How could you define beauty? Is beauty in the object or in the eye of the beholder?My religion tells me God is beautiful and He loves beauty.
Printable View
How could you define beauty? Is beauty in the object or in the eye of the beholder?My religion tells me God is beautiful and He loves beauty.
I believe that beauty is in the eye of the beholder...we all look at things differently, and something can be beautiful to one person and horrifying to the next.
I belive that everything has some beauty in it you just have to look for it. Not really answering the question am I?
Must confess thoughI cant seem to see anything beautiful in flies!
If beauty is only in the eye of the beholder, then anything can be beautiful. Furthermore, when one observer declares an object to be beautiful, and another declares it to be ugly, how are we to judge who is correct, if it is merely a matter of individual perception and taste? We could say that beauty is whatever the majority of observers say it is. This could of course lead to something changing from being beautiful to not being beautiful overnight, which would seem rather odd.
Surely there must be a set of rules to beauty.
rose by another name would smell just as sweet.
Character contributes to beauty. It fortifies a woman as her youth fades. A mode of conduct, a standard of courage, discipline, fortitude and integrity can do a great deal to make a woman beautiful.
- - - Jacqueline Bisset
Thought the concept of beauty gets nicely summed up by this quotation.
To define beauty, I would say aesthetics and symmetry contribute to attractiveness. However, an individual is truly classified as beautiful when their actions, words and behavior shows the beauty in their nature and soul. For example, the physical aspect of 'beauty' is shown by images of models and there are beauty pagents. In this area, physical features, body size as well as vital physical statistics are highlighted. However, in the area of beauty in which one goes beyond the appearance, charity workers, individuals who demonstrate selfless actions and people who fight against oppression (just cause) can be classified as souls with 'beauty'. Example would be Mother Teresa who looked after children who were thrown out by their parents.
<an individual is truly classified as beautiful when their actions, words and behavior shows the beauty in their nature and soul.>
What about if you don't believe in the soul? Do hard-nosed materialists not have an aesthetic sense?
<individuals who demonstrate selfless actions>
Its so difficult to determine what is truly a selfless action. Who can tell the degree of selflessness in Mother Teresa's work. I have read some pretty damning articles of what she did.
Furthermore, it really isn't easy to determine how much satisfaction and pleasure people get from so-called selfless actions. Can an action be both satisfying and selfless at the same time? Is it not the case that expectation of satisfaction, or at least, a diminshing of dissatisfaction, drives such cases of selflessness? And if it does, then is it truly selfless?
To believe or not believe in the soul is not a big deal. The question deals with religion therefore most of the religions I know of deal with the 'soul' concept. Each person is entitled to his/her opinion. I personally had turned totally materialistic and failed to see the beauty in anything. To gain a competitive edge, all things are placed aside. It is only now that I have started to appreciate the beauty in things and people. There would definitely be people who can effectively balance materialistic gains along with admiration for anything appealing either aesthics or visual. As for the 'selfless' act classification, i guess the point really is doing good things for others without any expectations or selfish desires and yet feeling a sense of fulfilment. To feel satisfaction and be selfless, I would say personal experiences would vary. Sometimes to do a good deed and not get appreciation makes one not want to further repeat such actions. I am trying to discuss the concept of 'beauty' which I have learnt from experience.
What is your interpetaion of soul?
Later, not going to go into details
essence of a being huh? what on earth does that mean?
I personally don't think it's very fruitful bringing a spiritual element into aesthetics. Its fuzzy enough already as it is.
please define aesthetics
atiguhya padma, i think you are taking this a bit too seriously. I am giving my interpretation of beauty etc not necessarily getting into a debate. I was asked a question in relation to how I would define 'soul' which I did (more from my cultural perspective). The main issue was to discuss 'beauty' and I had already stated everyone is entitled to their opinion. I really can't understand why you are starting some kind of a debate rather than just letting individual views on the question be expressed. I guess at some level you have to respect other people's opinions rather than try to be critical about what they say.
The beauty of the soul shines out when a man bears with composure one heavy mischance after another, not because he does not feel them, but because he is a man of high and heroic temper.
--Aristotle
Beauty of whatever kind, in its supreme development, invariably excites the sensitive soul to tears.
Edgar Allen Poe
Amirah, why are you so averse to debate? A philosophy literature section without debate, is like saying lets talk about philosophy without philosophy.
When I asked what soul meant to you , it was not for debate. I wanted the writer's conception of soul so that I could gasp the whole of what was being presented . More of a way of honoring than setting up debate.
There really is no debate of beauty anyhow , because we all have many concepts of it and therefore it can be seen in different things and people. To say one does not believe in beauty is acknowledging beauty exist and then saying I do not believe in it.
So where the debate beauty is in the eye of the beholder,
Sorry for any misunderstandings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by atiguhya padma
You mean like the one used in Ms Universe or Ms World competition?
Not quite subT:). I doubt whether the judges in a beauty competition know much at all about beauty. But there is a whole branch of philosophy devoted to the study of what we mean by the term beautiful. If it were true that beauty is entirely relative to the individual perception, then what is the point in such a branch of philosophy?
Beauty is simplicity of motion,
Envisioned in the eye or in the mind,
Constant and coordinated reflex,
The interplay of matter, space and time,
Stars in step with stars and galaxies,
Birth, Life, Death, Rebirth in cyclic patterns,
Change and evolution from the ocean,
A multitude expanding and contracting,
Beginning, metamorphosis and end.
- Sitaram
from "Modality of Thought"
http://toosmallforsupernova.org/modalityofthought.htm
Real beauty is not being able to see, hear, smell - sense something without stopping and letting the experience flow through you like a wave and your heart to stop and lie in your body breathless.
Yes my friend!! So true. As is the fact that the flow and ebb is different for each person, the catalysts so diverse for each individual human that only a brain scan will reveal what physical part of the human brain that is responsible, but can never reveal the passion responsible for the wonder that is 'appreciation'.Quote:
Originally Posted by scruffy_danny
I agree with scruffy_danny and baddad, but I do think you can find beauty in most things. even death can be beautiful.
If we can find beauty in ugliness, then, is there ugliness in beauty?
Read "The Painted Bird" by Jerzy Kosinski
Beauty, beauty, beauty...it's everywhere! What sort of beauty, tho? I think the thread started out posing the question~"what sort of person is physically beautiful to you?"...or something like that. Well, I'll give it a shot. Now, if I'm going to be talking about what I consider to be the epitome of physical beauty, I'm going to be talking about the fair sex...'cuz....well, 'cuz I'm a guy, and that's just the way my brain works. ;)
For starters, I've always been considered somewhat of an oddball when it comes to my idea of beauty. For example, while growing up with my buds, almost always, when they would point out a particular girl that they thought beautiful, my reaction would usually be less enthusiastic than their own. Although we were both seeing the same person, I didn't think she was "the most beautiful woman I'd ever seen". Beauty, for me, has always come from the within, rather than without. Don't misunderstand me, it's not that I considered...oh, I dunno...let's say some celebrity...(pick one)...it's not that I couldn't see that yes, she was pretty much flawless in the standards that had been set forth within our society, it's just that she wasn't necessarily "beautiful" to me. My buddies thought I was weird...maybe I am, who knows?
I've known people that didn't strike me as beautiful when I'd first meet them, but then later, they would become beautiful. In fact, I've witnessed this transformation a few times. What caused the transformation? Falling in love. When two people are head over heels in love with each other...they become beautiful...however, it only works if it's the real deal. Not 2 people that just have the hots for each other, but a couple who's souls are linked.
That's not to say that I don't have a particular "type" that I'm attracted to, I definitely do. In fact, I've been in love 3 times in my life, and the 3 woman could pass for sisters. That's a little weird, too, huh? And stranger still, I don't even realize it until someone, usually a family member, points it out to me. So, I guess I have a preference as to my initial attraction...and i'm gonna try to say this as delicately as possible...I'm just being honest, although to me, personally my 3 have been, and are, beauitiful, to others, while being pretty, they don't look like some Hollywood celebrity. To them, they don't...but to me, there isn't a Hollywood celebrity that can hold a candle to my girl. I'm dead serious. At first, my love would think I was just saying that to be nice, or something, I guess, but, in time, she'd realize that I was being completely sincere...because I was...I am!
And finally, to confuse you completely, you know those friends, who at first might not have thought my girl was a stunning beauty? Well...after a bit of time had gone by, and we'd fallen in love, her & I would run into that same person again...later on he'd say.."Wow, Bix! I don't remember her being that beautiful." It's happened every time. So, you tell me...what is beauty?
Beauty is something more than merely pretty:
"But, Alas," Beauty sighs, "people just love me for my brains, all that 'Truth is Beauty' stuff. No one ever sees me for the sexual object that I truly am, lying in a bordello of kitsch and simulacra, longing to be used, abused, and then tossed aside once I have become slightly stale."Quote:
Originally Posted by Beauty
Professor Einstein raises his finger and begs to interject a thought:Quote:
Originally Posted by Marilyn Monroe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Einstein
Absolutely, it is. Describing beauty is as hard as recognizing beauty is easy.
And sometimes, it is good to relax and enjoy something without getting caught up in details. Too much analysis can ruin things; it is possible to wear subjects out.
Hmmmmm....good point. One that bears further analysis....NOT! Just kidding...hee hee hee...
Aesthetics is a very wide field with all the room for interpretation that anyone could ever want.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesthetics
User deleted.
I'll agree that there is beauty in truth, but truth is not solely comprised of beauty...truth holds that which can satisfy our very soul, but truth also has the power to unleash the Agonies unto our very essence...truth is a sword that cuts both ways.
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