Foxy-you evade the question once again.Are the blossoms man made is what I asked.It's a simple enough question to ask about your photograph.Don't you think it a trifle bad mannered to just ignore a question and shoot off down another track which we can always come to later if we wish.I gave up the Politics thread because there was too much of that.
Mills-what on earth makes think you only started being influenced by feminist theory after you understood what the label was.There was a point when you didn't know what food was but you had a good guzzle at it.
How can these images from print and television be false when they are in your face.
Have you not read the scene in Proust when he realises the reality of his grandmother?
Of course your idea of beauty is a conditioned response.That's what we are trying to find an escape from.
obviously beauty is subjective, EVERYONE knows that. i think this thread was just harder attempt to get at what is beautiful, not HOW do you know what is beautfiul. clearly each person opinion is going to differ. unless you wanted to analise the psychology of why one persons opinion differs from anothers, or what the definition of beauty is. you know cause you make a judgement, if it is, and test this feeling you get from whatever object is the target to others, see how much more you like it, what category of feeling it fits in, etc.
Slappy is nearest so far.
IK-we know all that.It means "beautiful" has no meaning.We are trying to give it one.
then the title of the thread should be what is beautiful. not how do we know.
Eh... I don't think it's that important, really. "Beauty" is what we find attractive. Aesthetically pleasing. It's kind of like saying, "How do you define 'liking' something? What makes us 'like' something?"
'Cause I mean, some people like pizza, and some people don't, but almost everyone likes the feeling of being loved. Just like everyone's idea of beauty is different, but there are some universally beautiful things.
But what I mean by "I don't think it's that important" is... well... just that. Beauty isn't as deep as we all make it out to be. At least in my opinion. It's just, "hey, that looks good!"... y'know? I don't think it's really more profound than that.
Foxfyre wrote:Have you ever seen anything so beautiful it really moved you? Can you explain what that something did when other things, such as the blossoms, don't?
Maybe this is the definition we are looking for. Something that moves you by the mere sight (or sound) of it.
FD-the point is,I think,that if you allow that definition of beauty it is different for each person and thus minds cannot meet.That is presumably why people with similar ideas tend to congregate together.
Yeah, I know, that seems kind of obvious to me. Maybe I'm missing the purpose here.
The purpose as I understand it is to entertain ourselves with a free and frank exchange of views from a philosophical standpoint which is itself a difficulty.
Are you being entertained and,if you are,is that an aspect of beauty.
I guess I've said as much as I have to say on the topic of beauty. Brevity is certainly beautiful.
Steve Martin expressed that view in The Man With Two Brains.Not everyone agrees.Some of us like a long drawn out performance if only to save us having to find something else to do.
Yes, I feel that way sometimes. Just not today, apparently.
So your concept of beauty changes from day to day.That's interesting.
I come from haunts of coot and fern
I make a sudden sally
And sparkle out among the fern
To bicker down the valley.
Looks like I'm still on track then.
Beauty is based entirely on opinion!!!
after all 'one mans meat is anothers poison'
taking that into account a gay person, for example would find a person of the same sex attractive, or beautiful.a straight person would not find a member of the same sex beautiful because of their sexuality!
im not great at conveying my opinions but hey, its my opinion!
Spendius writes
Quote:Foxy-you evade the question once again.Are the blossoms man made is what I asked.It's a simple enough question to ask about your photograph.
Is it relevant who or what made something or caused something to happen to determine whether or not it is beautiful? I don't have a clue who took that photograph or where or even what those blossoms are. I just know that to me they are beautiful. I don't know why.
But the question is that missionaries and others who first encountered remote indigenous populations in the farthest corners of the earth saw as beautiful many of the same things as did those raised in relative luxury in highly civilized, industrialized countries. Why is that?
Foxy-
First off-if the blossoms are a result of careful scientific horticultural processes geared to exploiting a market,possibly using genetic engineering,in what way are they different from an aesthetic point of view from a drinks can?An empty one is possibly more emphatic.
Your second para. is much more interesting.Could you provide any details as to the object,or objects,
which the missionaries found to be just as beautiful as those of us who wallow in the lap of luxury do?
I'm not sure I can answer your question without you being more specific.
One example that came to mind was that of a sunset over the water. Once the 'missionaries' or whoever there are were able to develop a line of communication, the 'natives' pointed to the sunset and expressed their word for beautiful. The same phenomenon occurred in impressions of flowers, expansive scenic vistas, brightly colored birds and butterflies, etc. In other words, the people of both worlds shared appreciation for various feature of nature.
Conversely when shown a picture of a blighted industrial area of an American city, the native peoples were unamimous in agreement that the scene was 'ugly'.
Who was it, Mills? expressing her appreciation for the beauty in her grandmother's wrinkled face. We all have stories like that I think--delight in a bad looking baby or dog or whatever--we see beauty in things others might not and yet we still can't fully explain why. That's assuming acknowledgment of beauty and simply loving something are not the same thing.
There is a hill just south of Albuquerque that fascinates me. I can't tell you why, but the particular contours are pleasing to me and to me it is beautiful. Though we agree on most other things, my husband can't see it there--to him it is just another unremarkable hill. Why is that?
Karazee brought up another point that is interesting. Our spouse, child, parent, sibling, etc. might or might be beautiful to us in a way others don't appreciate. But I don't think appreciation for the beauty of the human form, either male or female, is necessarily dependent on either our sex or our sexual orientation. I know a beautiful woman when I see one and also a beautiful guy. Does everybody else see them as beautiful too I wonder?
Do you think the natives would have found any of our stuff beautiful?
Like,for example,flush toilets in white tiles with scented atmospheres,3 minute chicken curry with rice,painkillers,$70 grand a year and a ride on the big dipper.I am rather of the opinion that the natives would find such a combination somewhat more beautiful than any old sunset or butterfly flapping past.And that's despite what the missionaries might think.
By juxtaposing the best of the native's world with the worst of our world you betray a keen sense of propaganda value which I must report has no effect on me.
The reason your husband sees just another unremarkable hill is because it will be just another unremarkable hill unless deeming it remarkable provides a justification for going on about it.
I certainly have never seen a beautiful guy in all my life.Can't say I ever experienced that.Just thinking about myself is bad enough.
