User deleted.
Printable View
User deleted.
Quite an old stuff, I know.
If we refer to (mostly) physical apperance and (somewhat) personal qualifications e.g education, attitude; maybe lots of people would agree with the judges.Quote:
Originally Posted by atiguhya padma
I think this sort of competition is trying to set a unviersal "rules" of beauty. One of my friends who joined this sort of competition somehow make me think that way. She won the state/provincial level, and represented her state to the national level. The national level competition is an affliliation of Donald Trump's Miss Universe, means the winner will represent Indonesia in Miss Universe contest. When the national comittee saw my friend, they said she was fat and her figure didn't represent the standard physical apperance which already been set. So she worked out like hell, ate much less, to get the weight required by the comittee instantly.
In this case, you may say beauty is on the eyes of a bunch of people in miss universe comittees (who may never heard about the philosophy of beauty) , yet I and some other people may agree that some Ms. Universe are indeed beautiful (physically).
Physical Beauty is purely mathmatical, it's geometric symmtry. I suggest you to read Mario Livio's "The GOlden Ratio", he talked a lot about what we find as beautiful is actually mathmatical.
Look at a symmetric object, and look at an asymmetric object, and tell me which one you find more beautiful, ta da! There is your answer.
Xucius
Let's just say that I don't agree with Mario Livio and I much prefer Andy Warhol
Maybe someone who already read Kant's Critique of Aesthetic Judgment, be kind enough to summarize what he say about beauty?
I think physical beauty is basically symmetry.It is even proportion which gives a face a pleasing quality.Even with different colourings the general aspect of physical beauty can be brought into a mathematical figure.I have read this before and actually saw a similar program, a few years ago, which stated the calculation and I wrote it down at the time, but I don't have it on me here right now.Pure physical beauty is actually rather a shallow concept alone, but to consider BEAUTY in its deeper essence I think you shall arrive at something more.I strongly believe that physical beauty alone is not much, I am not impresssed by someone just because they happen to look good.The most beautiful thing of all, for me, is the beauty of the mind, the essence of immortality and the absolute beauty of nature.Nature promotes symmetry.
There have been lots of individuals who obviously have features that are in proportion, but I have not been attracted to them because they do not have the internal qualities I admire.I admire and love internal qualities over the purely external factors-than the mere mortal flesh.
It's interesting also to consider scientific analysis of the body and how the most pleasing figures can be included into a ratio which men happened to lust over.Certain figures are desired as they promote a women's fertility and the subconscience mind of a male may desire to impregnate the women who will improve the likelihood of survival for his offspring.Too often pure lust is mistaken for true love.If Love exists I think it is more than just a physical attraction, for me, I think it is pointless to just go out with someone because you like the way they look.I like things to be more meaningful and to have a connection on a number of different levels-not just a purely sexual or superficial attraction.I think it's best if you are friends first, then you know that the connection is deeper, and that for me is BEAUTY!:)
Well, what about when God says we are beautiful in His sight? Surely then not everyone has perfect symmetry of figures and features? I don't think so... Beauty then, in God's eyes is something different altogether.
Beauty has also got something to do with the heart. You may be the most ravishing person alive. But with an evil and wicked heart, it will taint the beauty, so that it's not pure beauty. It's better to have the inner purity and beauty of the heart, so that it never fades away like outward beauty does. The beauty of the heart will alwas be there, as long as you will yourself to retain it.
That's another side of beauty, besides physical beauty which Aurora Ariel touched on. :D
For anyone interested, subterranean (hiya, sub ;)) refers to Critique Of Judgment by Immanuel Kant; his philosophical work dedicated to aesthetics and teleology.Quote:
Originally Posted by subterranean
Well, what you ask seems no easy task, as Kant goes greatly in depth on concepts of beauty, sublimity (not to get confused with scientific "sublimation").
Basically, in a very short summary of beauty, Kant wrote of its own inheritance (meaning beauty seems not in the eye of the beholder), its disinterestedness (meaning that one takes pleasure in beauty because of its beauty, rather than finding it beautiful because one finds it pleasurable), and, most importantly, absolute beauty appears to the mind as universal and necessary (what Kant would eventually call "common sense" in the perception of beauty), meaning that there seems absolutely no objective property that makes something beautiful, but only through subjectivity. Lastly, Kant writes that beautiful objects appear to seem "final without end," meaning that beauty does not necessarily have a great purpose, but its only feasible purpose seems through itself - through beauty.
Hi ya back to you Mono ;), thanks for your reply.
By the way, if beauty seems not in the eye of the beholder (as you mentioned), is it mean that saying (beauty is in the eyes of the beholder), is actually..let say, a myth? Since that saying already exist since long long time ago.
Though I remain skeptic with all of philosophy, including such brilliant, admirable minds as Kant, he wrote of beauty seeming an inherent property (like an element), yet not everyone may see it as beautiful or sublime (his concept of the subjective perception of reality). This seems what makes beauty universal in perception; when someone sees something beautiful, he/she may expect others to think it beautiful also. In my opinion, this makes beauty somewhat "in the eye of the beholder," so to speak, for with subjectivity come unique perspectives through various people's eyes.Quote:
Originally Posted by subterranean
I dont think thaat something beautiful for someone may be horrifying for other...there is a certain pattern that appeals everybody but we do not know how to define that. the external beauty that appeals just the eye and the senses exists on one hand and other beauty that is beyond the object and shows some inner beauty that it is more personal to grasp and trascends the physical and it is more subjective.... :cool:
There has been research done on this, that shows that, for instance, most people can tell a Mondrian from a random production of similar coloured squares, when asked to choose the most beautiful of the two.
Symmetry seems to be a common factor in our appreciation of beauty. I'm sure there are other common factors.
Yesterday when I went to a book store, I briefly read On Beauty by Umberto Eco. This book somehow change my perspective on the definition of beauty. In this book there are chapters like: the beauty of nudes, the beauty of monsters, and the beauty of machines. You have to have ugliness in order to have beauty...So there are so many perspectives that can be used to define the concept of beauty
perhaps, unless you see beauty in everything as each thing and person is utterly unique and comely in it's, his or her own way.
i even thought the hunchback of notre dam was beautiful, his soul shone through his body like a sapphire star.
"a rose by any other name would smell as sweet"
In my opinion....
I think human beauty has 2 meanings today... there's outer beauty, that changes according to what's "in" at the time... whatever is defined by society. I mean look at the paintings a few centuries ago of "beautiful women", they are completely different to what this generation defines as beauty, as is last generation's compared to this one.
The second meaning of beauty describes something much deeper and eternal. Someone in the 16th century that had what people call "inner beauty" would still be called beautiful today. What people today might call the "ugliest" person could be beautiful if they have the right heart.
The most beautiful person I know isn't particularly physically attractive, even though she has these amazing eyes, but somehow you're just drawn to something deeper, something beyond her body. She has a beautiful heart.
She's charming, loving, ready to help at any time, caring, a good listener, transparent, authentic, .... just a great person to be friends with.
That's my definition of beauty.