"Have you ever wondered about the concepts of Beauty? Such as, what makes something beautiful or ugly? And why is that something beautiful or ugly? Is there a one true definition of Beauty, or is it simply something that varies from people to people? 'Beauty is in the eye of the beholder,' is it true or not?'"

These questions popped up during a lecture in an introductory philosophy course last fall, but I still remembered it and wanted to bring it up.

Socrates (or should I say Plato since Plato wrote the book) once mentioned that everything has a Form, and these Forms exist in a separate world. These Forms are forever eternal; they aren't prone to changes over time. For example, you have an apple. Over time, the physical aspects of the apple decays and becomes rotten. However, its Form is still eternal and its Form is what you have in your head of what an apple look like.

And that same concept can be applied towards Beauty. There is a Form of Beauty that exists in a different world. Over time, humans have begun to grasp a little of that Form and called it Beauty. Here is a visual presentation of that:



Do you agree with that? That there is one true Form of Beauty but because it manifests itself in different physical forms, and every human has a different grasp on it, so what is beautiful to one may seem ugly to another?

Or do you think there isn't a Form of Beauty? And that things such as "standards of beauty" are something created by humans and varies from time to time? Such as, in the old times, women who are voluptuous and not thin are consider beautiful whereas women in our time who are thin are generally considered as beautiful.

Or do you have a different concept about Beauty? What is its true definition?

Yes, your brain might be on overload as is mine, but please discuss.

Woah... You remind me of my father, he would have had some strong opinions about that.


I do think that "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder", no matter the "standards", there will always be people thinking different about what's beautiful and what's not.

I hope that what I wrote made some sense, and sorry that my answer is really... short
I actually thought about your question for about 20 minutes but this is what I came with.

And yeah, my brain is gone.

You are right about the media's version of beauty being fickle because through the ages and more specifically throught he decades in the last 100 years it has changed from voluptuos to ultra thin emaciated looking in the 60's and 70's and then to thin but with curves to thin with no curves and it seems to bee swinging back the other way recently with curves being back in in women at least. For men the models are expected to be either thin or muscular but actors can be flabby or muscular or even on the fat side and still be the sex symbol--even a little weird looking like Jim Carry is considered a sex symbol to many. Since the human race lately is so controlled by the images they are fed by the media, beauty is hard to define because people have gotten so far away from finding beuaty in everything. The few who find the beauty in form of any kind are truly free from the shackles of society's limitations or perhaps they are the ones who dont see form but see spirit.

Wow, thats certainly a mouth full. LOL :P

Well I definitely would have to agree with most of the theory you presented. However, I think in many cases too, that beauty can manifest AFTER you get to know someone, which I believe provides evidence for the fact that beauty is not purely a physical attribute.

As Siswoac quoted "Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder". We each have a different interpretation of what is beauty or what makes something beautiful.

Now, as explained by Sabella30, the media is very fickle in this. They simply go to what people in that certain age perceive as beauty. Yet the media does not filter that this sort of beauty (thin girls, hunky men, etc...) is generally a concept from human desire. Let's face it, the media tries to show beautiful sexy individuals for their gains. Now, how do they define the beautiful sexy individuals? Is it because of their spirit? Their traits? No, it's simply superficial. That's in the media's general view.

So here humanity has two main problems, the definition of 'beauty' and the definition of 'perceived beauty in society'. Two entirely different concepts that DO relate at certain points at certain times.

Now, beauty for me is an essence. A person, object, situation can possess it. I don't really symphatize with the view that there's an absolute beauty, because to me, beauty occurs when one's soul and spirit finds some sort of connection to their ideals at a certain object, person, etc...

Although there might be a general view of beauty, no one can truly define it, since it's all relative to the individuals. One thing is forsure though, beauty and perceived beauty by society CAN be completely different things.

I prefer to use the word Aesthetics, instead of the term beauty, in this case. I am a nut when it comes to aesthetics. Aside from computers and the mysteries of information technology and sorts, aesthetics is something that decides for me what I like, and what I don't like.

And I think it's the aesthetics that will determine whether it will be remembered, or forgotten

In music, it's the hooks that are the aesthetics of a great song. In anime and manga series, it's a character's emotions, looks, and turn-ons that make a powerful lasting impact. There are number of series that have aesthetically become something that will be memorable, even decades after it was published and shown on the air and sent out on DVD.

I have a scientific view of beauty, for the most part. it has been proven that things with semitry are generaly viewed as more beautiful. where as if you were to throw off one side of the object from the other, its 'beauty' decreases.

wikipedia

The subjective experience of "beauty" often involves the interpretation of some entity as being in balance and harmony with nature,

i have also experienced what vixvix described. finding beauty in someone after i get to know them or after i know more about an object. for example, all my girlfriends became 'less beautiful' after we broke up...

and this is where the brain fart happens... i had more to say, but i dont remember... moo

When it comes to beauty, I'm of the opinion that what you consider beautiful is influenced by what you are presented with. I can use myself as an example - being into anime and manga for so long (eleven years now), I can definitely say that I find asians more visually appealing than others, and I most certainly find androgynous-looking people (regardless of race) more appealing.

Every human has a different grasp of beauty, and beauty itself is subject to the controlling figures of the media - whatever media it may be. It's my firm belief that this is why voluptuous women are no longer considered as attractive as their smaller counterparts.

I dunno to be honest, cuz im really a simple minded (close to stupid) dude.

Beauty to me, is like saying "it looks good..." so as long as i think it does look good, then i guess i can call it beautiful (depends on what though).

Cuz, everything has its own beauty. Perhaps, paintings for example, people appreciate or dont appreciate paintings because it is simply not their taste. As for people, i think some people are beautiful not because of how they look, but sometimes their personality or it could be even actions that were beautiful that were done by average looking people (ex. athletes).

And we cant escape the fact that things that we think are beautiful, and then we discover something bad about them, though even if they still look the same "beatiful appearance" they have, they will be less beautfil (ex. a sexy friend that turned out to be a whore).

In the end, anything can be beautiful to me as long as i think it is. Doesnt matter what other people think or say.

Well, I was just throwing ideas out in the first post to start at least a discussion. Here's what I really think.

No, I really don't believe in what Socrates or Plato said about Forms, at least not in the sense of them existing in another world. I tend to think of Forms as more like "images" stored in our brains, basically data if you think about it. Most of these "images" do stay "eternal" in the sense that if your brain is working properly, you will always know what an apple or an orange looks like without seeing it physically. I might have to refresh to my memory a bit, but I think Socrates only thinks that people have souls (not brains). Correct me if I'm wrong please. I don't believe in absolute beauty, by the way.

Amrod

So here humanity has two main problems, the definition of 'beauty' and the definition of 'perceived beauty in society'.

I agree that there are different kinds of beauty, but I'm going to add one more: 'beauty,' perceived beauty in society, and perceived beauty from the individual. And like you said, these are very different things. What the individual perceives as beautiful might not be what society considers beautiful. For instance, as mentioned before, beauty standards today tend to value thin women over "not thin" women. But, there will be individuals think differently.

As for the true definition of 'beauty,' well, that's something I can't explain but I think that objects/people that are accepted by all as beautiful can be considered as "true beauty." Flowers can be the definition of beauty, because everyone acknowledges that flowers are beautiful. That's the only example I can give though because once it comes to people, there will be contrasting opinions.

Amrod

Now, beauty for me is an essence. A person, object, situation can possess it.

Yes, that's what I think as well.

BlackVice

And we cant escape the fact that things that we think are beautiful, and then we discover something bad about them, though even if they still look the same "beatiful appearance" they have, they will be less beautfil (ex. a sexy friend that turned out to be a whore).

That's an interesting point. In a way, that's saying that people will be affected by their emotions when judging other people. In other words, people are biased. So, a person may be "beautiful" and everyone else thinks that, but the person who dislikes the "beautiful" one will always think he/she is not beautiful. And when two people like one another, they think each other are beautiful/handsome, even if other people don't think so.

jsalazar

I prefer to use the word Aesthetics, instead of the term beauty, in this case.

I would use that word, but that word refers to everything (music, art, etc.) which is too huge to even discuss, and I'm just referring to one part of aesthetics.

Ahh I remember hearing the same thing in class about forms and being rather intrigued. Beauty is a hard subject to discuss because although most would say certain things are beautiful, there are also people who would say those things aren't beautiful.
I would agree that beauty is an essence. And Also agree that it should be called aesthetics rather than beauty because beauty is so hard to define for everyone. Many things, even situations can be beautiful, but beauty is first and foremost visual. Although I think some of the most beautiful things in the world are songs! ^^

Hmm... This brings up thoughts of the fashion industry that I had.

What does it market? Beauty.

Now look at your typical female model. She is flat-chested, no curves to speak off, borderline anorexic, and is usually over 6 feet tall. Let's see here, tall, long, with no curves. That doesn't sound like a woman... that sounds like a description of A MAN!

Model's have the body shape of a man. And who is your sterotypical fashion designer? A homosexual man. So you've got a gay man, making clothes that only look good on someone with the body shape of a man... and that is how woman are supposed to want to look?

Does anybody else see something wrong with that?

Beauty should not be something so complicated.

Beauty should not be categorized or philosophized. Sometimes, to realize that something is beautiful, time has to pass. Sometimes, to realize that something is beautiful, a single moment has to pass.

There is a song I heard today, The Story by Brandi Carlile. It's probably been out a while, but I'm never up to date with anything { except fanfiction updates }. But there is a part at the near end of the song where her voice swells before cracking under the pressure. At first, I was shaken that they kept something like that in the song - then I listened to it again and realized that something so small made the piece even more intimate. She's human, ladies and gentlemen. It made the song even more beautiful. My brother, however, still cringes when he hears it. He's more classical, I guess, and likes things perfect.

Things like perfection and beauty only have one thing in common within our world. They are all perceived differently by different people, realized at different times and never realized at all.

Nice provocative thread, Pink! Always good to include graphics. I'm going to ramble a bit and hopefully make a point.

The problem with philosophy is one person or a small collective creating what they perceive as a universal truth for all people. Having read a lot of philosophy, I came to the conclusion it was nothing more than pretentious intellectual masturbation. With that said, it can be a focal point of what I'll call "sociological induction."

Sociological induction is synonymous to the "herd mentality" but divergent as the name implies inductive thought; hence, a philosophical analysis of concept opposite of deductive. As an example, the problem with people make comparisons to what the media implies as "beauty" is that it is no more than a statement based on a sociological inductive psychosis with elements of marketing meshed with the collective opinions of a select few. The media's perception in any culture does not necessarily represent that culture's view of beauty--only a sociological inductive derivative.

In truth, beauty will always, at it's foundation, be the following: a personal observation of a thing that invokes an emotionally pleasurable response from the viewer. In the case of human social interaction, sexual stimulation (mental or physical) may be the indicator as said observation causes hormonal changes.

You can also apply the economic of "value-add" to the concept of beauty. A beatific object "adds" to the observational experience and an intrinsic value (mental, emotional, physical) is assigned to the object.

Ok, enough for the moment. Pink, you may want to throw out my concept of "sociological induction" to a professor and see what they think--even if they think I'm full of crap. ;)

It's all the same their just objects and forms. Maybe beauty is decided in your genes. I've heard it's hereditary in order to mate with more prominent species and pharamones and what not. Besides if there was some standard for beauty you wouldn't explain the necrophiliacs who fu@# skeletons and such. Or the people who like extreme fat girls over the people who like skinny girls.