I dont mind if you dont agree with me, I just have the thesaurus to support me.Quote:
Originally Posted by limajean
Printable View
I dont mind if you dont agree with me, I just have the thesaurus to support me.Quote:
Originally Posted by limajean
Yup...
You are just linking beauty with the physical human. Beauty is much more broader than "sex appeal" far far more than you can comprehend.Quote:
Originally Posted by aBIGsheep
I don't know what thesaurus you have but every one i've looked through, online and hard copy disagrees with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by skasian
Because they're really different words..
Beauty exists in three levels,
Physical - perceived by the eyes where beauty is something appealing, in a desirable sense. Ie eye candy
Emotional/Mental - perceived by the heart and mind where beauty is something so hauntingly appealing that is able to move the heart. Ie Passages from a great romantic novel
Spiritual - Purity, Clean, Righteous, Holy. Ie God and a human soul in prayer.
Really? Mine lists about 15~20 words or so, and it definitely includes.Quote:
Originally Posted by limajean
Its not so important anyway
Agreed.
AHAOHHAOHAHOQuote:
Originally Posted by skasian
What do you think an opinion is? Please, enlighten me with your thesaurus.
I quite agree. Though some girls I know are annoying about presenting their opinions.Quote:
Originally Posted by aBIGsheep
Annoying how?
Like the, you're-wrong-I'm-right-now-shut-up-and-let-me-listen-to-the-sound-of-my-own-voice-as-I-preach type annoying?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dori
Amen to that.
Beauty's in the eye of the beholder....
Ah yeah.
In some cases. But most beauty is undeniable.
I never disagreed with your opinion, I was informing that we must not only look at human beauty when there are much more in the world that represents beauty.Quote:
Originally Posted by aBIGsheep
I think hands are beautiful
Whisking us away to the original question . . .
. . . I have no intention of insulting others' opinions, despite how much I may disagree, for arguing what seems more beautiful than ugly seems as absurd as the physical appearance of Baroque composers, in opposition to musicians of today, where looks mean more than talent ('Video Killed the Radio Star,' anyone?).Quote:
Originally Posted by bruno russel
Regardless that it seems one of my favorite subjects, one of the few works I have read on aesthetics, Critique of Judgment by Immanuel Kant, sums up my opinion. Judgment judges a lot (pun intended), but what do we love to judge most? Not crime, but what appears alluring to the eye (or the 'judgment of taste,' as Kant words it).
Though Kant seems to take objectivity for granted in Critique of Judgment, let us assume that no Absolute Beauty exists, but rather human perception; therefore, what we see, we judge. This we judge as wrong, this right, this smart, this dumb, this beautiful, this hideous, etc. Beauty, thereby, appears entirely subjective, and, at worst, determined by the masses, possibly influenced by the periphery.
I say 'influenced by the periphery' because we search for what Kant, translated, calls 'universal validity' - we search for agreement, in terms of multiple yuppies admiring a piece of art, a group of fraternity boys ogling a Playboy magazine, or a troop of tree-huggers going bird-watching. What do these things have in common? In terms of pleasure toward the senses, they exist as an end; they seem useful at that present moment, but their beauty freezes us in our steps, makes us hold our breath, and recall that moment in times of trouble to remember the treasurable, immeasurable times of life. In essence, beauty has no reason, but only its existence for its onlookers to admire, and, to answer your original question, bruno russel, Kant sees beauty in the eye of the beholder. The yuppies regard the painting, as do the frat boys to the model, as do the environmentalists to the eagle, as do I to Audrey Hepburn.
In this theory, beauty appears without bias of intelligence, once again, entirely subjective. The judge of intelligence seems a different subject, but I mean to point out that an individual with trisomy 21 (Down's syndrome) may have the same merit in terms of judgment of beauty as a member of Mensa. Beauty exists regardless of intellect, acuity of perception (whether blind, def, paraplegic, quadriplegic), or background.
I believe, however, that the judgment of beauty may gain some bias by culture. Certain tribes of Burma consider gradual neck-streching by brass rings attractive, the sects of polygamist Mormonism by Warren Jeffs in Utah and Arizona (U.S.A.) would marry girls as young as 9 years old, and I dare not mention the details of female circumcision in some African countries. Do I consider such practices beautiful? Goodness, no, and my reverence for certain practices may not change, but I would never deny that members of certain cultures join that culture because they find specific practices as ritual, sacred, and recognized as an ends toward beauty. Their ideation of beauty, rather, seems identified by their culture and background, unknown whether others consider it right or wrong, also judged upon subjectivity by the masses.
In other words, bruno russel, I cannot define beauty, nor will I attempt to try. I have witnessed it in my own subjective view, and shall not describe it, but regard it as an end in itself; I will not necessarily attempt to connect it with anything good or holy, as did Plato in his Symposium, but revere and preserve it.
Mono, I would argue that the marrying of girls as young as 9, and the circumcision of women in African countries - has no relation to beauty. And it doesn't. Women in Africa are not circumcised for beauty. Neither is the practice regarded as beautiful.
Beauty is subjective, but.. beauty is also something we can all generally, at times, agree on