Is Beauty Really In the Eye of The Beholder?, What do you think? |
Here are the general forum rules that you must follow before you start any debate topics. Please make sure you've read and followed all directions.
Is Beauty Really In the Eye of The Beholder?, What do you think? |
![]()
Post
#1
|
|
![]() Lose yourself and fly away, hide away for the day ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Member Posts: 242 Joined: Jul 2006 Member No: 446,527 ![]() |
Feel free to move it if it's in the wrong forum.
Well, anyway, what do you guys think? (This is meant to be a friendly debate, by the way) Is beauty REALLY in the eyes of the beholder? I mean, science talks of all these features considered attractive ona woman like waist-hip-ratios of 0.7, and men being tall, and everyone having smooth skin, but is that really all true? Is that stuff required to be beautiful? In my opinion, no. Beauty really is in the eyes of the beholder, and I think one can see someone as beautiful, even if they have all the features that are considered ugly. It just depends on the person. People are constantly swooning over, oh, Ionno, Rihanna and the typical Brad Pitt, but honestly I don't find either one extremely attractive. Then I see an average, or maybe even below-average guy on the street and I'm like, 'Wow, he's cute! ![]() ![]() So, that's my opinion onit. Is there anyone who doesn't believe in the phrase? ![]() Or others who do? |
|
|
![]() |
![]()
Post
#2
|
|
![]() Vae Victis ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Official Member Posts: 1,416 Joined: Sep 2006 Member No: 460,227 ![]() |
Beauty is not in the eye of the beholder. Modernism erroneously equivocates the aesthetic effect of beauty on one's cognition with the definition of beauty itself. Individual perceptive influence is subjective, but the concept that it's reacting to isn't. In and of itself, beauty is a concept ontologically external to what someone may or may not make of it.
|
|
|
*Steven* |
![]()
Post
#3
|
Guest ![]() |
Beauty is not in the eye of the beholder. Modernism erroneously equivocates the aesthetic effect of beauty on one's cognition with the definition of beauty itself. Individual perceptive influence is subjective, but the concept that it's reacting to isn't. In and of itself, beauty is a concept ontologically external to what someone may or may not make of it. I would argue that personal influence would override most factors that would shape one's definition of beauty. |
|
|
![]()
Post
#4
|
|
![]() Vae Victis ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Official Member Posts: 1,416 Joined: Sep 2006 Member No: 460,227 ![]() |
You cannot shape definitions to your own liking. A book isn't a cow just because you see it that way (I've tried to eat books many times, believe me). Analogously, abstractions like "beauty" don't change just because you derive it from something different than another person would. Personal influence is what defines when and where a person would see the aesthetic appeal of beauty, but the concept itself is caused by a specific pleasure instigated by the various faculties of the mind being set in motion simultaneously and harmoniously.
|
|
|
![]() ![]() |