I'd say people just replace "Beauty" for "God," but,
真正被忽略的一点是……
...if the satan character wasn't in the bible it would only be two pages, stoppin' with ".....god created Eve for Adam and they lived happily ever after. THE END."

从客观性的观点来看，主观性的存在必须是客观真实的，必须是客观存在的情况——按照目前的客观性的概念，这就意味着即使没有任何思想存在，也必须是真实的;一个非常奇特的结果。
And from the subjective point of view objectivity surely can't be true without the notion being in at least one mind-- how would it be possible to know it or even have it as an object of consideration if there was no notion of it? And there are no notions without minds (unless you want to posit disembodied thought)
Objectivity must be subjective and subjectivity must be objective then from the respective points of view.
如果我们不能走出我们的思维去看事物是否客观地独立于思维而存在，那我们怎么知道?如果我们能够拥有客观概念，那么一些概念就不在主观上局限于心灵，而独立于心灵——如果是这样，它们从何而来?我们不是用我们的头脑思考吗?
It certainly is possible to avoid positing any subjective point of view-- just eliminate the notion of
"I" from the expression. Instead of "I am thinking"
it is said "there is thinking" and instead of "I have changed my mind" there is "the mind has changed" or even
this: instead of "I like pizza" one says "there is a liking for pizza" Even further: instead of "I have a
bad feeling about this" one can say " it is claimed that there is a bad feeling had by an entity called an 'I' ". and finally, "I find this ugly"(or beautiful) can be said this way: "there is ugliness" (or beauty) or "there is a claim that there is an entity called an "I" which expriences beauty".
It seems to me that objectification and subjectification are essentially points of view which amount to premises-- underlying presumptions that dictate which form of expression is appropriate, the subjective construction or the objective construction.
And to take the next step, a statement like "it seems to me" or "in my opinion" can be seen as objective or subjective by applying the respective objective or objective points of view. Subjective because these are notions in a mind and objective because notions in a mind can be an objective fact (or these notions are outside of mind and so, what? neither subjective nor objective?) These above phrases or any other expressions are not in themselves subjective or objective but rather can be seen from an objective or subjective point of view. Objective and subjective are in part modes of expression.
I think trying to indubitably decide for all what is the case or try to reach a universal consensus on the question whether there is a true and absolute disposition of the world apart from any points of view --- leads to a blind alley simply because the question of how much of the world is word or concept and how much is apart from word or concept ultimately will come down to one party saying they directly see that there is an object apart from the word and the other saying they directly see that there is no
thing that is apart from the word-- word and object are abstracted from a somewhat. Where does the world start and the word or concept end? The statement "the world is separate from words"--- this split presumed between world and words-- what part of it is words and what part world? It will come down to personal preference where the line is drawn--- if there is a compulsion to draw the line in the first place.
The bottom line: if there is no one point at which all opinion converges then these must remain points of view.
And this goes for all distinctions including the line between beauty and ugliness.
To speak more broadly about it the basics of
我们的世界在很大程度上是由前提、命令而不是结论决定的。如果有人说，前提和结论之间的区别是，前提必然地或偶然地导致结论，人们可以补充说，在这种情况下，主导前提是前提确实导致结论。
The ancient Mayans thought a distended skull shape was a beautiful thing and so pressed their infants skulls between boards to achieve this result. I don't share their taste.
What is beautiful to one can subsequently under different conditions or under influence of a different frame of mind appear less so -- even ugly.
似乎可以肯定地说，美没有统一的标准。
Is there objective beauty? I would say there is, in the sense that what one finds beautiful, as with what
one finds good tasting, simply seems to appear independent of desire (presuming an agent, an I and this i does something to produce the next thought--I find not trace of this doing something. That which is considered a result of the machinations of the I just arises which I can find no trace of machinations, just he next thought arising) ; as in " I wanted to find good- tasting your first attempt at an Austrian torte but alas
I did not find it good-tasting". All there is is what arises as compellingly the case either as regards beauty and in the case of truth. The I doesno't decide what is compellingly the case-- it just arises as compellingly the case and is spoken or is not spoken. And what that is--as it arises to be said at this moment as being compellingly the case--- is that people will differ as to what is compellingly the case concerning beauty or ugliness or truth.
The phrase " in my opinion" can be seen as just as objective or subjective as the phrase "this is the case" --when taken from either the objective or subjective point of view. They both involve notions in the mind
and that may be seen as an objective fact. And they both are objectively the case as their objectivity is realized within a subjective mind.
我们当然可以将世界分为主观和客观两种，但我真的不明白这样做对发现美的构成要素有什么帮助。
“在我看来，这是美的”和“这是客观上的美”这两句话，由于上述原因，既可以看作是主观的，也可以看作是客观的，美的问题是独立于主客观的。
I want to thankyou for this forum and this blog and for your radio program-- great and unique idea.
I look forward to hearing you both on Sundays and I hope to call in sometime. Don't worry, I will keep my comments brief.

Mr. Van Leeuwen et. al.,
What beautiful postings up here: simplicity and clarity.
What of the representation of the mangy cat? Could that be said to overlay a level of more 'objective' beauty on to the relatively, subjectively beautiful cat?
你根本没有谈到代表的复杂问题，对吗?是迈克尔·乔丹投篮的动作还是镜头的拍摄，或者两者兼而有之?
-- Russell Erwinwww.russellerwin.com

I am an artist (musician), as is my father, and this particular discussion is one we've been having for many years. My father, unlike me, believes in some form of objective beauty. His views reflect those of the author: that there are objects, works, and actions that possess certain qualities which make them INHERENTLY beautiful, whether we see them or not. This is an assertion I reject.
首先，作者上面所举的关于美的例子似乎假定了某种普遍的反应，而这种反应并不确定。对任何给定物体的反应都是“美丽的”，这在很大程度上是由我们的文化教养和我们的文化形成的范式决定的。这是什么意思呢?我的意思是，欣赏“美丽”的事物首先需要一定的理解水平。这种理解是由我们的文化(民族、经济、艺术、宗教等)所传递给我们的价值观所促成的。如果没有这种程度的文化灌输，一个人是否会认为任何给定的物体或行为是美丽的，这是非常值得怀疑的。
有很多这样的例子:一个人听到的音乐来自于与自己文化非常不同的文化，或者看到的艺术来自于与自己文化非常不同的文化，却不认为它是美丽的，甚至更糟，认为它是丑陋的，甚至是冒犯的。考虑到这一现实，断言某物可以是美丽的，与我们是否承认它是美丽无关，这为一种美学法西斯主义奠定了可能性。如果个人或文化不能从“客观上美丽”的事物中看到美，那么很容易认为这是由于他们自己的某种错误或自卑。那些“懂行”的人看到了他们面前的美丽，可以拍拍自己的背，庆幸自己足够聪明，足够有教养，足够有能力看到这一点，同时认为那些不懂行的人在某种程度上是错误的和/或低下的。如果人们接受“美是客观的”这一观点，这种暗示是不可避免的。它没有给团体或个人之间关于什么是美的讨论或分歧留下任何空间。关于美的事物存在普遍共识的断言显然是错误的。
很明显，作者给出的“客观”美例子都是主导文化——西欧特有的事物，或者，就源自另一种文化的事物而言(如他提到的中国书法)，是被主导文化接受的事物，甚至在某种程度上被主导文化采用的事物。他提到他所知道和理解的事情。这反映了作者的文化教化。但是那些他甚至在最低的层次上都不理解的事情呢?当他看到一件来自他自己文化之外的东西，一件他知之甚少的东西，他可能会觉得它很美。但同样可能的是，他会认为它是某种怪诞或丑陋的东西，甚至忽略它，把它当作垃圾丢弃。相反，他可能会从这种外来文化中看到一些它认为无用的、缺乏美感的东西，实际上他自己也看到了一些美。所有这些对美或美的缺乏的评估都是基于文化灌输以及我们通过这种灌输所吸收的美的范式。把美作为“客观”来讨论，得出合乎逻辑的结论，似乎使某种程度的傲慢不可避免。

Hi, everybody. I?m Melahuac Hernández from Mexico. First fo all,I want to congratulate you for this site.
关于这个主题:我同意美丽是一种客观属性。但我也认为，这一观点需要比d·s·尼尔·范列文先生已经做的更多论证。我认为范列文先生并没有指出关于美的客观与主观观点之间的讨论的核心哲学问题。“美丽”有客观和主观两种含义(以及我们对这个词的相关判断)。但在重要的意义上，这两种含义似乎都是主观的。如果我说:“2+2=4”，我说的是真的，而且是独立于任何思想存在的真理。但是，如果我说"蒙娜丽莎很美"这真的是独立于任何思想之外的真理吗?似乎如果答案是肯定的，那么那些认为蒙娜丽莎?S paint is beautiful要么是绝对正确，要么是绝对错误。如果是这样，那么假设“蒙娜丽莎很美”在这个意义上是真的。 Then, whoever lacks a positive aesthetic experience at the time he sees the Mona Lisa?s paint must have failed to see some of its properties. That is: it must be impossible the case that someone is aware of that paint properties but lack an adequate aesthetic experience. But, is it really incoherent that case? Is it incoherent that someone knows that some musical masterpiece is simple, harmonic, and has fluid motion, but lacks any positive aesthetic experience? The right answer seems to be 'No'. It seems that he could say truly and without any contradiction: "I see all this properties in that object but I have no special experience about it". What I think Mr. Van Leeuwen missed is the special connection that an objective property of beautifulness and the subjective experience must have. If there is any objective property of being beautiful then that property must have an intrinsic and a necessary connection with an appropriate subjective experience. But, which property that we can find in any object has that kind of connection? Which property could have that kind of connection? It seems that we can always think in a subject being aware of all the properties of an object but lacking any aesthetic experience. It seems a matter of fact that we DO have these experiences when we are aware of an object having those properties. But this seems to be relative to our minds being constituted as they are in fact. Perhaps we are so psychologically constituted that we have this kind of experiences, but there are other (possible) mind constitutions that lack them. Then, the apparent objective fact we see depends of an accidental feature of our mind. If so, is relative to our mind being the way it is that we find beauty in things. Therefore: there is no objective property of beautifulness.
I lack an answer to this objection so my belief in objective aesthetical properties is unfounded, so I see much more strength in the subjective view. But, what do you think??