What is beauty?

[Dja Majista]

What does it mean? Is it real? How can it be defined?

[darthrevan]

It is real, but really can't be defined. Everyone will have their own defenition, because beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

[Dja Majista]

darthrevan said:

It is real, but really can't be defined. Everyone will have their own defenition, because beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

But everyone is human. Because of this, don't you think there are some universal beauties?

[darthrevan]

Yes. It is universal knowledge that I'm beautiful.


Internal beauty is more universal. If someone acts nice, everyone is going to agree that they have a beautiful heart. If there is a beautiful woman, not everyone will agree that, that person is beautiful.

[Dja Majista]

darthrevan said:

Yes. It is universal knowledge that I'm beautiful.


Internal beauty is more universal. If someone acts nice, everyone is going to agree that they have a beautiful heart. If there is a beautiful woman, not everyone will agree that, that person is beautiful.

It's also universal knowledge that you're a dick.

So maybe perhaps the people who are the most sincerely nice, are the most universally beautiful. But remember not just human's are beautiful. What makes nature beautiful?

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

I was waiting for someone to make this, I generally don't make a ton of threads because I like to see what is on you guys' mind.

damasta said:

What does it mean? Is it real? How can it be defined?

Beauty simply defined is something pleasing to the senses. No homework can be beautiful. A beautiful face is obviously beautiful.

This reminds me of a thread I made at KMC "what is aesthetically beautiful".

Because if you don't specify it, people just come in and say the same old fairy tale stuff.

Aesthetic beauty isn't as subjective as everyone says, it's simply people trying to hide their internal feelings. Part of what we see as beautiful is pre-programmed, part of it is cultural, and part of it is based off of personality.

Generally people pick up the following characteristics in general:

Large, expressive eyes
High cheekbones
Long eyelashes
Thin eyebrows
Full lips
Chiseled chin (men)
Symmetrical Face to forehead (symmetry is what the word beauty derives from, a symmetrical face is beautiful because it is a symbol of good health.)
Symmetrical nose
Balanced teeth
proportionately small ears
brown skin (nice brown skin is considered a healthy skin in most instances, and therefore considered beautiful. Hence tanning beds)

Of the list most of it is biological, like eyes, but some of it is indeed cultural.

Actually nature and other things can end up being more subjective than physical features.

[Dja Majista]

admin said:

I was waiting for someone to make this, I generally don't make a ton of threads because I like to see what is on you guys' mind.

damasta said:

What does it mean? Is it real? How can it be defined?

Beauty simply defined is something pleasing to the senses. No homework can be beautiful. A beautiful face is obviously beautiful.

This reminds me of a thread I made at KMC "what is aesthetically beautiful".

Because if you don't specify it, people just come in and say the same old fairy tale stuff.

Aesthetic beauty isn't as subjective as everyone says, it's simply people trying to hide their internal feelings. Part of what we see as beautiful is pre-programmed, part of it is cultural, and part of it is based off of personality.

Generally people pick up the following characteristics in general:

Large, expressive eyes
High cheekbones
Long eyelashes
Thin eyebrows
Full lips
Chiseled chin (men)
Symmetrical Face to forehead (symmetry is what the word beauty derives from, a symmetrical face is beautiful because it is a symbol of good health.)
Symmetrical nose
Balanced teeth
proportionately small ears
brown skin (nice brown skin is considered a healthy skin in most instances, and therefore considered beautiful. Hence tanning beds)

Of the list most of it is biological, like eyes, but some of it is indeed cultural.

Actually nature and other things can end up being more subjective than physical features.

Ah, excellent. Symmetry. that's something.

Now what I would like to discuss is universal beauty. There is a potential for beauty in math as well, a person's "heart" you could say is beautiful. I want to define the correlations that all forms of beauty share.
Simplicity for example:
In math, there is beauty in a simple yet powerful equation.
In science there is beauty in a simple yet grand experiment. (Eratosthenes measurement of the Earth with nothing more than a few assumptions, and a gnomon.)
There is beauty in the simplicity and innocence of a child's mind.
There's is beauty in the simple quality of a flawless diamond.

I'm looking forward to see how this discussion turns out as well. Hopefully people will take interest as fast as David and you.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

damasta said:

admin said:

I was waiting for someone to make this, I generally don't make a ton of threads because I like to see what is on you guys' mind.
Beauty simply defined is something pleasing to the senses. No homework can be beautiful. A beautiful face is obviously beautiful.

This reminds me of a thread I made at KMC "what is aesthetically beautiful".

Because if you don't specify it, people just come in and say the same old fairy tale stuff.

Aesthetic beauty isn't as subjective as everyone says, it's simply people trying to hide their internal feelings. Part of what we see as beautiful is pre-programmed, part of it is cultural, and part of it is based off of personality.

Generally people pick up the following characteristics in general:

Large, expressive eyes
High cheekbones
Long eyelashes
Thin eyebrows
Full lips
Chiseled chin (men)
Symmetrical Face to forehead (symmetry is what the word beauty derives from, a symmetrical face is beautiful because it is a symbol of good health.)
Symmetrical nose
Balanced teeth
proportionately small ears
brown skin (nice brown skin is considered a healthy skin in most instances, and therefore considered beautiful. Hence tanning beds)

Of the list most of it is biological, like eyes, but some of it is indeed cultural.

Actually nature and other things can end up being more subjective than physical features.

Ah, excellent. Symmetry. that's something.

Now what I would like to discuss is universal beauty. There is a potential for beauty in math as well, a person's "heart" you could say is beautiful. I want to define the correlations that all forms of beauty share.
Simplicity for example:
In math, there is beauty in a simple yet powerful equation.
In science there is beauty in a simple yet grand experiment. (Eratosthenes measurement of the Earth with nothing more than a few assumptions, and a gnomon.)
There is beauty in the simplicity and innocence of a child's mind.
There's is beauty in the simple quality of a flawless diamond.

I'm looking forward to see how this discussion turns out as well. Hopefully people will take interest as fast as David and you.

That's what I said before, having no homework can be beautiful. Something need not be simple to be beautiful. It can be deep and enthralling as well.

[Dja Majista]

admin said:

damasta said:

Ah, excellent. Symmetry. that's something.

Now what I would like to discuss is universal beauty. There is a potential for beauty in math as well, a person's "heart" you could say is beautiful. I want to define the correlations that all forms of beauty share.
Simplicity for example:
In math, there is beauty in a simple yet powerful equation.
In science there is beauty in a simple yet grand experiment. (Eratosthenes measurement of the Earth with nothing more than a few assumptions, and a gnomon.)
There is beauty in the simplicity and innocence of a child's mind.
There's is beauty in the simple quality of a flawless diamond.

I'm looking forward to see how this discussion turns out as well. Hopefully people will take interest as fast as David and you.

That's what I said before, having no homework can be beautiful. Something need not be simple to be beautiful. It can be deep and enthralling as well.

hmm is beautiful necessarily a good way to describe not having homework? That's just convenient, basically favorable, not necessarily beautiful.
How about this. Let's start by at least coming to agreement on a definition.
To start I'll just throw down a generic one from webster:

beauty (noun)
--Quality that pleases the senses or mind.

Would you suggest a reform to this? I personally like the open-ended definition this one uses, but my opinion is always subject to change.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

damasta said:

admin said:

That's what I said before, having no homework can be beautiful. Something need not be simple to be beautiful. It can be deep and enthralling as well.

hmm is beautiful necessarily a good way to describe not having homework? That's just convenient, basically favorable, not necessarily beautiful.
How about this. Let's start by at least coming to agreement on a definition.
To start I'll just throw down a generic one from webster:

beauty (noun)
--Quality that pleases the senses or mind.

Would you suggest a reform to this? I personally like the open-ended definition this one uses, but my opinion is always subject to change.

That's what I said already.

Sure not having homework is beautiful when you're as busy as I am, you really appreciate it.

[Dja Majista]

oh yeah man you just have it the hardest in terms of work. It's not beautiful to anybody else
Now that I think about it though, what's not simple about not having homework? The phenomenon is the epitome of simplicity and I would say it engages the mind into a state of bliss.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Exactly, I go right to the bookstore.

[Dja Majista]

Oh shit. I'm sorry I ever doubted you.

I'm changing my approach a lot but how about this. List common traits of beauty. They don't have to be necessarily involved in all forms of beauty.
Like symmetry, simplicity, balance.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

damasta said:

Oh shit. I'm sorry I ever doubted you.

I'm changing my approach a lot but how about this. List common traits of beauty. They don't have to be necessarily involved in all forms of beauty.
Like symmetry, simplicity, balance.

Elegance, proportion, shape, smell, height.

[Dja Majista]

admin said:

damasta said:

Oh shit. I'm sorry I ever doubted you.

I'm changing my approach a lot but how about this. List common traits of beauty. They don't have to be necessarily involved in all forms of beauty.
Like symmetry, simplicity, balance.

Elegance, proportion, shape, smell, height.

what particular shape? I would think curvature, and no, I'm not just talking about women.
and smell that too.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

damasta said:

admin said:

Elegance, proportion, shape, smell, height.

what particular shape? I would think curvature, and no, I'm not just talking about women.
and smell that too.

Well that's my point. It could be shapes of many things, which is why I'm saying shape is a generic element.

[Dja Majista]

Ok well just tell us your thoughts on the whole beauty thing and I'll tell you mine once I have the time.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

damasta said:

Ok well just tell us your thoughts on the whole beauty thing and I'll tell you mine once I have the time.

You just want to steal mine.

[Dja Majista]

whatever. I'll be a while. I need to write a draft and do a bunch of other crap.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

damasta said:

whatever. I'll be a while. I need to write a draft and do a bunch of other crap.

Yeayea, your plot was foiled, try again.

[warmunger]

There are many differnt ways to define beauty seeing as how everyones thoughts of beauty is different. I think a nice garden with roses and tomatoes is beautiful, an infant child, or a happy family but to others a dead body or a battle field with exploding heads is beauty, I think it's sick though.

But nothing is truly beautiful is it? I mean, in order for something to be truly beautiful, everyone on this planet must agree that it is. If there is a single person who disagrees, it's not truly beautiful it's just a widely believed opinion. Am I right?

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

warmunger said:

There are many differnt ways to define beauty seeing as how everyones thoughts of beauty is different. I think a nice garden with roses and tomatoes is beautiful, an infant child, or a happy family but to others a dead body or a battle field with exploding heads is beauty, I think it's sick though.

But nothing is truly beautiful is it? I mean, in order for something to be truly beautiful, everyone on this planet must agree that it is. If there is a single person who disagrees, it's not truly beautiful it's just a widely believed opinion. Am I right?

I don't agree, beauty is something that appeals to the senses, the truth doesn't have to have everyone agree on it. Because we don't all agree. Maybe factually beautiful, but still. You have a good point in your first paragraph though.

[Dja Majista]

Nov 1, 2007 14:37:16 GMT -5 @warmunger said:

There are many differnt ways to define beauty seeing as how everyones thoughts of beauty is different. I think a nice garden with roses and tomatoes is beautiful, an infant child, or a happy family but to others a dead body or a battle field with exploding heads is beauty, I think it's sick though.

But nothing is truly beautiful is it? I mean, in order for something to be truly beautiful, everyone on this planet must agree that it is. If there is a single person who disagrees, it's not truly beautiful it's just a widely believed opinion. Am I right?

Ah, this is a fascinating point. I've never thought of it that way.

Nothing is actually beautiful in itself, or in essence. They are simply perceived as beautiful.

Take the idea that beauty is what's pleasing to the senses and it all makes sense. Beauty is not a quality of the object itself but how the object is perceived. In other words beauty is not located in the object itself but rather in what goes on in between the object and the observer (light waves and sound waves, right down to the sense receptors, to the electrical impulses to the gray matter). Take for example an alien race which seems to think that everything natural on our planet is ugly. We on the other hand seem to classify almost all nature as beautiful. The object, nature, can't possibly be considered beautiful in and of itself if there are observers who honestly see it both ways.

Conclusion: No one on this forum is allowed to say anything is beautiful. You must say it looks/sounds/smells/etc. beautiful.



j/k ;D

[Psyquis52]

I'm married to beauty and you guys can't have her.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Apr 21, 2008 23:15:10 GMT -5 Dja Majista said:

Nov 1, 2007 14:37:16 GMT -5 @warmunger said:

There are many differnt ways to define beauty seeing as how everyones thoughts of beauty is different. I think a nice garden with roses and tomatoes is beautiful, an infant child, or a happy family but to others a dead body or a battle field with exploding heads is beauty, I think it's sick though.

But nothing is truly beautiful is it? I mean, in order for something to be truly beautiful, everyone on this planet must agree that it is. If there is a single person who disagrees, it's not truly beautiful it's just a widely believed opinion. Am I right?

Ah, this is a fascinating point. I've never thought of it that way.

Nothing is actually beautiful in itself, or in essence. They are simply perceived as beautiful.

Take the idea that beauty is what's pleasing to the senses and it all makes sense. Beauty is not a quality of the object itself but how the object is perceived. In other words beauty is not located in the object itself but rather in what goes on in between the object and the observer (light waves and sound waves, right down to the sense receptors, to the electrical impulses to the gray matter). Take for example an alien race which seems to think that everything natural on our planet is ugly. We on the other hand seem to classify almost all nature as beautiful. The object, nature, can't possibly be considered beautiful in and of itself if there are observers who honestly see it both ways.

Conclusion: No one on this forum is allowed to say anything is beautiful. You must say it looks/sounds/smells/etc. beautiful.



j/k ;D

Well when you say something *is* beautiful, you are saying it appeals to the senses, which is accurate because it appeals to your senses. Same thing really, just in a lump sum.

Apr 22, 2008 22:10:16 GMT -5 Psyquis52 said:

I'm married to beauty and you guys can't have her.

A woman who plays video games is the very definition *of* beauty.

[Dja Majista]

Well when you say something *is* beautiful, you are saying it appeals to the senses, which is accurate because it appeals to your senses. Same thing really, just in a lump sum.

Appeals to what senses? Don't you see the ambiguity there? To say an object *is* beautiful necessarily implies that it appeals to everyone's senses.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Apr 25, 2008 0:43:49 GMT -5 Dja Majista said:

Well when you say something *is* beautiful, you are saying it appeals to the senses, which is accurate because it appeals to your senses. Same thing really, just in a lump sum.

Appeals to what senses? Don't you see the ambiguity there? To say an object *is* beautiful necessarily implies that it appeals to everyone's senses.

It's the same thing with anything. If I say it smells beautiful, I'm saying it smells beautiful to everyone else, unless I say it smells beautiful to me. Or if I say it's hot, I'm saying it's hot to everyone, or if something is heavy, then it's heavy to everyone. That usage is generally understood to be under a persons perception because everything is relative.

[Dja Majista]

Apr 25, 2008 11:40:42 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

Apr 25, 2008 0:43:49 GMT -5 Dja Majista said:

Appeals to what senses? Don't you see the ambiguity there? To say an object *is* beautiful necessarily implies that it appeals to everyone's senses.

It's the same thing with anything. If I say it smells beautiful, I'm saying it smells beautiful to everyone else, unless I say it smells beautiful to me. Or if I say it's hot, I'm saying it's hot to everyone, or if something is heavy, then it's heavy to everyone. That usage is generally understood to be under a persons perception because everything is relative.

From what you're saying, it sounds like you're agreeing with me now. Granted, I'd say it's a bit of a stretch to say everything is relative. There are plenty of absolute things too.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Apr 25, 2008 12:05:50 GMT -5 Dja Majista said:

Apr 25, 2008 11:40:42 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

It's the same thing with anything. If I say it smells beautiful, I'm saying it smells beautiful to everyone else, unless I say it smells beautiful to me. Or if I say it's hot, I'm saying it's hot to everyone, or if something is heavy, then it's heavy to everyone. That usage is generally understood to be under a persons perception because everything is relative.

From what you're saying, it sounds like you're agreeing with me now. Granted, I'd say it's a bit of a stretch to say everything is relative. There are plenty of absolute things too.

I'm saying that either way is fine, though one is more specific it's the same thing. What would you say is absolute then?

[Dja Majista]

Well, nothing we experience is absolute as far as we know. It could be, but for all we know some one has simply hooked our brains up to a virtual reality set, and in that case nothing we experience is real. But everything we experience is relative that much is certain.
But wait a minute, did I just say something is certain, when I said everything experienced is relative? Is that a contradiction? No that is an exception. I have indicated, just like you that some ideas are in fact absolute in saying that everything experienced is relative.
Basically, if it's logically flawless, we can be certain of the conclusion. Here are two very simple examples:

An apple is a fruit.

2+3=5

Both true statements. But they aren't true by experience. They are true by the laws of language: logic. An apple is necessarily and always a fruit because according to the laws of the language, english, an apple holds in it's definition that it is a fruit.
2+3=5. The laws of math state that 2 has the value of two, + has the value of and(more or less), 3 is three, = is is, 5 is five. Translated: Two and three is five. It's how our language works.

I guess to sum it up shortly, I'd say everything that's a posteriori is necessarily relative, and everything perfectly logical and a priori is necessarily absolute.