kk so i had this thought in the shower this morning and ithink i might be kinda good so feebback would be nice.
anyway so i’ve allways had different ideas as to what beauty is, its one of my favorite puzzels. ahve to take that beauty means everything from
alot of my ideas have come noting the differences between beautifull women and sexual attractive women. which is fairly substancial. and this lead me to the idea that beauty was in the small details and imperfections. however this means that a perfect being would not be beautiful. i came to the idea that beauty is truth as have many other people. now i’m not sure if turth is the right word or if ‘real’ might be a better substitute but i’ll stick will truth for now.
but anyway so this gets interesting. because their are three things i’m not sure if its possible to rationalise (you can probaly explain it rationaly… maybe) ; love, faith and beauty. cool ay. i mean yeah sure there are ways to apply maths to beauty with the golden section etc etc but i’m not sure if you can apply that to a plastic bag floating in the wind or a dead bird. you just intuitivly know its beautifull, or rather you more feel that its is beautifull. and if beauty = truth then turth can also be know inutitively!!!
and also as a side its notable that morals are also intuitive, you can rationalise it all you want but in the end you have to do what feels right.
so for all our ability to undertand reason we have almost no concept of intuition.
ok thatsright i remembered this after someghng dins said. and it kinda discounts my argument because it make beauty less universal.
but i think a more likely definition is beauty is a self truth. so when you see somthing as beautiful it is beacuse you recognise that it reflects a truth within your self
this brings in the element that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. and rather than beauty it self being universally true, objects that are universally beautiful are representative of a truth that is inside of everyone and is a greater universal truth. .
so great universal beauty would be representative of somthing that is true to everyone.
ED | Thu, 11/29/2007 – 03:36
Many see natural beauty folded within petals of a rose.
Immanuel Kant,
writing in 1790, observes of a man “If he says that canary wine is
agreeable he is quite content if someone else corrects his terms and
reminds him to say instead: It is agreeable to me,” because
“Everyone has his own (sense of) taste”. The case of “beauty” is
different from mere “agreeableness” because, “If he proclaims something
to be beautiful, then he requires the same liking from others; he then
judges not just for himself but for everyone, and speaks of beauty as
if it were a property of things.”[1]
iewer interpretations of beauty possess two concepts of value:
aesthetics and taste. Aesthetics is the philosophical notion of beauty.
Taste is a result of education and awareness of elite cultural values;
therefore taste can be learned. Taste varies according to class,
cultural background, and education. Poor taste is usually seen as a
product of ignorance. According to Kant beauty is objective and
universal; thus certain things are beautiful to everyone.
»