beauty

[NickAdams]

that's bc for the most part we're fantastically unattractive. i don't know what women see in us, but i'm glad they see whatever it is

You cant "discover" the soul, as it cannot be proved by scientific equations as it cannot be understood completely.

Now philosophy deals some aspects about the soul, and from what I know about it, it is not the study of unveiling the truth unlike science, but rather provides with insights into contrasting views and perspectives about an idea of various philosophers. A respected philosopher is born out of their originial argument that successfully convinces others to agree and perceive the same.

Reading Pluto's Phaedo, using Socrates, he argued that soul definitely exists out of some points including Argument of affinity, Argument from opposites, where everthing comes to be from out of its opposite, and the Theory of Recollection. He said that "True Philosophers should look forward to death", purpose being to free the spirit from the needs of the body. If you would like to understand more about this, I recommend reading Phaedo.

I'll read it.

A decision from a gut feeling is identified as a decision from the heart, and there seems to be a firm line that distinguishes a feeling and response from the heart and the brain. Where the brain processes mainly with complex ideas and mechanist approach of dealing with matter, the heart processes with mainly with morality.

The heart circulates blood and the "gut" digest food. When you go with your "gut" you go with your instincts. Instincts are inherited responses and because they are unlearned they may be thought to come from some where other than the brain. "Morality" is another product being produced in the brain factory.

Beauty is rarely used to depict men? Handsome serves as a substitute for the word beauty in men, where it is just cultural language that affects how we depict something that is pleasing to the eye, heart etc.

Handsome has been used to describe women, quite common in the past, but this is to further the idea that beauty is relative, which I agree with. Beauty has been so overused that it no longer has the same meaning as it did for our ancestors.

[guyofcomicbooks]

I'll read it.



The heart circulates blood and the "gut" digest food. When you go with your "gut" you go with your instincts. Instincts are inherited responses and because they are unlearned they may be thought to come from some where other than the brain. "Morality" is another product being produced in the brain factory.



Handsome has been used to describe women, quite common in the past, but this is to further the idea that beauty is relative, which I agree with. Beauty has been so overused that it no longer has the same meaning as it did for our ancestors.

Gut feeling is, in my opinion, not an instinct, but an intuition. Intuitions can be learned.

[NickAdams]

Gut feeling is, in my opinion, not an instinct, but an intuition. Intuitions can be learned.

Which is a mental process, because it's a cognitive response.

[guyofcomicbooks]

Yes, it is a mental process, but I still believe that a gut feeling is something like base knowledge, which stems from past experience.

[skasian]

The heart circulates blood and the "gut" digest food. When you go with your "gut" you go with your instincts. Instincts are inherited responses and because they are unlearned they may be thought to come from some where other than the brain. "Morality" is another product being produced in the brain factory.



Handsome has been used to describe women, quite common in the past, but this is to further the idea that beauty is relative, which I agree with. Beauty has been so overused that it no longer has the same meaning as it did for our ancestors.

How can you be so sure what belongs to the brain, mind, spirit, theres no psychologist out there that can successfully differentiate what kind of thought, emotion derives from the brain mind or spirit.

Yes, some words' definition alters over time how the word gay was once defined as happy is now eradicated, and substituted as homosexual in modern generations' vocabularies.

[subterranean]

I'm currently reading On Ugliness by Umberto Eco and never really thought how underrated 'ugliness' is until now. After reading Tao Te Ching some years ago, I understand (though not necessarily agree) that some things wouldn't exist without their opposites.

[atiguhya padma]

Let me discuss with you about radio waves and such electromagnetic waves that seems invisible, immaterial and even maybe immortal. Assuming there was no technology and science, we wouldnt be able to know that they exists with us everyday. The cause: we cant sense them with our five senses. Its a dangerous thing to trust in the naked five, it is just not adequate to sense what exists and what doesnt.

A person who knows well about nitrogen stores in a glass funnel and show people that inside is the most abundant element in earth. This person can be laughed at and thrown eggs for telling such idiotic lies. The idea is that solemly trusting in our five senses esp in our eyes, we get mislead far too easily.
Magicians, masters of illusions to trick the naked eye of people, implements this very idea. What we see, is not always the truth.

What about a person confessing their love to you. We cant feel love itself by our five senses, yet we get compelled to believe that it does exist in the bottom of our hearts.

I have to ask you how can there be a fake soul if there is a real soul. To follow this logic, its like saying there can be a fake human and a real one, something that is very incorrect.
If something exists, it exists alright, theres no fakeness about it.

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?

[NikolaiI]

I'm currently reading On Ugliness by Umberto Eco and never really thought how underrated 'ugliness' is until now. After reading Tao Te Ching some years ago, I understand (though not necessarily agree) that some things wouldn't exist without their opposites.

I was thinking this exact train of thought earlier. I thought, "am I ugly? What if there were only one ugly person in the world? What if, everyone treated them terribly awfully and they later died, then would everyone else disappear too, since there were nothing but beautiful people?"

Or maybe there wouldn't be ugliness in the world after that last ugly person died. So maybe we should kill him if there is only one.

[NikolaiI]

atiguhya padma, it feels like the senses are the closest to the surface, if we use them to identify things... but actually the senses come from somewhere, just as the mind and the intellect also come from somewhere. Nothing comes from nothing, right? So where do the senses come from? Only the mind? Or the self? Or the soul? In sanskrit there is the word atma which has three interpretations, depending on the context. Body, mind, or self, the self being the soul.

So the only way we know we are not the body and the mind is because satisfying those, we still do not feel satisfied. Living only to satisfy the senses does not leave us wholly satisfied. We satisfy phyiscal hunger, thirst, and our needs for shelter, but then equally necessary to us is human interaction. We satisfy our emotional or social needs, but those always need satisfying; after that we have mental pursuit as well as mental and physical recreation. Beyond and mixing with the mental pursuit is the artistic pursuit, and the two lead into the pursuit of spirituality. The ultimate question is, "who am I?" And that question absorbs one, and that question is the self. The self is never separated from other 'selves,' the physical world, or a spiritual world. The separation is an illusion. Consciousness, if it never perceives that it is not separate but a single perspecive upon a tapestry of consciousness; all emanating from and being attracted to the soul, which is beauty - if it never perceives this, then it is like a minus. If we were not conscious there would be no self-consciousness, no suffering. This is the clear philosophical reason for suicide, and it is philosophcially sound. If the subject does not exist, then it does not suffer. It is almost a shame that we have so vandalized this term to call it evil. It may be evil but that doesn't it wouldn't work...

Now I don't mean to bring up the existence of suicide except to say that non-existence isn't so bad. Existence and non-existence are sort of intertwined.

Even if you say there is no soul, there is still a self, which is more fundamental than any superficial conception, and that is not satsified until it finds something greater than the mental and the physical ideas. And it is correct in searching this out, because reason submits, actually, to the soul and the higher order of the divine. The divine is one, it is the truth, the source of beauty and all the universe, and it can be seen that the same divine is depicted in philosophy, religion, and mysticism.

If you do not agree with this I would not argue with you, because I am nothing in comparison with the divine. I cannot speak for the divine, or for the soul, because this would be speaking for the ultimate truth, and for the supreme beauty. I cannot speak for it because I could not capture it, but I can only tell of my own hints of it; hints of the truth of the soul, and of the fact that I, you, every living entity is part of that soul.

It is of no use to try to argue about the soul. The main I can think to talk of the soul is not different if one doesn't believe in the soul. Either way, we exist in the same universe, with the same laws, and in fact the discussion of the soul is the quest in understanding that particular, highest, law of the universe. My idea is that the soul is part of the divine soul, and it is divine in its original nature. We only neglect this fact for various other pursuits; interestingly, sometimes the pursuit of telling people the soul does not exist. The soul is the source of beauty, it is the source of mysticism and it is depicted by the mystics; our soul is the same soul of the soul of nature, which is why our heart is always called or attracted by nature. Our soul is the source of beauty and attraction, yet it is also the source of our self - though we are not always self-realized, it is still true that thoughts come from the self, rather than the self being stored up in the thoughts. And senses and preferences for them are known to the self by the thoughts, as is the rest of the world. If we identify our self with our senses, and perceive we exist because we can sense the world, the perhaps this divides us from our self, because our self knows it exists even if the senses do not; although the senses are part of it, the self, the soul, is still like the root.

This may still seem alien to atheists; I have not yet discovered that any of my words convinced an atheist to start thinking more about the soul or God, but thus is the way I see it. The soul is the permanent attractor to the self, and the soul is also the connection with the higher law of spirit, of the universe. Reason submits to the soul, and thus should intellect and mind submit to the soul, seeing in it its true existence, coming from it rather than matter.

[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.

[NikolaiI]

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.

[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.

[NikolaiI]

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.

[Klope3]

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.

[Zee.]

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. "