• rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 months ago

    just that what we call mainstream is the representation of objective beauty

    Beauty can be only subjective by definition.

    • Blue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Nope, facial and body symmetry can determine if someone is considered universally beautiful.

      And it’s not limited to humans, animals and plants can be considered universally beautiful.

      The sea and the starry sky, a sunset, the moon etc, if it moves emotion within you then it’s beautiful, and there are things that move the world entirely.

      • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Nope, facial and body symmetry can determine if someone is considered universally beautiful.

        Facial and body symmetry is ugly or at least scary. You’ve just never seen people with that.

        Other than that - beauty is by definition your own opinion on whether something looks good or bad. If there’s a single person in the world who disagrees - then it’s not universal. If there is none, but there may be the next moment - then it’s not universal.

        and there are things that move the world entirely

        Nothing moves the world entirely. Majority vote doesn’t apply here and even the 3 (or up to 7, whatever) sigma rule doesn’t.

          • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            Take a sufficiently well-centered photo, leave only the left or the right half, and replace the other one with its mirrored version. Then honestly say whether what you see is beautiful or ugly.

            If you know that, just walk around here trolling, then bon appetit and ignore my advice.