|
|
Post by Prometheus on Dec 22, 2021 2:48:50 GMT
Let's look at the definition given by wikipedia for postmodernism:
Now, I love me some skepticism and criticism of traditional viewpoints. It opens your mind to other points of view and can help you make some amount of sense of why things don't function in reality they way one would expect them to based on traditional understanding. It's also given us some weird art and architecture, but let's skip that for a moment. Let's stay with science and culture at their core.
As I said, I love to question things to try to gain new perspectives. The thing is, that no matter how many perspectives you look from, there are some facts that are unchanging. Trying to force them to become something other than what they in fact or in reason are is an anti-intellectual pursuit, in my opinion. The fact that we see this all around us nearly all the time makes me think that we have entered the post-intellectual era where anything and everything is seen as true and not true depending on what anyone wants to believe at any particular moment.
It's a wonderful intellectual exercise in a philosophy classroom but trying to make it work in real life is destroying our society bit by bit as even our language is hijacked from moment to moment and words whose definitions were just moments before agreed upon are then used differently for the sake of "winning" an argument.
An example: We can all agree that beauty and attractiveness are two different things, but because they share some overlapped space on a Venn diagram ("people who are beautiful" and "people I find attractive"), we can find people trying to use them interchangeably as in "If you think she is beautiful then you must find her attractive."
But there are many attributes to each and any one of them can preclude one subject from entering a particular category. I can say that, "All women are beautiful," but that doesn't mean that I am - or that I should - be attracted to all of them. And it certainly doesn't mean that I can't point out their flaws (in my opinion).
A lot of this usually comes to a head when discussing overweight women. In general, I do not find overweight women physically attractive. Does that mean that I can't find beauty in their other attributes? Of course not. I loved Mama Cass' singing voice, and in interviews she seemed a genuinely caring and loving person. She was "beautiful" but not attractive (to me). Most people can be on board with that. However, if I say that Mama Cass shouldn't be seen as a positive role model for health reasons... whoa! I'm in a world of shit then. I'll be accused of hating overweight women and for trying to force some sort of "unrealistic body image on women."
I've done neither of those things. I have simply looked at the issue of obesity from as many angles as possible (postmodern) and simply come to the conclusion that obesity is FACTually bad. This is where you hear arguments about how "healthy" some overweight woman is and about how much she exercises and how she's probably healthier than me! She can exercise all she wants and eat healthy foods and so on, but in the end, her joints will deteriorate faster and she will always have a higher risk of diabetes and heart disease. Just ask all of those scientists that you love.
Because science is in conflict with perception, the attacks become personal... and often outrageous. The angry person has now moved beyond the intellectual. This isn't just happening with beauty and attractiveness vis-a-vis science. We see it in how words have their definitions conflated or misused for any number of topics:
sex and gender rights and privileges privileges and talents/skills climate change and just about everything
etc.
Postmodernism brought us to a new height of intellectual understanding by trying to see things from a different point of view but now we are just chucking facts out the window willy-nilly for no reason other than to hate someone who doesn't share a particular point of view.
I have to go to work now.
/Wednesday Morning Rant
|
|
|
|
Post by permutojoe on Sept 22, 2022 23:52:09 GMT
This is news to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prometheus on Sept 23, 2022 0:31:44 GMT
Really?
There are no women out there that are not attractive to you but are beautiful people?
Do you think that you are both a beautiful person and universally regarded as attractive?
|
|
|
|
Post by abbey1227 on Sept 23, 2022 1:14:00 GMT
Really?
There are no women out there that are not attractive to you but are beautiful people?
Do you think that you are both a beautiful person and universally regarded as attractive?
Interesting use of the word........and I've noticed the females love to use it with each other.
I've always thought of the term 'beautiful' as a higher level than merely pretty, cute, attractive, hot, etc........as in it was more than just superficial factors. But I haven't embraced the idea that beauty can exist without some sort of physical appeal. Though I will say plenty of times I have found various people attractive for features that may or may not fit under the general notions of beauty or attractive.
Could just be me, though. ![[giveup]](//storage.proboards.com/7182076/images/FSYefibmKqtatIXMgHZg.gif)
|
|
|
|
Post by Prometheus on Sept 23, 2022 2:42:27 GMT
Really?
There are no women out there that are not attractive to you but are beautiful people?
Do you think that you are both a beautiful person and universally regarded as attractive?
Interesting use of the word........and I've noticed the females love to use it with each other.
I've always thought of the term 'beautiful' as a higher level than merely pretty, cute, attractive, hot, etc........as in it was more than just superficial factors. But I haven't embraced the idea that beauty can exist without some sort of physical appeal. Though I will say plenty of times I have found various people attractive for features that may or may not fit under the general notions of beauty or attractive.
Could just be me, though.
You don't have friends who are really, genuinely good people? People that are beautiful inside even if they aren't attractive on the outside?
Of course you have. That's why you agreed with me when I said the same thing in a different thread. Oh wait. I specifically mentioned that the person with internal beauty was externally fat. Is that why you agreed that time but are having trouble this time? I mean this post is 9 months old. Why are you just now finding the time to address it? Could it be that you think you and Joe are going to tag-team me? ![[roll]](//storage.proboards.com/7182076/images/kO0SCvc0PtofscbQIgGh.gif) |
|
|
|
Post by permutojoe on Sept 23, 2022 3:24:50 GMT
Really?
There are no women out there that are not attractive to you but are beautiful people?
Do you think that you are both a beautiful person and universally regarded as attractive?
You're mixing apples and oranges, which is fine. Words can have different meanings, but I didn't understand you were doing that in OP. |
|
|
|
Post by Prometheus on Sept 23, 2022 10:23:06 GMT
Really?
There are no women out there that are not attractive to you but are beautiful people?
Do you think that you are both a beautiful person and universally regarded as attractive?
You're mixing apples and oranges, which is fine. Words can have different meanings, but I didn't understand you were doing that in OP. Yes. I was pointing out that apples are different from oranges. |
|
|
|
Post by abbey1227 on Sept 23, 2022 12:45:33 GMT
Interesting use of the word........and I've noticed the females love to use it with each other.
I've always thought of the term 'beautiful' as a higher level than merely pretty, cute, attractive, hot, etc........as in it was more than just superficial factors. But I haven't embraced the idea that beauty can exist without some sort of physical appeal. Though I will say plenty of times I have found various people attractive for features that may or may not fit under the general notions of beauty or attractive.
Could just be me, though.
You don't have friends who are really, genuinely good people? People that are beautiful inside even if they aren't attractive on the outside?
Of course you have. That's why you agreed with me when I said the same thing in a different thread. Oh wait. I specifically mentioned that the person with internal beauty was externally fat. Is that why you agreed that time but are having trouble this time? I mean this post is 9 months old. Why are you just now finding the time to address it? Could it be that you think you and Joe are going to tag-team me?
The word 'beautiful' is just not one I usually use to describe people..........even the nicest of them.
I lost a good friend years ago who was the biggest sweetheart I've ever met.......and she left behind 3 wonderful kids and a husband. But she wasn't physically attractive to me in any way. You'd probably say she was a beautiful person......but I'd likely use several other adjectives to point out just how great she was.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prometheus on Sept 23, 2022 13:25:09 GMT
You don't have friends who are really, genuinely good people? People that are beautiful inside even if they aren't attractive on the outside?
Of course you have. That's why you agreed with me when I said the same thing in a different thread. Oh wait. I specifically mentioned that the person with internal beauty was externally fat. Is that why you agreed that time but are having trouble this time? I mean this post is 9 months old. Why are you just now finding the time to address it? Could it be that you think you and Joe are going to tag-team me?
The word 'beautiful' is just not one I usually use to describe people..........even the nicest of them.
I lost a good friend years ago who was the biggest sweetheart I've ever met.......and she left behind 3 wonderful kids and a husband. But she wasn't physically attractive to me in any way. You'd probably say she was a beautiful person......but I'd likely use several other adjectives to point out just how great she was.
She sounds like a beautiful person. |
|
|
|
Post by permutojoe on Sept 23, 2022 16:47:10 GMT
You're mixing apples and oranges, which is fine. Words can have different meanings, but I didn't understand you were doing that in OP. Yes. I was pointing out that apples are different from oranges. My point is that the two terms are not really different until you defined them as such. One is more superlative and perhaps a bit emotional than the other. I might tell my young niece that I saw an attractive woman the other day because I don't want to convey the superlative and emotion behind "beautiful". But if I go out and have a few beers with my buddy, I'll say she was beautiful. |
|
|
|
Post by Prometheus on Sept 23, 2022 23:00:06 GMT
Yes. I was pointing out that apples are different from oranges. My point is that the two terms are not really different until you defined them as such. One is more superlative and perhaps a bit emotional than the other. I might tell my young niece that I saw an attractive woman the other day because I don't want to convey the superlative and emotion behind "beautiful". But if I go out and have a few beers with my buddy, I'll say she was beautiful. Thing is, I can think of some women who are physically quite beautiful but not very attractive... to me.
By calling the two words apples and oranges (rather than conflating them - appanges?... orples?) we can more clearly express ourselves. When separate ideas become conflated and dissimilar words are meant to express the same concept we tumble down a rabbit hole of anti-intellectualism. To whit: arguing how dissimilar words with dissimilar meanings somehow mean exactly the same thing because "I said so!" or because, "that's what I meant!" or because, "Fascist!"
|
|
|
|
Post by permutojoe on Sept 23, 2022 23:16:04 GMT
My point is that the two terms are not really different until you defined them as such. One is more superlative and perhaps a bit emotional than the other. I might tell my young niece that I saw an attractive woman the other day because I don't want to convey the superlative and emotion behind "beautiful". But if I go out and have a few beers with my buddy, I'll say she was beautiful. Thing is, I can think of some women who are physically quite beautiful but not very attractive... to me.
By calling the two words apples and oranges (rather than conflating them - appanges?... orples?) we can more clearly express ourselves. When separate ideas become conflated and dissimilar words are meant to express the same concept we tumble down a rabbit hole of anti-intellectualism. To whit: arguing how dissimilar words with dissimilar meanings somehow mean exactly the same thing because "I said so!" or because, "that's what I meant!" or because, "Fascist!"
Which ones are beautiful but not attractive? How would that even work? I don't see how the terms are all that separate. There is no such thing as objective beauty or attractiveness. But I do understand you are using different definitions or applications of the terms to try and say they have different meanings in general. |
|
|
|
Post by Prometheus on Sept 24, 2022 0:01:43 GMT
Thing is, I can think of some women who are physically quite beautiful but not very attractive... to me.
By calling the two words apples and oranges (rather than conflating them - appanges?... orples?) we can more clearly express ourselves. When separate ideas become conflated and dissimilar words are meant to express the same concept we tumble down a rabbit hole of anti-intellectualism. To whit: arguing how dissimilar words with dissimilar meanings somehow mean exactly the same thing because "I said so!" or because, "that's what I meant!" or because, "Fascist!"
Which ones are beautiful but not attractive? How would that even work? I don't see how the terms are all that separate. There is no such thing as objective beauty or attractiveness. But I do understand you are using different definitions or applications of the terms to try and say they have different meanings in general. While both words can be "pleasing to the senses" (remember I mentioned the Venn Diagram), "Attractive" has a separate and distinct meaning of, "arousing interest or engaging one's thought, consideration, etc."
As for which ones are beautiful but not attractive, I could go on for a while but I'll try to choose a person - a woman....
Angelina Joli. I think that most men would say that she (at least in her prime) was "beautiful": symmetrical features; fit; good waist to hip ratio; good breast to waist ratio; sexy eyes; and lips that look like she could suck a golf ball through 20 feet of garden hose.
Beautiful
But honestly, I don't find her attractive. She doesn't "arouse my interest" or any other part of me.
And I agree that both terms are subjective, but that doesn't mean that their definitions are exactly the same either and it's in that dissimilarity where we find clarity.
And I don't mind clarifying my meaning when politely asked about why I chose particular word or phrase. I hope that none of us would. BUT, I am disheartened and often angered by people suggesting that I mean something different simply because THEY have chosen to conflate words and definitions.
THAT is anti-intellectualism.
We see it all around us all the time and - despite our best intentions - might even fall victim to it ourselves from time to time when we are under pressure and don't have time to choose our words carefully.
I remember when everyone mocked W for his "you're either with us or against us" (paraphrasing) comment yet so many now engage in the same sort of rhetoric... at least regarding their pet issue... and they have taken the extra step of conflating words and definitions simply to mire you (editorial you) in off-topic arguments rather than using precise terminology so that clarity (and possibly even compromise or agreement) can be reached.
|
|
|
|
Post by permutojoe on Sept 24, 2022 0:21:36 GMT
Which ones are beautiful but not attractive? How would that even work? I don't see how the terms are all that separate. There is no such thing as objective beauty or attractiveness. But I do understand you are using different definitions or applications of the terms to try and say they have different meanings in general. While both words can be "pleasing to the senses" (remember I mentioned the Venn Diagram), "Attractive" has a separate and distinct meaning of, "arousing interest or engaging one's thought, consideration, etc."
As for which ones are beautiful but not attractive, I could go on for a while but I'll try to choose a person - a woman....
Angelina Joli. I think that most men would say that she (at least in her prime) was "beautiful": symmetrical features; fit; good waist to hip ratio; good breast to waist ratio; sexy eyes; and lips that look like she could suck a golf ball through 20 feet of garden hose.
Beautiful
But honestly, I don't find her attractive. She doesn't "arouse my interest" or any other part of me.
And I agree that both terms are subjective, but that doesn't mean that their definitions are exactly the same either and it's in that dissimilarity where we find clarity.
And I don't mind clarifying my meaning when politely asked about why I chose particular word or phrase. I hope that none of us would. BUT, I am disheartened and often angered by people suggesting that I mean something different simply because THEY have chosen to conflate words and definitions.
THAT is anti-intellectualism.
We see it all around us all the time and - despite our best intentions - might even fall victim to it ourselves from time to time when we are under pressure and don't have time to choose our words carefully.
I remember when everyone mocked W for his "you're either with us or against us" (paraphrasing) comment yet so many now engage in the same sort of rhetoric... at least regarding their pet issue... and they have taken the extra step of conflating words and definitions simply to mire you (editorial you) in off-topic arguments rather than using precise terminology so that clarity (and possibly even compromise or agreement) can be reached.
I would suggest to you that pleasing to the senses = arousing interest. You may be overthinking this. At no point in time should "beautiful" be defined as "what I think other people might think about this person/place/thing. I don't find Angelina Jolie as beautiful or attractive. I do understand that others do, but that's not what either term was meant to imply I don't think. |
|
|
|
Post by Prometheus on Sept 24, 2022 1:00:10 GMT
While both words can be "pleasing to the senses" (remember I mentioned the Venn Diagram), "Attractive" has a separate and distinct meaning of, "arousing interest or engaging one's thought, consideration, etc."
As for which ones are beautiful but not attractive, I could go on for a while but I'll try to choose a person - a woman....
Angelina Joli. I think that most men would say that she (at least in her prime) was "beautiful": symmetrical features; fit; good waist to hip ratio; good breast to waist ratio; sexy eyes; and lips that look like she could suck a golf ball through 20 feet of garden hose.
Beautiful
But honestly, I don't find her attractive. She doesn't "arouse my interest" or any other part of me.
And I agree that both terms are subjective, but that doesn't mean that their definitions are exactly the same either and it's in that dissimilarity where we find clarity.
And I don't mind clarifying my meaning when politely asked about why I chose particular word or phrase. I hope that none of us would. BUT, I am disheartened and often angered by people suggesting that I mean something different simply because THEY have chosen to conflate words and definitions.
THAT is anti-intellectualism.
We see it all around us all the time and - despite our best intentions - might even fall victim to it ourselves from time to time when we are under pressure and don't have time to choose our words carefully.
I remember when everyone mocked W for his "you're either with us or against us" (paraphrasing) comment yet so many now engage in the same sort of rhetoric... at least regarding their pet issue... and they have taken the extra step of conflating words and definitions simply to mire you (editorial you) in off-topic arguments rather than using precise terminology so that clarity (and possibly even compromise or agreement) can be reached.
I would suggest to you that pleasing to the senses = arousing interest. You may be overthinking this. At no point in time should "beautiful" be defined as "what I think other people might think about this person/place/thing. I don't find Angelina Jolie as beautiful or attractive. I do understand that others do, but that's not what either term was meant to imply I don't think. You could certainly suggest that, but then why did the writers of all the dictionaries choose to make it a separate definition?
I'm guessing because they realize that flowers may be beautiful but the resulting red eyes and runny nose from one's allergies isn't very attractive... and neither is the prospect of having your allergies flare up. That's why, no matter how beautiful the arboretum might be, people with allergies avoid it as much as possible... ditto funerals, weddings, and any other event that might have an over-abundance of beautiful flowers.
BTW, I fully expected you to not find Angelina (or anyone else I chose) to be either beautiful or attractive as you seem insistent that I simply roll over and agree that both words - despite different definitions - mean the same thing.
I'll bet you even think that men can have babies....
|
|
|
|
Post by permutojoe on Sept 24, 2022 1:11:38 GMT
Instead of getting all defensive and going on weird tangents, maybe post the definitions and how they're different?
|
|
|
|
Post by Prometheus on Sept 24, 2022 1:17:06 GMT
Instead of getting all defensive and going on weird tangents, maybe post the definitions and how they're different? I haven't gone on any "weird tangents"* and I already posted the definitions.
*do you think "beautiful" and "attractive" are adjectives solely used for humans?
|
|
|
|
Post by abbey1227 on Sept 24, 2022 1:50:02 GMT
and lips that look like she could suck a golf ball through 20 feet of garden hose.
(sigh)
Beautiful
|
|
|
|
Post by permutojoe on Sept 24, 2022 2:12:28 GMT
and lips that look like she could suck a golf ball through 20 feet of garden hose.
(sigh)
Beautiful
Exactly. But somehow not attractive?? |
|
|
|
Post by permutojoe on Sept 24, 2022 2:13:35 GMT
Instead of getting all defensive and going on weird tangents, maybe post the definitions and how they're different? I haven't gone on any "weird tangents"* and I already posted the definitions.
*do you think "beautiful" and "attractive" are adjectives solely used for humans?
No weird tangents indeed. ![[clap]](//storage.proboards.com/7182076/images/cyzFsBHrVkBoG0tz0OzZ.gif) |
|
![[giveup]](http://storage.proboards.com/7182076/images/FSYefibmKqtatIXMgHZg.gif)
![[roll]](http://storage.proboards.com/7182076/images/kO0SCvc0PtofscbQIgGh.gif)
![[clap]](http://storage.proboards.com/7182076/images/cyzFsBHrVkBoG0tz0OzZ.gif)
![[cheers]](http://storage.proboards.com/7182076/images/engyBVslEdpmpmdnBwZQ.gif)
