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?

[Reidar]

The fact that it's that obvious and yet still subject to relativism is exactly why it needs to be brought up.

Does it make any difference whether we discern between beauty and the application of beauty, if everyone knows what the other means? Yes, I say. These common, fundamental apperceptions have to be addressed before other topics that stand on universal apriorisms can even be conceived, much less debated about. Subjectivity kills the integrity of philosophies that actually pine for the antithesis to relative thought: reality, however abstract the metaphysics of it may be.

I never was one for compliments. May your corned beef not pickle correctly.