Beauty is Objective

Uh... Please try to speak in coherent English... I am really not trying to be rude and I mean the utmost respect but it is almost impossible to understand what you are saying most of the time.My Rebuttal:"1) this article is found random on internet, how trustful can it be 2) text are just copy and paste. Do you even try adding any of your thought? 3) the article is writer by Sarah J Jones who claim she is a fashion designer and selling her item online. can her article be accurate ? 4) is she trying to make more sales? 5) its just her point of view ?" I really don't think I even should have had to provide a source for such a historically true statement as what I said, but alright, if you really want some more "valid" sources....:http://en.wikipedia.org...http://www.ivillage.com...http://www.stylecaster.com...http://www.diet-blog.com...http://news.discovery.com...And really you can just google "ideal female body type through the ages" and you'll get thousands of results.You didn't respond even remotely to my point about how music has changed drastically every century or so, so that remains to be answered. Frankly I find it insulting that your only response to my entire argument was a weak attack on my source. And I don't see you providing any sources. Now on to the rest of your argument:"1) There is definitely a mass basic idea of what beauty is which cause by media ," Sure, of course there is. But that's just the point: it was caused by "the media". It was not always this way. Refer to my plethora of sources concerning how the ideal body type for women has changed massively over time."2)Beauty is but a word that is only known and accepted in relation to it's opposite.Opposites are imagined..they have no tangible existence within the totality of consciousness in which everything is of itself."I am really trying to understand what you are trying to say, but I fail to understand it. The way I interpet it is that you are saying that beauty is a relative term that varies in relation to opposites, and opposites are things that the mind constructs, that are not inherent in reality. If this is what you are saying.... then you agree with me, that beauty is subjective. If beauty is based on foundations of opposites, and "opposites are imagined", then beauty is subjective. To quote my definition, it is "existing in the mind"."2.1)Beauty is of itself.All is beauty.There are no subjects...only objects..even we are universal objects" A bare assertion, and this is just metaphysical word-chopping. Of course there are subjects. A subject is something that perceives or does. We are talking about humans perceiving things. Therefore, humans are the subjects, and the things they perceive are the objects."2.2)if beauty is entirely subjective"that is, if anything that anyone holds to be or experiences as beautiful is beautiful for example, asserts)"then it seems that the word has no meaning"No, it does have meaning. It is aesthetic form that is pleasing to the observer. Just because it doesn't fit what you want it to fit doesn't mean it lacks meaning."***the term about statement of "it gives them pleasure to see", if its not an object, how could you view it? before its existing in the mind, how could you not view the object and understand its a object?"When did I deny that there was an object? You, the subject, perceives an object. The "beauty" is a construct of the mind; your mind find that the object matches forms that are pleasurable to you. But the beauty is not inherent in the object, and the forms that are considered beautiful vary greatly depending on the subject and their circumstances."***the term of subject is based on " will be based on an attempt to show that when people call something beautiful, they mean it gives them pleasure to see " You just quoted me. I don't understand the point you are trying to make."overall, "BT "is "S "not "O" "S" ,is they mean it gives them pleasure to see "BT" is "O" "BT "is "O" if and only if , its true even outside of a "S" individual biases"Yes, I understand the points we are both making. This is just repeating what I laid out very clearly in the opening post. I don't see the issue?