, leaving everything dropped.
i cant weight the oll libertyfund link on davidhume on par with other sources presented. as that one is a commentary and synopsis of his writings. if you directly used his book as the source, it would have been better.
i dont consider that synopsis to be scholarly level
tldr you are both right and both yalls sources verifies both subjective and objective beauty. in the writings mentioned
ugh, i really dont want to vote on this. plato uses the word forms in 2 ways. essence and idea. that and theory of forms IS mentioned in the link under 1:3 beauty of forms. but isnt cited.
this is a good debate, but honestly im getting a headache just trying to award sources.
also i am biased toward objective beauty, though i do recognized subjective beauty ie taste. and this circles back to essence or idea distinction AGAIN.
to understand my grief, i give this link. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/real-essence/
basically john locke defines real essence as plato defines form as essence. and defines nominal essence as plato defines form as idea.