# Reading > Philosophical Literature >  beauty

## bruno russel

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.

----------


## Major Plath Fan

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.

----------


## Nightshade

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!

----------


## atiguhya padma

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.

----------


## ~K~

rose by another name would smell just as sweet.

----------


## amirah_almas

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.

----------


## atiguhya padma

<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?

----------


## amirah_almas

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.

----------


## ~K~

What is your interpetaion of soul?

----------


## amirah_almas

Later, not going to go into details

----------


## atiguhya padma

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.

----------


## Nightshade

please define aesthetics

----------


## amirah_almas

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

----------


## atiguhya padma

Amirah, why are you so averse to debate? A philosophy literature section without debate, is like saying lets talk about philosophy without philosophy.

----------


## ~K~

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.

----------


## subterranean

> ..Surely there must be a set of rules to beauty.




You mean like the one used in Ms Universe or Ms World competition?

----------


## atiguhya padma

Not quite subT :Smile: . 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?

----------


## Sitaram

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

----------


## scruffy_danny

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.

----------


## baddad

> 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'.

----------


## Helga

I agree with scruffy_danny and baddad, but I do think you can find beauty in most things. even death can be beautiful.

----------


## Sitaram

If we can find beauty in ugliness, then, is there ugliness in beauty?

Read *"The Painted Bird"* by Jerzy Kosinski

----------


## Bix12

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.  :Wink:  

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?

----------


## Sitaram

Beauty is something more than merely pretty:




> I'm more than a bird 
> I'm more than a plane 
> More than some pretty face beside a train 
> ...
> Digging for kryptonite on this one way street 
> 
> -from Superman (It's Not Easy)
> by Five For Fighting


*"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."*




> The most sensual part of my body is my mind.


Professor Einstein raises his finger and begs to interject a thought:




> Leibshen! Of course, I have your calendar hanging on my bathroom wall.
> 
> But the more fundamental question is not about beauty at all, but whether reality, being itself, is digital or analog.
> 
> If it turns out to be the case that reality is digital, that everything, even beauty can be expressed as a sequence of numbers or a DNA mapping, then any beauty, which can be expressed by such a sequence, becomes the shadowplay of illusion in Plato's cave analogy (in the Republic), BUT, if the contrary is the case, if reality is ANALOG, and ultimately incommensurate with any digital attempt at expression, why then.....

----------


## Bix12

Absolutely, it is. Describing beauty is as hard as recognizing beauty is easy.

----------


## Scheherazade

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.

----------


## Bix12

Hmmmmm....good point. One that bears further analysis....NOT! Just kidding...hee hee hee...

----------


## PeterL

Aesthetics is a very wide field with all the room for interpretation that anyone could ever want.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesthetics

----------


## pvpham

User deleted.

----------


## Bix12

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.

----------


## pvpham

User deleted.

----------


## subterranean

Quite an old stuff, I know.





> Not quite subT. I doubt whether the judges in a beauty competition know much at all about beauty.


If we refer to (mostly) physical apperance and (somewhat) personal qualifications e.g education, attitude; maybe lots of people would agree with the judges. 
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).

----------


## Edmond

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

----------


## subterranean

Let's just say that I don't agree with Mario Livio and I much prefer Andy Warhol

----------


## subterranean

Maybe someone who already read Kant's Critique of Aesthetic Judgment, be kind enough to summarize what he say about beauty?

----------


## Aurora Ariel

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! :Smile:

----------


## Adelheid

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.  :Biggrin:

----------


## mono

> Maybe someone who already read Kant's Critique of Aesthetic Judgment, be kind enough to summarize what he say about beauty?


For anyone interested, subterranean (hiya, sub  :Wink: ) refers to _Critique Of Judgment_ by Immanuel Kant; his philosophical work dedicated to aesthetics and teleology.
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.

----------


## subterranean

Hi ya back to you Mono  :Wink: , 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.

----------


## mono

> 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.

----------


## chispa

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:

----------


## atiguhya padma

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.

----------


## subterranean

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

----------


## rachel

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"

----------


## querida

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.

----------


## subterranean

The beauty of "monsters"...If I may use Eco's term...Of course in this case I refer to the pyhisical apperance...




> i even thought the hunchback of notre dam was beautiful, his soul shone through his body like a sapphire star.

----------


## blazeofglory

> 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.


Beauty is in your mind. What you see outside is a manifestation or just a photography of your mind.

----------


## mangueken

> Surely there must be a set of rules to beauty.



From a personal experience, when I lived in Brazil, the women in Rio de Janeiro always adjust their bikinis so that they keep the same tan lines. The contrast of light skin with darkened skin is considered to be very sexy there. The local news once did a report from an Asian country where the women all walk around on sunny days with umbrellas to protect their skin from getting tanned. My Brazilian friends thought that was strange. The reporter must have too, as he made a point of showing it to his viewers. 
The point being, there are rules, some biological, some social and yes they change. So beauty is relative to the society and time it is from.

----------


## wilbur lim

Beauty can be divided into eclectic parts.Some divided into lustful circumstances while some divided into demeanour ones.Though beauty is not present outside the eye but inside the eye.It is all thy volition to be beautiful,for all is beautiful.

----------


## skasian

In physical terms, beauty is recognised by evenly distributed proportion of the body and the face. If the face is distributed in closest format of the golden ratio, then it is considered superior beauty over the rest. 
According to research, male finds a feminine female as beautiful whereas females finds a slightly feminine male more beautiful than a full masculine male.

In spiritual terms, purity, goodness and righteousness are recognised as beautiful, as the cleanness of the soul is priceless and flawless.

----------


## blazeofglory

> In physical terms, beauty is recognised by evenly distributed proportion of the body and the face. If the face is distributed in closest format of the golden ratio, then it is considered superior beauty over the rest. 
> According to research, male finds a feminine female as beautiful whereas females finds a slightly feminine male more beautiful than a full masculine male.
> 
> In spiritual terms, purity, goodness and righteousness are recognised as beautiful, as the cleanness of the soul is priceless and flawless.


This is a pure idea clean of religions and orthodoxies. I AGREE 100 %.

----------


## skasian

> This is a pure idea clean of religions and orthodoxies. I AGREE 100 %.


I am happy to know so :Smile:

----------


## Maletbon

Beauty, to me, has to have something of harmony in it to be beautiful. I think it's true to an extent that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but in that case "beauty" is defined as something the beholder likes. If he likes it, it's beautiful, but if he doesn't, it's not.

Beauty goes beyond that though, at least for me. I think there is something universal in beauty that has nothing to do with the beholder. If Marylin Monroe falls in the forest without a camera there, is there a beauty? I say yes.

----------


## skasian

> Beauty, to me, has to have something of harmony in it to be beautiful. I think it's true to an extent that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but in that case "beauty" is defined as something the beholder likes. If he likes it, it's beautiful, but if he doesn't, it's not.
> 
> Beauty goes beyond that though, at least for me. I think there is something universal in beauty that has nothing to do with the beholder. If Marylin Monroe falls in the forest without a camera there, is there a beauty? I say yes.


Beauty certainly goes beyond the physical level, and can be recognised in the spiritual level.

----------


## Zee.

Okay if we're going to talk about physical beauty, scientifically symmetry = beauty.

Good bone structure, a symmetrical face = beautiful.

But that is beauty in it's rawest form. You may have no warm feelings to that person who possesses that beauty but they're still beautiful.

And then there's the people you fall in love with ( i dont just mean in the romantic way ) they suddenly become the most beautiful creatures in the world, aided by your feelings towards them.

Beauty like i said, can be found and appreciated and acknowledged without thought or feeling.
Other forms of beauty can develop only because your feelings towards whatever it may be, develop.

It's like those couples you see together and one of them is extremely beautiful, the other quite unattractive, and you always wonder why - but you know. Because that other person, the one who seems beautiful to you - see's the world in the other, see's everything beautiful, right, true, good and pure within them - and appreciates every line, mark, scar, spot, everything.

Love in my opinion, brings attention to beauty. Or perhaps it creates it, i'm not really sure. It doesn't matter.

The second beauty i described, the beauty which you see because that person is so beautiful on the inside and for whatever reason it is, you love them, out runs the first by miles.

How that person makes you feel makes them beautiful.

----------


## Zee.

Also, reading over all the posts, it seems like most people are talking about the "inside of a person"

But physical beauty can not be denied. It turns your head. Why? because it's beautiful.
You don't need to know his or her soul to know it's beautiful.

Like i said, symmetry.

To say it is in the eye of the beholder i believe - makes references to pretty, cute, hot girls or guys. But beautiful? something that is truly beautiful, physically, is generally agreed with by the masses.

----------


## Zee.

I think it may have been Plato who said that beauty was a seperate entity and that what a beautiful girl and a beautiful mountain had in common was the form of beauty.

----------


## prendrelemick

I think the Plato quote above has come the nearest to the truth about beauty. There is a unversality in beauty. Look at a lake in the moonlight, or a mist filled valley at dawn. When I see such things I can imagine Stone Age Man standing in the same spot and staring in wonder thousands of years ago. 

But when it comes to human beauty, fashion seems to hold sway. Would that same Stone Age Man stare in wonder at Keira Knightley?

----------


## Zee.

I think so.

I think beauty has been understood for a very long time..

----------


## Lust Hogg

To reduce truth and beauty to some solipsistic model is a a terrible tragedy. If you endorse that claim, you have to willingly admit that a song produced by Britney Spears and something done by Tchaikovsky, somehow warrant the same level of artistic valuation. I think this is ludicrous. Of course Beauty is to a certain extent relativistic but, there are general cannons of judgment and taste that are for the most part agreeable to all. In the same way, someone might ask what it is to be " Just " or ethical. There are general bedrock values that seem to transcend circumstance and partiality. Such as the right not to be systematically tortured and oppressed, or the right to human dignity, i could go on... I Am not trying to reduce Beauty to a statistical science in that numerical validation by some population renders something beautiful. it just seems as though an experience of something truly beautiful has a transcendent quality that is undeniably objective. Of course the sweater that someone's dying grandmother knitted for them does not evoke the same kind of emotional response in me, as with him. But that does not prevent me from understanding why it is an object of beauty and reverence

----------


## skasian

> Okay if we're going to talk about physical beauty, scientifically symmetry = beauty.
> 
> Good bone structure, a symmetrical face = beautiful.
> 
> But that is beauty in it's rawest form. You may have no warm feelings to that person who possesses that beauty but they're still beautiful.
> 
> And then there's the people you fall in love with ( i dont just mean in the romantic way ) they suddenly become the most beautiful creatures in the world, aided by your feelings towards them.
> 
> Beauty like i said, can be found and appreciated and acknowledged without thought or feeling.
> ...


Yes I agree, physical beauty = symmetry, but also proportion, and being closest to the golden ratio. A celebrity considered most beautiful in my country has very accurate facial ratio to the golden ratio. Let us not forget that different time era and culture brings in the different idea of beauty, little by little. The Renaissance believed, pink and white fleshy, pudgyness as beautiful as it is depicted in paintings of its era. The time of Cleopatria, they thought beauty was depicted by strong eyes, therefore they emphasised the eye by dark coal. Today,in the western world, large, puffy lips are depicted as sexiness and beauty, where as in the asian world, esp in Japan, small, tiny lips are favoured.

----------


## JBI

Beauty has nothing to do with symmetry. It has to do with attitude. If you look at artwork spanning thousands of years, the identifying features of beauty are all different, yet somehow the paintings themselves are beautiful. It is the way they are presented, not what is presented, that makes something beautiful. Symmetry has really very little to do with it, I would think light is more central.

----------


## skasian

> Beauty has nothing to do with symmetry. It has to do with attitude. If you look at artwork spanning thousands of years, the identifying features of beauty are all different, yet somehow the paintings themselves are beautiful. It is the way they are presented, not what is presented, that makes something beautiful. Symmetry has really very little to do with it, I would think light is more central.


Let us compare the faces of Audrey Hepburn and Courtney Love. Instantly you will get a simple message to the brain that will inform you who best represents beauty. Poor Courtney lacks symmetry, as Audrey has symmetry that is close to perfect. Proportion close to the golden ratio links to perfect symmetry that induce the head turning affect. Looking only at the face alone, and judging beauty, it depends mostly on symmetry and proportion.

Attitude is a completely different story that can link with karisma, charm and grace that emphasises the beauty of the physical form. Attitude I have to say belongs to characteristic and behavioural aspects whereas symmetry is all physical. For example, body builders aim not on size and toning, but more into symmetry.

Painting of people or anything in general? The reason why paintings look so appealing and some so harmonious is because of the composition, compositions that are followed by lines and angles of symmetry. Take the example, lets say da Vinci's The Last Supper. The masterpiece overall can be considered as beautiful, relaxing and complete. Composition is the main reason for this effect where there are perfect lines of symmetry and perfect geometric shapes. Most ingenious painters have manipulated symmetry to create flat works on canvas that hinders the human heart and inevitably link with our own definition of beauty.

Light is not important, all it does is emphasise the beauty that holds symmetry. It is true that without light we wouldnt tell Audrey and Courtney apart however, more light doesnt help Courtney becoming anything close to Grace Kelly or Natalie Portman.

----------


## JBI

Nah, I think symmetry is useful, but not essential. Keep in mind, people used to add birthmarks to their faces to add to beauty, but in theory, that would break symmetry, rendering such an obsession invalid.

----------


## kilted exile

Symmetry has little to do with physical beauty as far as I'm concerned. It neglects both personal and cultural aspects of beauty eg the idea of a beauty spot in times past.

----------


## stlukesguild

Beauty? Acck! It certainly is difficult to define... even as an artist. I would like to think that there is some objective means of defining it or recognizing it... but I suspect this is not so. If anything... it is largely established culturally. 

Let us take something like sexual attractiveness. One would somewhat assume that there is something of a universal agreement as to what amounts to a beautiful human body or face. Perhaps such exists within the culture of the moment... largely as the result of certain faces and body-types being put forward as the ideal. But if we look across history...

In the Renaissance there was something of a admiration of women with full a full, moon-like face with high-domed foreheads... to the point that the hair was often plucked back. Pale, pale skin was also the ideal, as well as full lips worthy of Angelina Jolie:



This ideal can be seen in endless idealized portraits of the period... including Leonardo's Mona Lisa.









The ideal female body was composed of small, high breasts, a full stomach (suggestive of health/wealth... ie, well-fed... and fertility) pale skin, and light (blonde) hair.

The ideal male was seen as rather androgynous... even feminine in features:



Anything too masculine or muscular was seen as lacking grace... sophistication... civilized airs... too bestial. The ideal male physique was similarly androgynous. The bodies were lithe and lean and sinuous... in a word: feminine. There was little or no body hair, and if the penis was displayed it tended toward the small in scale... again avoiding suggestions of the bestial nature:





With the first serious studies in anatomy and physiology my Michelangelo and Leonardo, there was a shift toward a more muscular figure... but excepting Michelangelo... the ideal still remained rather lithe... hairless... and umm...err... small in girth:



One might contrast the Renaissance ideals with that of the 18th century. In the era of the Rococo, the ideal woman has become far more full figured... round and soft and slightly pudgy all over:



Large doe-like eyes and a casual sense of nonchalance... the hair falling freely... hat cocked to one side... rather than the rigid formalism preferred during the Renaissance... were the ideal in women:



As in our own time... there was an obsession with youth. Images of couples gathered together often suggested children or even dolls at play. Women strove to appear "girlish"... and many young girls whom we might find far-too-young (although considering Britney Spears or Miley Cyrus... perhaps not) became the erotic ideal... even the mistresses of older men (such as Louis XV's 14-year old mistress seen here):



The ideal man... on the other hand... was similarly "boyish" in nature... whether young...



or older...



Certainly these ideals of beauty share some elements with our own... and differ greatly in other instances. These ideals differ even further when one looks to cultures outside of just those of Western Europe and North America. China, Japan, India, the Middle-East, Africa all present unique standards and ideals of beauty. It is always intriguing to contrast the voluptuous, full-figured ideals of India:





With the ideal of refined elegance found in the japanese notions of erotic beauty:





One of the most intriguing aspects of the Japanese notion of beauty (or the 18th and 19th centuries) is the lack of nudes. The nude itself was seldom seen as erotic. Most blatant erotic images, such as the famous "Shunga" prints, focus upon display of sexual organs... telling details such as curling toes and disheveled hair... and swirls of elegant satin and silk robes:



It would seem that if the most inherent aspects of our ideals of beauty... those related to sexual desire... are relevant and impacted greatly by culture... the ideals of beauty in art are no less universal.

----------


## Zee.

When it comes to beauty, yes every culture and era and whatever it may be had different opinions of beauty,

high foreheads, full lips

black hair, pale skin

tan skin, blond hair

etc etc

but that simply doesn't make you beautiful. SYMMETRY does.
Proportion, bone structure, a well structured face.

First you must have the face, the BONE STRUCTURE. Because having full lips or.. red hair, doesn't automatically make you beautiful.

You could take a very unattractive person and dye their hair, give them contacts, pump collagen into their lips - to whatever culture you see fit, and it does not make them beautiful.

Why? 
because like i said, it's dependant on the structure of the face. The balance of the face.
The positioning of the nose to the eyes, the distance between features, the type of cheek bones - the jaw line etc.


saying simply 
that one culture finds a woman beautiful because she has
black hair, pale skin and a long neck means nothing, because if her face isn't structured well, she simply isn't beautiful.

It's like people who say their type is tanned and blonde.
I know a whole lot of unattractive people who are tanned and blonde. It doesn't make you beautiful. Bone structure does.

Angelina Jolie was mentioned before - she simply isnt beautiful because of her lips. Notice her cheekbones, the shape of her eyes, the distance between her nose and eyes, all of it, its about structure.

----------


## stlukesguild

The idea of symmetry as a universal standard of beauty may be as much to be desired as a universal standard of beauty when speaking of sexual attractiveness... but I think ultimately it is equally fleeting. As a visual artist I am greatly intrigued and seduced by visual beauty... especially at a time in which art often seems openly hostile to any notion of "beauty" while the larger culture seems obsessed with it when we look to fashion, and film, and music. Performers of the most marginal talents are raised to the realm of stardom based far more often upon appearances than content and ability. But lets return to beauty and symmetry in art.

Certainly there are any number of cultures who presented symmetry as an ideal... this is especially common in cultures that put great value upon formality... continuity... the sense of the eternal:











However... there are other cultures that have placed far more value upon the sense of dynamism... drama... movement... vitality. In these the ideals of beauty are often far more asymmetrical:















Beyond the issues of symmetry... what is considered to be "beautiful" or elegant in terms of color, line, space, value, light, etc... varies greatly throughout the whole of art history. Elements that are key to one artist's work of unquestionable beauty may be found in other works of absolute mediocrity... while elements that appear ghastly... garish... or crude in one instance may lend the greatest strength to another artist's work. I'm tempted to say that it is all in the eye of the beholder... but then, as the elitist I am I will admit that certain eyes behold better than others. :Biggrin:

----------


## Zee.

You're talking about beauty in art, i'm talking about beauty in a face.

----------


## Zee.

I think many people can find the answer to what beauty is in themselves.

If i presented you with two pictures, one of a woman with brilliant bone structure
and a woman with no prominant cheek bones and a poor jaw line - you would, i'm sure, choose the first.

----------


## stlukesguild

When it comes to beauty, yes every culture and era and whatever it may be had different opinions of beauty,

high foreheads, full lips

black hair, pale skin

tan skin, blond hair

etc etc

but that simply doesn't make you beautiful. SYMMETRY does.
Proportion, bone structure, a well structured face.

First you must have the face, the BONE STRUCTURE.

saying simply
that one culture finds a woman beautiful because she has
black hair, pale skin and a long neck means nothing, because if her face isn't structured well, she simply isn't beautiful.

It's like people who say their type is tanned and blonde.
I know a whole lot of unattractive people who are tanned and blonde. It doesn't make you beautiful. Bone structure does.

Angelina Jolie was mentioned before - she simply isnt beautiful because of her lips. Notice her cheekbones, the shape of her eyes, the distance between her nose and eyes, all of it, its about structure.

And what, exactly, is the formula for this structural ideal? The Renaissance ideal in women preferred a high forehead... far greater ratio of forehead to face. The classic Hollywood male lead was commonly quite rugged in structure... with strong jawlines and harder angular forms... quite removed from the delicate, androgynous features preferred by the Renaissance. 

Of course... unless the person has a deformity... the human face is largely symmetrical. There are some slight "imperfections"... but these can be just as much a point of attraction (as in Elvis' or Cindi Crawford's lips that curl... even smirk... to one side) as not. It would be next to impossible to reduce the magnetism or attraction of Marlon Brando or Marylin Monroe's face to any formula let alone mere symmetry.

----------


## Zee.

Who do you find beautiful?

----------


## stlukesguild

If i presented you with two pictures, one of a woman with *brilliant* bone structure
and a woman with no prominant cheek bones and a *poor* jaw line - you would, i'm sure, choose the first.

Again... you have not defined "brilliant bone structure" or "poor jaw line". Perhaps I might agree with your selections of an example of each... but there is also the equal likelihood that I would find any number of women with similar "brilliant bone structures" less than gorgeous due to other elements that attract or repel me. There is also issue that what we define as a "brilliant bone structure" here and now is greatly influenced by our culture... by the images that have bombarded us for years... and that this ideal is in no way a universal or eternal ideal.

----------


## Zee.

I really dont believe that its simply the "images" we're bombarded with through the media
I think humanity has had an understanding of beauty for a very long time. And i stand by symmetry = beauty.

----------


## aBIGsheep



----------


## kilted exile

There was a discussion on physical beauty a couple of years ago

http://www.online-literature.com/for...ad.php?t=24929

Basically my opinion is unchanged from what I posted then:




> Ok, I may be in the minority here, but I have never been particularly enamoured with Angelina Jolie - I dont like the way her cheeks seem so sunken in. So in this way beauty is definitely a preference, based on what we percieve and would have to be in the eye of the beholder as a result.
> 
> Of course, societally we are given an image and told that it is beautiful, the majority of the time its nonsense. Maralyn (sp?) Monroe was thought to be the pinnacle of beauty, but now there are some who may consider her to be carrying a few extra pounds. Then we had the lanky supermodels who look like they have thrown up everything they've ate and were told for a woman to be beautiful she should look like that. More recently it has been the more curvaceous figure that has been "in" and we have been told Beyonce & Jennifer Lopez were beautiful. The more current fascination appears to be with the "Jessicas" as in Simpson, Alba and Biehl.
> 
> I dont pay attention to it I know what I find attractive (fuller face, typically brunnette & I really like green eyes) I dont need the media to tell me what I should find attractive.
> 
> While I was typing this I was reminded of the song Perfect 10 by The Beautiful South, a part of which I'm gonna post here:
> 
> 
> ...

----------


## Zee.

Beauty is retarded.

----------


## Zee.

Anyone who doesn't think symmetry is a big part of beauty - doesn't know much about the human form. Or what they're even looking at.

The women and the men you find beautiful all have good bone structure because with out it, eye colour, hair colour, whatever it may be - doesn't mean anything.

----------


## Saladin

> Anyone who doesn't think symmetry is a big part of beauty - doesn't know much about the human form. Or what they're even looking at.
> 
> The women and the men you find beautiful all have good bone structure because with out it, eye colour, hair colour, whatever it may be - doesn't mean anything.


Yes i agree with you. It`s not about haircolour, eyecolour and etc. It`s all about bone structure.

----------


## Zee.

Ahem...

you honestly agree with me?


or are you being sarcastic?

----------


## Saladin

> Ahem...
> 
> you honestly agree with me?
> 
> 
> or are you being sarcastic?


Yes honestly, no sarcasm.

----------


## Zee.

Hmm

i'll buy it.

----------


## stlukesguild

Still you have not defined "good bone structure" beyond the tern symmetry... and every human face that is free of some deformity is essentially symmetrical. How is it, also, that the same bone structure that made young Marlon Brando a smoldering sex-idol, resulted equally in the rather brutally "ugly" Marlon Brando of _Apocalypse Now_ and later? If beauty were so simply a product of symmetry... of some quantifiable rules... achieving absolute splendor as an artist would be quite simple... and I can tell you from experience it is not so.

----------


## Zee.

I'm not saying symmetry and only symmetry, i'm merely pointing out that it's a large factor in understanding beauty.

Good bone structure? Good bone structure varies, not everyone has the same face, obviously, but good bone structure is in harmony with itself, cheek bones are generally visible, high, a good jaw line.. it all depends.
I can't possibly explain what good bone structure is because so many people possess it and look completely different, but you can tell a woman who has good bone structure apart from one who doesn't. I find these women to be the ones who appear more "natural" looking.

----------


## Zee.

You never answered my question. Who do you find beautiful?

----------


## Dori

My ideals of beauty are Natalie Portman and Keira Knightley.  :Biggrin:  

I have a thing for skinny girls, I confess, and I'm not well liked for having that preference.

----------


## kandaurov

Beauty, for me, is all about the face. I agree, symmetry and bone structure = _very_ important, but also
- the eyes (today the clerk at Sainsbury's started making small talk with me and it took me some time to answer - she was quite ordinary, but had such mezmerising _dark_ blue eyes!)
- and the smile (that's why Byron's "The smiles that win" always struck me as a perfect phrase).

----------


## kandaurov

So who is beautiful? Scarlett Johansson. All about her is perfect, and no plastic surgery involved, I'm sure. The owner of a very winning smile indeed!

----------


## stlukesguild

Who do you find beautiful?



Hmmm... perhaps you are right about this symmetry thing... although I don't know how important the bone structure is here. It would seem my eyes are drawn in a somewhat more southerly direction. :Blush: 

Seriously... I almost suspect that one could make an argument... at least for men... for the notion of a universal ideal body type... an ideal rooted in our gross biological drives. Faces, however... 











I seemingly find a broad array of facial types to be striking... beautiful. In every instance there is a single element or group of elements that is especially striking. Of course... there also remains something of a balance... a harmony between the features... but what exactly this harmony is, I would be hard-pressed to reduce to a definition. I somewhat suspect that the faces that I find most beautiful are those that exude or convey a magnetic sense of personality... whether it be a sensuality (as in Liz Taylor), an strength of character and intelligence (as in Kate Winslet and Salma Hayek) or even something haunted (as in the young girl from Afghanistan). This would seem to relate also to the manner in which a pretty girl or handsome guy may suddenly seem less-than-attractive after speaking when certain illusions are shattered... or _vis-versa_. Pure symmetry of ideal bone structure only go so far. If I take this woman, for example:



She would seem to have an "ideal" face... one that would be commonly accepted as "beautiful"... and yet I must admit that while I do not find her "ugly"... she does not convey to me a "beauty" that approaches any of the others I posted. Rather... there is something of a feeling of a vacuous nature. Of course... this may simply owe to the photographer... just as some of the most attractive people look far better or far worse to us depending upon the photograph. Just as I doubt that we would always agree upon who is or is not "beautiful", I doubt we would even agree on which images of a single person are the more "attractive". 

Of course I suspect this all departs greatly from the initial posting and the question as to what "beauty" is.

----------


## Zee.

I don't find the last woman very beautiful, even though she is described as the most beautiful woman in the world, which I really don't understand.

Kate Winslet is so beautiful. Her personality shines through her.

----------


## Zee.

There is a great sense of kindness to Kate's beauty.

----------


## stlukesguild

Good bone structure? Good bone structure varies, not everyone has the same face, obviously, but good bone structure is in harmony with itself...
I can't possibly explain what good bone structure is because so many people possess it and look completely different...

That, of course, is the problem. We cannot define "good bone structure" any more than we can "beauty". We can only suggest that we know it when we see it. And when others disagree? I could probably find someone lacking a well-defined jaw or cheek bones whom I still find beautiful, and someone with these ideal attributes whom I don't find beautiful of attractive at all... just as the earlier poster here suggested that he/she did not find Angelina Jolie all that beautiful.

----------


## kandaurov

Oh stlukesguild, unfair!  :Tongue:  Well of course she does have _those_ features which can't be neglected, but I also meant the face close-ups in say 'Match Point'. She's a diva, and divas must have a face to fall in love with.

Agreed about Kinslet. And what an amazing actress, too.

I wouldn't be too specific when describing what is or isn't beautiful, e.g. jaw like this, chin like that. For me, beauty is when the facial features are in complete harmony. This has to do, for example, with proportion. A small nose can make a woman beautiful or quite plain, depends on the other facial features.

----------


## stlukesguild

I wouldn't be too specific when describing what is or isn't beautiful, e.g. jaw like this, chin like that. For me, beauty is when the facial features are in complete harmony. This has to do, for example, with proportion. A small nose can make a woman beautiful or quite plain, depends on the other facial features.

The same holds true in art... but just as in art, there can be no preconceived formula as to what will or will not result in such harmony. The nose that works on one face may look absolutely ridiculous on another.

----------


## kandaurov

Oh yes, absolutely. I don't believe in the universality of any truth, and beauty is no different.

Well now.

'Beauty! Uh! What is it good for?'

I've thought about this a lot. Sure, we derive pleasure from it through the eyes. But what's the point of wanting a beautiful significant other? Because you see, beauty is something you _want_ but you never really _get_ - you can't own the lover's beauty (well you could if you actually _own_ the lover, but I hear that is being frowned upon in the past centuries).

So you can't own beauty, it's just contemplation. Like living in a marvellous place. Take my house in Portugal, for instance. It's perfect. It's got a breathtaking landscape of the countryside. Yet I'm not truly happy, more nostalgic and melancholy, because I can't really take full advantage from its beauty, at least _I_ feel I can't, because all I can do is look at it. So I really don't mind at all to live in a campus in London where the sky's always gray and my view is made of bricks.

Does this make any sense at all? I'm very sorry. I just... well, I'm sorry, I had to say this.

----------


## skasian

> Nah, I think symmetry is useful, but not essential. Keep in mind, people used to add birthmarks to their faces to add to beauty, but in theory, that would break symmetry, rendering such an obsession invalid.


Moles and birthmarks doesnt hinder the overall symmetry of the bone structure. I am talking about overall symmetry of the bone structure, ie equal proportion from the forehead, nose, chin. Birthmarks doesnt do much about symmetry of the bone structure.

----------


## skasian

Why do we think celebrities are attractive, glamourous, sexy, exhibiting something called beauty? Visit www.morphthing.com/popular and see for yourself the ones that are reminded as most beautiful do share very good symmetry in their bonestructures.

----------


## stlukesguild

Symmetry deals with an equal balance between sides. By and large this is irrelevant because excepting deformity all human faces are symmetrical. To suggest that a certain face is more "beautiful" than another because of the symmetry is rather like suggesting that the stained glass rose window of Chartres is more beautiful than others because it is symmetrical... which ignores the fact that ALL rose windows are symmetrical. Now when you speak of the relationship of the forehead to the nose and the nose to the chin... this is speaking of proportion. Certainly proportion is an essential element in beauty... whether we speak of art or design or architecture or the human face. The problem, however, is that there are persons that are commonly considered "beautiful" who have very different proportions or rations. Since the Renaissance... and even the ancient Greeks and Egyptians there have been ideals or standards of beauty based upon certain proportions. These, however, have greatly varied between cultures. The ideal facial and body type of Old Kingdom Egypt or Classical Greece differ greatly from the ideals of the Armana period in Egypt or Hellenistic Greece.

----------


## JBI

Or even today - there are still places in this world where necks are elongated by means of big brass necklaces, stretching this concept of proportions out of control.

Not to mention areas in the world where obesity is considered beautiful, and women are literally force fed as children in order to obtain the "ideal look" and therefore secure a better marriage.

Really, all one needs to do is look into a basic anthropology textbook dealing with indigenous societies to get a sense of the wide range of "beauty" in the contemporary world, not to mention the ancient and closer historic world.

I know Eco has written a pair of books, The History of Beauty and The History of Ugliness on the subject, I believe dealing entirely with western conceptions and ignoring eastern ones. He certainly demonstrates the range and development, in many genre and forms.

----------


## Zee.

Putting physical beauty aside for a second, my best friend is very beautiful - physically beautiful, but aside from that, I find great beauty in her because of what she is to me. 

I find kind people very beautiful - i don't only mean on the inside, but many have a really strong sense of energy around them, which immediately draws you to them.

I also find Charisma more worthy than beauty.
Beauty is flimsy - it doesn't get you too far.

----------


## stlukesguild

Beauty! Uh! What is it good for?'

I've thought about this a lot. Sure, we derive pleasure from it through the eyes. But what's the point... Because you see, beauty is something you want but you never really get - you can't own the lover's beauty... you can't own beauty, it's just contemplation. Like living in a marvelous place. Take my house in Portugal, for instance. It's perfect. It's got a breathtaking landscape of the countryside. Yet I'm not truly happy, more nostalgic and melancholy, because I can't really take full advantage from its beauty, at least I feel I can't, because all I can do is look at it. So I really don't mind at all to live in a campus in London where the sky's always gray and my view is made of bricks.

I find this makes for a much more interesting discussion than the question of what exactly is the formula for beauty in the human face. *What is the purpose or value of beauty?* You have suggested that beauty is irrelevant to you as you do not own it... you can only contemplate it. Such reminds me of a great poem by Thomas Traherne:

*Wonder*

By Thomas Traherne (?1636–1674)

HOW like an Angel came I down!	
How bright are all things here!	
When first among His works I did appear	
O how their glory me did crown!	
The world resembled His Eternity, 5
In which my soul did walk;	
And every thing that I did see	
Did with me talk.	

The skies in their magnificence,	
The lively, lovely air, 10
Oh how divine, how soft, how sweet, how fair!	
The stars did entertain my sense,	
And all the works of God, so bright and pure,	
So rich and great did seem,	
As if they ever must endure 15
In my esteem.	

A native health and innocence	
Within my bones did grow,	
And while my God did all his Glories show,	
I felt a vigour in my sense 20
That was all Spirit. I within did flow	
With seas of life, like wine;	
I nothing in the world did know	
But ’twas divine.	

Harsh ragged objects were concealed, 25
Oppressions, tears and cries,	
Sins, griefs, complaints, dissensions, weeping eyes	
Were hid, and only things revealed	
Which heavenly Spirits and the Angels prize.	
The state of Innocence 30
And bliss, not trades and poverties,	
Did fill my sense.	

The streets were paved with golden stones,	
The boys and girls were mine,	
Oh how did all their lovely faces shine! 35
The sons of men were holy ones,	
In joy and beauty they appeared to me,	
And every thing which here I found,	
While like an Angel I did see,	
Adorned the ground. 40

Rich diamond and pearl and gold	
In every place was seen;	
Rare splendours, yellow, blue, red, white and green,	
Mine eyes did everywhere behold.	
Great wonders clothed with glory did appear, 45
Amazement was my bliss,	
That and my wealth was everywhere;	
No joy to this!	

Cursed and devised proprieties,	
With envy, avarice 50
And fraud, those fiends that spoil even Paradise,	
Flew from the splendour of mine eyes,	
And so did hedges, ditches, limits, bounds,	
I dreamed not aught of those,	
But wandered over all men’s grounds, 55
And found repose.	

Proprieties themselves were mine,	
And hedges ornaments;	
Walls, boxes, coffers, and their rich contents	
Did not divide my joys, but all combine. 60
Clothes, ribbons, jewels, laces, I esteemed	
My joys by others worn:	
For me they all to wear them seemed	
When I was born.

Traherne, who in many ways echoes William Blake, suggests that indeed he need not own something beautiful to enjoy the pleasure of it. One wonders if this did not reflect something of an earlier sensibility... the commoner reveling in... sharing in the beauty and splendor of the aristocracy... which in itself mirrored the relationship of mankind to God... man reveling in the beauty of creation.

But can we really live without beauty? William Morris suggested that the malaise of the modern man at the start of the industrial revolution owed much to the fact that he or she lived without beauty. That he/she was surrounded by objects of great utility lacking any aesthetic merit. He notes that this was quite different from earlier eras (ie. the Renaissance and Middle Ages) in which there was a pride in craftsmanship... and thus an aesthetic merit in nearly every item of utility. I somewhat concur. I teach in an urban setting. The building I am in is beyond ugly. The walls are collapsing... they seep water and mold forms on them. The ceilings are water-stained and falling down. The furniture is all battered and broken. In this environment the students show absolutely no respect for the building... and one can hardly blame them. It sends a message, to my mind, that they are not worth anything more... that nothing is expected of them. There is no suggestion of something better to strive toward.

During the Second World War Matisse and Pierre Bonnard continued to paint pictures of unabashed beauty:





While the war raged and horror was compiled upon horror none of this entered into the works of these two painters. I used to agree with those who expressed a dismay... a righteous indignation at the audacity of these artists who dared to ignore what was happening and continue on as before. But then with time I began to ponder whether or not what Matisse and Bonnard had done was not braver than any of the artists whose art grew dark and ugly... who allowed the ugliness to banish beauty in response to the war and rose a shrill voice of protest. Had they not, after all, conveyed the greatest faith in humanity... the belief in beauty and the belief that one day the ugliness would end? I thought, to no small extent, of William Faulkner's marvelous Nobel Prize acceptance speech:

I feel that this award was not made to me as a man, but to my work - a life's work in the agony and sweat of the human spirit, not for glory and least of all for profit, but to create out of the materials of the human spirit something which did not exist before. So this award is only mine in trust. It will not be difficult to find a dedication for the money part of it commensurate with the purpose and significance of its origin. But I would like to do the same with the acclaim too, by using this moment as a pinnacle from which I might be listened to by the young men and women already dedicated to the same anguish and travail, among whom is already that one who will some day stand here where I am standing. 
Our tragedy today is a general and universal physical fear so long sustained by now that we can even bear it. There are no longer problems of the spirit. There is only the question: When will I be blown up? Because of this, the young man or woman writing today has forgotten the problems of the human heart in conflict with itself which alone can make good writing because only that is worth writing about, worth the agony and the sweat. 
He must learn them again. He must teach himself that the basest of all things is to be afraid; and, teaching himself that, forget it forever, leaving no room in his workshop for anything but the old verities and truths of the heart, the old universal truths lacking which any story is ephemeral and doomed - love and honor and pity and pride and compassion and sacrifice. Until he does so, he labors under a curse. He writes not of love but of lust, of defeats in which nobody loses anything of value, of victories without hope and, worst of all, without pity or compassion. His griefs grieve on no universal bones, leaving no scars. He writes not of the heart but of the glands.

Until he relearns these things, he will write as though he stood among and watched the end of man. I decline to accept the end of man. It is easy enough to say that man is immortal simply because he will endure: that when the last dingdong of doom has clanged and faded from the last worthless rock hanging tideless in the last red and dying evening, that even then there will still be one more sound: that of his puny inexhaustible voice, still talking. I refuse to accept this. I believe that man will not merely endure: he will prevail. He is immortal, not because he alone among creatures has an inexhaustible voice, but because he has a soul, a spirit capable of compassion and sacrifice and endurance. The poet's, the writer's, duty is to write about these things. It is his privilege to help man endure by lifting his heart, by reminding him of the courage and honor and hope and pride and compassion and pity and sacrifice which have been the glory of his past. The poet's voice need not merely be the record of man, it can be one of the props, the pillars to help him endure and prevail.

As a visual artist I am quite struck be the absence of "beauty" in today's art. Certain critics raised a repeated protest against the continued popularity of the Impressionism and suggest that such is but the result of a naive audience. I suspect that rather, the continual love of Impressionism owes much to the fact that this was one of the last eras focused largely upon images of unquestionable beauty... beauty to be found in the world in our own back yard. There are several critical books which address the banishment of beauty from contemporary art. Some of the strongest criticism comes from a feminist point of view which suggests that imagery of unabashed sensuality... color... splendor... beauty... have been repeatedly denigrated as overly emotional... weak... or less rigorous of thought... and thus: feminine. Hard geometry, abstraction, the absence of color, conceptual rigor... these have all been thought of as more masculine. Such criticism abounds. Matisse and Bonnard have been dismissed by any number of critics in contrast to Picasso or Mondrian. Sean Scully... one of the leading painters today notes that there is such a prejudice against beauty as to almost suggest a Puritanical thought. Something that feels good or tastes good is immediately thought to not be good for you. A painting that looks beautiful is immediately assumed to look better than it really is, while some minimalist conceptual installation of feces and used condoms addressing issues (ostensibly) of societal inequalities, racism, and gender is immediately thought to be much better than it actually looks. Thus Schoenberg or Webern are claimed to be superior to Puccini or Rachmaninoff who have the misfortune of sounding good.

So what exactly is the role of beauty?

----------


## skasian

> Symmetry deals with an equal balance between sides. By and large this is irrelevant because excepting deformity all human faces are symmetrical. To suggest that a certain face is more "beautiful" than another because of the symmetry is rather like suggesting that the stained glass rose window of Chartres is more beautiful than others because it is symmetrical... which ignores the fact that ALL rose windows are symmetrical. Now when you speak of the relationship of the forehead to the nose and the nose to the chin... this is speaking of proportion. Certainly proportion is an essential element in beauty... whether we speak of art or design or architecture or the human face. The problem, however, is that there are persons that are commonly considered "beautiful" who have very different proportions or rations. Since the Renaissance... and even the ancient Greeks and Egyptians there have been ideals or standards of beauty based upon certain proportions. These, however, have greatly varied between cultures. The ideal facial and body type of Old Kingdom Egypt or Classical Greece differ greatly from the ideals of the Armana period in Egypt or Hellenistic Greece.


No human possesses a face that is 100% symmetrical. One side of the face is always different from the other. I am only talking about the face only- the position and proportion of the eyes, nose, lips and bone structure such as cheek bones. Nothing else. I am not accounting the different eras and their appreciation of beauty. That is a completely different story. 
However the most proportional and most symmetrical face is considered most beautiful universally regardless of era and age.

See for yourself how the human face is very unsymmetrical
http://kr.fun.yahoo.com/NBBS/nbbs_vi...1201&mi=758085
The third face is the original, where the first face is the left half of the face, whereas the second face is the right half of the face. 
If a set is similar to each other, that face is considered beautiful as the face is very symmetrical.

----------


## skasian

> Or even today - there are still places in this world where necks are elongated by means of big brass necklaces, stretching this concept of proportions out of control.
> 
> Not to mention areas in the world where obesity is considered beautiful, and women are literally force fed as children in order to obtain the "ideal look" and therefore secure a better marriage.
> 
> Really, all one needs to do is look into a basic anthropology textbook dealing with indigenous societies to get a sense of the wide range of "beauty" in the contemporary world, not to mention the ancient and closer historic world.
> 
> I know Eco has written a pair of books, The History of Beauty and The History of Ugliness on the subject, I believe dealing entirely with western conceptions and ignoring eastern ones. He certainly demonstrates the range and development, in many genre and forms.


The defintion of beauty is far too broad as there are different levels of beauty, and different appreciations of beauty is very diverse in a vast range of aspects, including culture and era as I said before. 

Also identifying what is beautiful and what is not does not have to consist out of the human form. Nature itself is beautiful, and all the components that is natural are beautiful to an extent that is inexplicable. 
A man may comment that his car or boat is a beauty, a woman looking at a pair of shoes may comment that they are beautiful. What we think is beautiful all varies as it does not necessarily have to link with human faces or form.

----------


## kandaurov

Stlukesguild, an award-winning post you wrote there. Many, many thanks.

----------


## Saladin

Yeah i like your posts, stlukesguild.

----------


## Zee.

i'm so insanely jealous about how beautiful she is

----------


## Saladin

Wow! Who is that? is it Megan Fox?

----------


## kandaurov

Limajean, why should you? You, of all people!

Saladin, apparently you're right: looked up her tatoo to find out  :Wink:

----------


## Zee.

Kandaurov, you're extremely kind :]

----------


## Dori

I don't know, there's just something about Megan Fox's face that doesn't strike me as exceptionally beautiful (only moderately beautiful  :Biggrin: ). After all, she's no Keira Knightly (or Natalie Portman!)... 

I'm shutting up now.  :FRlol:

----------


## skasian

Beauty is power. Do you agree? My Russian friend once told me their country strongly holds on to this aspect and I remember pondering over this. I believe so, beauty does give at least an ounce of power more than the lesser in any aspect in life. Beauty can signify purity, such as the dove, clear from imperfection, and I believe that such purity holds power, a strong force of hope, light and goodness that darkness cannot resist.

Beauty of such power is incomparable to the appealing faces and forms of celebrities. Beauty existing in human are so limited, so fragile and worthless in time. Beauty in human works and masterpieces such as paintings, literature and music is permanent, and its beauty shines forever, moving our sense with such forces that is incomparable to our physical forms.

----------


## Zee.

Beauty commands attention.

Of course beauty is power.

----------


## skasian

> Beauty commands attention.
> 
> Of course beauty is power.


Beauty attracting attention is not always power. Consider with more indepth. Beauty doesnt have to be skindeep, and it commands far more than attention.

----------


## Zee.

I didn't say the beauty I was talking about was skin deep. 

And it depends what you mean by power. Because attracting attention like that IS a certain type of power.

Also - I think you may be misunderstanding me.
I'm not talking about "falling head over heels" attention. Not at all.

By saying that "beauty commands attention" i'm not saying that's all it does. I'm pointing out the obvious here.

----------


## skasian

> I didn't say the beauty I was talking about was skin deep. 
> 
> And it depends what you mean by power. Because attracting attention like that IS a certain type of power.
> 
> Also - I think you may be misunderstanding me.
> I'm not talking about "falling head over heels" attention. Not at all.
> 
> By saying that "beauty commands attention" i'm not saying that's all it does. I'm pointing out the obvious here.


A two headed person attracts more attention than the beautiful. In your view, freaks have more power than the beautiful generally?
I was asking for more of an elaborated discussion rather than pointing out the obvious and generalised. What is a point of a discussion where all speak the obvious and the simple?

----------


## Zee.

I didn't say "attracts"

I said "commands" attention. Really different things.

----------


## aBIGsheep

Since we're comparing photos:

Sweet Jesus, Mary and Joseph this girl is fine. Something about her just flips a switch.

----------


## skasian

> I didn't say "attracts"
> 
> I said "commands" attention. Really different things.


command, lead, direct, instruct, demand, attract, are all analogous, since it is the meaning of an object/subject that is being directed at.

----------


## Zee.

I disagree.

----------


## aBIGsheep

Do you know what's beautiful? When a girl actually has an opinion. Cut some of this weak, damsel-in-distress crap, and admit it -- something about someone with some balls, metaphorically speaking at the minimum, is sexy.

----------


## skasian

> I disagree.


I dont mind if you dont agree with me, I just have the thesaurus to support me.

----------


## Zee.

Yup...

----------


## skasian

> Do you know what's beautiful? When a girl actually has an opinion. Cut some of this weak, damsel-in-distress crap, and admit it -- something about someone with some balls, metaphorically speaking at the minimum, is sexy.


You are just linking beauty with the physical human. Beauty is much more broader than "sex appeal" far far more than you can comprehend.

----------


## Zee.

> I dont mind if you dont agree with me, I just have the thesaurus to support me.


I don't know what thesaurus you have but every one i've looked through, online and hard copy disagrees with you.

Because they're really different words..

----------


## skasian

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.




> I don't know what thesaurus you have but every one i've looked through, online and hard copy disagrees with you.
> 
> Because they're really different words..


Really? Mine lists about 15~20 words or so, and it definitely includes. 
Its not so important anyway

----------


## Zee.

Agreed.

----------


## aBIGsheep

> You are just linking beauty with the physical human. Beauty is much more broader than "sex appeal" far far more than you can comprehend.


AHAOHHAOHAHO
What do you think an opinion is? Please, enlighten me with your thesaurus.

----------


## Dori

> Do you know what's beautiful? When a girl actually has an opinion. Cut some of this weak, damsel-in-distress crap, and admit it -- something about someone with some balls, metaphorically speaking at the minimum, is sexy.


I quite agree. Though some girls I know are annoying about presenting their opinions.

----------


## Zee.

Annoying how?

----------


## aBIGsheep

> I quite agree. Though some girls I know are annoying about presenting their opinions.


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?

----------


## Zee.

Amen to that.

Beauty's in the eye of the beholder....

Ah yeah.
In some cases. But most beauty is undeniable.

----------


## skasian

> AHAOHHAOHAHO
> What do you think an opinion is? Please, enlighten me with your thesaurus.


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.

----------


## Zee.

I think hands are beautiful

----------


## mono

Whisking us away to the original question . . .



> 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 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?).
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.

----------


## Zee.

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

----------


## skasian

Done a bit of reading of Plato's Symposium, and came across some reference to beauty.

Plato argues that in order to preliminarily learn about beauty, is by observing and wanting beautiful people and objects. However he also argues that our desire for beauty can be altered until the time we can really appreciate and love beauty itself, whereas he concludes that this beauty is the highest love there ever will be.

----------


## novlist*star*

The beauty means the beauty of soul,,

----------


## skasian

> The beauty means the beauty of soul,,


Beauty governs over a very broad range of aspects, and a soul being beautiful is only one of them.

----------


## atiguhya padma

What do you mean by soul?

----------


## skasian

> What do you mean by soul?


Soul by human's spiritual beings, these beings that are immortal and will carry on living afterlife. Soul which is regarded beautiful based on its purity and goodness.

----------


## atiguhya padma

> Soul by human's spiritual beings, these beings that are immortal and will carry on living afterlife. Soul which is regarded beautiful based on its purity and goodness.



I'm still none the wiser. Can I see, hear, feel, smell or taste the soul? Is there something concrete about it? Is there any indisputable common ground that we can all agree on about the soul?

----------


## NickAdams

I believe that beauty is based on cultural and individual schemas that are shaped by assimilation, accommodation and prejudice.

We are always aware of the original beauty schema, prototype, form which is acknowledged in common statements like: "their attractive, but I wouldn't call them beautiful".

Someone we find beautiful today may no longer appeal to us tomorrow and vice versa. 

Zhuangzi: "Men claim that Mao-ch’iang and Lady Li were beautiful, but if fish saw them they would dive to the bottom of the stream, if birds saw them they would fly away, and if deer saw them they would break into a run."




> 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.


The eyes are only one medium from which the brain collects information. How does the heart perceive? Both "hauntingly" and "Ie" imply the importance of memory on the idea of beauty which I agree with. 

Whether beauty itself is a single ruler by which all can be measured is beyond me, but it seem to me that the standard of beauty is different for each subject: visual art, music, literature, humans, nature, animals etc.

Beauty seems to be dominated by the feminine, at least physical beauty. I have only heard of the beauty of a man in response to his actions (a man stays by the side of his wife who is in a coma: "O, what a beautiful man".




> Soul by human's spiritual beings, these beings that are immortal and will carry on living afterlife. Soul which is regarded beautiful based on its purity and goodness.





> I'm still none the wiser. Can I see, hear, feel, smell or taste the soul? Is there something concrete about it? Is there any indisputable common ground that we can all agree on about the soul?


I'm not even convinced about its existence.

----------


## Zee.

Like I said earlier, I think beauty has been understood for a very long time. Despite its many different forms.

----------


## skasian

> I'm still none the wiser. Can I see, hear, feel, smell or taste the soul? Is there something concrete about it? Is there any indisputable common ground that we can all agree on about the soul?


Yes, you just provided something we can agree about the soul, and Plato's Phaedo can justify - that the soul is immaterial, invisible and immortal, something that cannot be perceived by our physical senses, therefore something that cannot be defined completely in our physical world.

----------


## skasian

> I believe that beauty is based on cultural and individual schemas that are shaped by assimilation, accommodation and prejudice.
> 
> We are always aware of the original beauty schema, prototype, form which is acknowledged in common statements like: "their attractive, but I wouldn't call them beautiful".
> 
> Someone we find beautiful today may no longer appeal to us tomorrow and vice versa. 
> 
> Zhuangzi: "Men claim that Mao-chiang and Lady Li were beautiful, but if fish saw them they would dive to the bottom of the stream, if birds saw them they would fly away, and if deer saw them they would break into a run."
> 
> 
> ...



"How does the heart perceive? Both "hauntingly" and "Ie" imply the importance of memory on the idea of beauty which I agree with. "

The memory and thought of a specific thing that represents beauty becomes a stimuli for our hearts. It depends what our heart feels about that specific memory.

"Beauty seems to be dominated by the feminine, at lest physical beauty. I have only heard of the beauty of a man is response to his actions (a man stays by the side of his wife who is in a coma: "O, what a beautiful man"."

Beauty dominated by feminism? I have to disagree. A beautiful fountain pen may be highly praised yet it does not possess any feminine features. We sense beauty out of non human objects out of its quality such as uniqueness, high quality, not because it takes the form of feminism.

----------


## NickAdams

> Yes, you just provided something we can agree about the soul, and Plato's Phaedo can justify - that the soul is immaterial, invisible and immortal, something that cannot be perceived by our physical senses, therefore something that cannot be defined completely in our physical world.


I can not agree with ol' Play-Dough on this. If it can not be sensed, how did he, or Socrates, discover it? 




> "How does the heart perceive? Both "hauntingly" and "Ie" imply the importance of memory on the idea of beauty which I agree with. "
> 
> The memory and thought of a specific thing that represents beauty becomes a stimuli for our hearts. It depends what our heart feels about that specific memory.


Any reaction our heart has to emotional stimuli is really a reaction of the brain. The heart has been used as a metaphor, but I think this restrains us from truly defining emotional qualities.




> "Beauty seems to be dominated by the feminine, at least physical beauty. I have only heard of the beauty of a man in response to his actions (a man stays by the side of his wife who is in a coma: "O, what a beautiful man"."
> 
> Beauty dominated by feminism? I have to disagree. A beautiful fountain pen may be highly praised yet it does not possess any feminine features. We sense beauty out of non human objects out of its quality such as uniqueness, high quality, not because it takes the form of feminism.


The feminine, nor feminism, but you're are right in that I should be more specific. Beauty is rarely used to define the human male unless it pertains to qualities of character.

----------


## billyjack

> Beauty is rarely used to define the human male unless it pertains to qualities of character.


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

----------


## atiguhya padma

Skasian,

How would you differentiate between a real soul and a fake soul? a virtual soul designed so that it cannot be detected by any of our five senses? I'm intrigued. I have always used the senses to determine a thing's existence. If you think something can exist outside the realm of the senses, and that we can intelligibly discuss its existence, I'd like to know how you determine its existence as genuine rather than fake.

----------


## skasian

> Skasian,
> 
> How would you differentiate between a real soul and a fake soul? a virtual soul designed so that it cannot be detected by any of our five senses? I'm intrigued. I have always used the senses to determine a thing's existence. If you think something can exist outside the realm of the senses, and that we can intelligibly discuss its existence, I'd like to know how you determine its existence as genuine rather than fake.


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.

----------


## skasian

> I can not agree with ol' Play-Dough on this. If it can not be sensed, how did he, or Socrates, discover it? 
> 
> 
> 
> Any reaction our heart has to emotional stimuli is really a reaction of the brain. The heart has been used as a metaphor, but I think this restrains us from truly defining emotional qualities.
> 
> 
> 
> The feminine, nor feminism, but you're are right in that I should be more specific. Beauty is rarely used to define the human male unless it pertains to qualities of character.


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.

"Any reaction our heart has to emotional stimuli is really a reaction of the brain. The heart has been used as a metaphor, but I think this restrains us from truly defining emotional qualities."

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.

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.

----------


## 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


 :FRlol: 





> 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. :Thumbs Up:

----------


## 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. "

----------


## skasian

> 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.

----------


## blazeofglory

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

----------


## k.brignell

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?

----------


## 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.

----------


## Judas130

> 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.

----------

