beauty

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by atiguhya padma

Nikolai,

I disagree with most of what you say. However, something we agree on: it is of no use to argue about the soul. How can you argue about something that no-one knows anything about? Because we have no evidence of its existence there is nothing on which to base a positive argument. Which is why you go on to speculate and give an impression of your ideas and thoughts which cannot be compared to anything that exists. We can talk all day about our ideas and thoughts on the soul, but those ideas and thoughts can only live and die through negative ways: either they have an internal logical flaw or their premisses do not correspond to things that we know. We know nothing of the soul.

You say nothing comes of nothing. You mention the divine. Where did the divine come from? I am not sure that nothing can come from nothing. How would you prove this to me? One can always say that all things have a beginning. I don't know how this can be proven though. It is merely a conceptual statement. One that we cannot really understand well enough, because we do not know how to test it empirically. It is a statement reduced to conceptual analysis and cannot be explored very well in empirical ways. So we cannot know whether our conceptual tools are at fault or not over this.

Whatever the case, we certainly cannot discuss soul as if it exists. Simply because we have no information relating to its existence. Your point about satisfaction: the need for socialisation is a physical and psychological need. It isn't spiritual. It doesn't infer the existence of a soul.

The senses come from the interaction between body and mind, and because the mind is no more than a construct of the physical brain, it can be said that the senses come from a physical source, as does everything.

---

This makes me a little nervous, I'm sorry I don't know why. You are shutting me down in every way and that is fine, I don't wish to discuss it anymore.

I said it was pointless to argue, but that has nothing to do with discussion. It is an esoteric thing. I'm sorry, but you would be wrong to say that there is no mystery in this life. I tried to explain but I am grateful to drop it at this point. All I can say is that not everything is explained by words. I hope you will get beyond this point at some point. There is spiritual, there is mystical, and there is always truth to search for and attain. I wish you luck in your search.

i think beauty is not a thing in itself, instead it is an interpretation of things in a positive way. therefore, people like things which they perceive as beautiful, and dislike that which is different or opposite. for example we may view freedom as beautiful and bondage as ugly (no jokes please).

in regards to all the banter about the soul i think it would be very helpful if people defined what they thought a soul contributes (or not) to the human experience. that way the person who says, 'the soul brings us close to god' will be seen to be speaking religious or spiritually, and the person who says, 'the soul gives to man the gifts that animals do not possess', will be seen to be speaking from a more humanist and non-religious framework. too often people argue about something when in fact they are argueing about different ideas that do not correspond.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chrismythoi

i think beauty is not a thing in itself, instead it is an interpretation of things in a positive way. therefore, people like things which they perceive as beautiful, and dislike that which is different or opposite. for example we may view freedom as beautiful and bondage as ugly (no jokes please).

in regards to all the banter about the soul i think it would be very helpful if people defined what they thought a soul contributes (or not) to the human experience. that way the person who says, 'the soul brings us close to god' will be seen to be speaking religious or spiritually, and the person who says, 'the soul gives to man the gifts that animals do not possess', will be seen to be speaking from a more humanist and non-religious framework. too often people argue about something when in fact they are argueing about different ideas that do not correspond.

---

True... for instance I would be speaking of a completely different soul than those who say only humans have souls, because I believe plants and animals have souls also. Consider an animal; it has consciousness, a heart, a body, a mind, just as we do. If we follow the similarities, it would be clear that animals come from the soul, just like we do.

Humans have gifts that animals don't possess, but we don't possess all the gifts that animals do. For instance whales are huge. Elephants are very large. Star-nosed moles have like, thousands or millions of nerves in their nose! We have a particular perspective and it is beautiful, but animals have perspectives too and see things as well. Why do we always think we are the most evolved? For instance Whales are highly evolved - Why? They have lived in their environment for eons and eons longer than we have even existed. Thus they can withstand the pressures of the ocean, etc.

http://images.askmen.com/top_10/cele...e-models_6.jpg

I truly apologize for the rather explicit nature of the photo, but looking at the face (:P) I have to draw at least one conclusion that my "preferences" of beauty involve the subject having simplicity and also being unique (sometimes the two are interdependent for me). Many of the photos of models I see on the Internet assume scowls and "sultry looks" that, for me, take away much of their beauty. In my eyes it makes them look too self-important.

A photo like the one above (at least in the upper half!) demonstrates my preferences, I think. Half of it is something about the kind, emotional and warm-looking smile, but I have to say the nationality definitely does the rest for me. Perhaps it is for the reason that I am so unused to the unique facial features of the Japanese: subconsciously I somehow prefer something new and refreshing (and therefore unique).


EDIT: Oops! I'm out of date, I think. I thought I was posting this in the midst of the earlier discussion of physical beauty--I guess I was looking at the wrong page. Sorry if this post is invalid.

Post isn't invalid. I think the discussion of Beauty in the physical sense is very important.
This is from William Faulkner:

" The ideal woman which is in every man's mind is evoked by a word or phrase or the shape of her wrist, her hand. The most beautiful description of a woman is by understatement. Remember, all Tolstoy ever said to describe Anna Karenina was that she was beautiful and could see in the dark like a cat. Every man has a different idea of what's beautiful, and it's best to take the gesture, the shadow of the branch, and let the mind create the tree. "

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by atiguhya padma

OK let me put it another way: there is nothingness and there is soul, tell me how you distinguish the one from the other?

Science and technology in collaboration with our senses have helped us determine the existence of radiowaves. What has helped you determine the existence of soul?

---

Distinguishing nothingness from the soul? Where does this nothingness come from. I believe human are made up by three components, physical, mental, spiritual. Distinguishing these three are simple.

Soul, I believe God helped me to determine this. What comes from the soul and what comes from our mind I experience is completely different. From the three, I believe the soul or spirit is the most powerful, because it is indeed immortal, capable of reuniting with God after life.

Beauty is often times likened to something internal, unseen, spiritual. But in essence it is just in theory. What we call beauty is reralized through our sensory perceptioons. When we hear a melody we hear a beauty. Or when we see a beautiful girl we see a beauty When we touch something soft or soothing there is a beauty in the touch. And if anything go beyond that that is just a conception or idea of beauty only

A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet.
I believe that beauty and truth are interwined and therefore beauty (and truth) cannot be relative. I do agree that we percieve the world with our sences and therefore I see the view point that some may have, that beauty does in fact lie in the eye of the beholder, however the question must be posed, is beauty merely what is asthetically pleasing and therefore limited to the individual's perception. Or is beauty something more majestic, something which hits us internally and eternally, something beyond us but within our grasp...is beauty the reminder of purpose and a will to live, that this is not all there is?

Beauty is in flowing, thawing ourselves. It is in unfreezes. In the process we kind of be submerging and be at one with others.

Beauty can be realized when oneness is given into to otherness. Beauty is not a thing, but a concept, a propriety, an ideal and of course an idea.

Beauty cannot be measured in terms of anything we come upon. Beauty is there in us,and the few who can see has a mind that is profoundly deep.

For beauty can be found in ugliness if we have an eye to see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blazeofglory

Beauty is in flowing, thawing ourselves. It is in unfreezes. In the process we kind of be submerging and be at one with others.

Beauty can be realized when oneness is given into to otherness. Beauty is not a thing, but a concept, a propriety, an ideal and of course an idea.

Beauty cannot be measured in terms of anything we come upon. Beauty is there in us,and the few who can see has a mind that is profoundly deep.

For beauty can be found in ugliness if we have an eye to see.

---

This deals with the common argument that can be staged against Plato's Forms. If we have a Form of beauty that is innately known to us, then how can, in concept, something exist the same in all our minds, if our conceptual perception is all different?

It is because beauty is not a form, but a state of motion and perception, through the term of which mankind can form general attachment, and beauty is therefore indeed a 'property' of an object, yet I would argue that the object does not have beauty until it is perceived or thought about as an abstract. Yet with perception we must tread carefully, as Blaze suggests, we need 'an eye to see' and must not become clouded by initial opinion, but by an innate, non carnal attraction/attachment - untainted beauty is the goal of the profound mind.

peace.