Is Beauty Really In the Eye of The Beholder?, What do you think? Options

[Dreamers]

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?

[NoSex]

The objective standard is beauty being an aesthetically-pleasing sensation. The application of that effect is what's subjective, not the concept of beauty itself.

I think what we're discussing here is certainly a much larger philosophy. We're questioning the fundamental essence of "beauty," and asking if it exists, as a property, without the invention of the human imagination and creativity.

That was our essential "disagreement" the entire time.

We actually agree. However, to point out the definition of a word as its objective quantifier is a bit tautological. Not exactly worth mentioning. I mean, it's obviously analytical to say that the definition of a word is the "true" and "objective" definition of a word.

But, in either case, it's very rewarding to see an articulate, interesting, and (seemingly) well-versed individual roaming the debate boards (kudos on your Norway rebut, I still have to reply to that).