Definition of Beauty

[Elleigh]

So what is your definition of beauty?

Peli

 

[Polar Bear]

So what is your definition of beauty?

Peli

 

I suppose it is appropriate that Woolly is a big softie 

[spesh]

Smoking and chewing gum are both big turn-offs for me,and then there is a woman's relationship with alcohol.

A woman who is completely blotto is not a pretty sight, no matter how beautiful they are...

[Psychler]

True beauty is in the soul.

[Flying_Monkey]

I still think many people here are saying things that they expect others to find admirable rather than what they really think.

Sure, compassion, intelligence, wisdom and so on are all qualities we would want for ourselves and for others. But to try to lump all of these together with 'beauty' is actually to make things less rather than more clear. You end up defining everything you like as 'beauty'  actually renders the word meaningless - it just becomes synonymous with 'niceness'...

It also suggests that no-one notices anything physical, which we know is simply not true in reality. If we are going to understand all those deeper aspects of humanity, starting with honesty is a good idea - and I mean honesty to oneself, first of all. My name is David, and whilst I admire and cherish the best of human qualities, I also love smooth skin and a well-shaped behind.  Is that beauty?  Maybe not, but it will do for me.

Besides which, and more seriously, beauty - whether in places or people - indicates an aesthetic ideal and a certain transience - a quality that is present for only a moment and which will change or pass away.

[alchemy]

I still think many people here are saying things that they expect others to find admirable rather than what they really think.

No, the qualities I listed are what I (me personally - I can't speak for others) define as beautiful. As I intimated in my initial reply, physical appearance pays a part, but it's only a tiny part.

[numbnuts]

We all see beauty in different ways or else there would be more single ugly people
So, what is unattractive, or what you consider ugly?

Beauty to me is a person without blemish a perfect "10" which in realty does not exist, but someone with a rounded face, large eyes can look very good, but this will fall flat on it's self if all the other things are wrong like intelligent, accent (I do like a Scottish accent it is sort of sexy) bad breath, smoking over weight, under weight and I hate to see a woman drunk it is a real turn off for me, I also hate to see men drunk so not to be sexist.
I do find it hard to see females as attractive after a very messy divorce and that is why I have been on my own for the last 18 years, I like what I see, but memories hold me back and I would not want to go through that again so I close my mind off.

[Polar Bear]

I still think many people here are saying things that they expect others to find admirable rather than what they really think.

Or maybe not.   

For me physical attractiion = lust.  Beauty = an awful lot more.

[Fixedwheelnut]

I still think many people here are saying things that they expect others to find admirable rather than what they really think.

Or maybe not.   

For me physical attractiion = lust.  Beauty = an awful lot more.

More or less what I was going to reply before I scrolled down and see you beat me too it PB 

 As I said before Physical attraction starts it off but it is all the other attributes of a persons character that portray the inner beauty are needed to keep the fires burning once the lust quitens down.

[Tim]

No, beauty is about appearances.

Whether or not something/someone is attractive however can have little to do with this (and encompasses a lot of the factors listed above). I think I'm with FM.

Ah, the joy of semantics!

[Polar Bear]

No, beauty is about appearances.

Whether or not something/someone is attractive however can have little to do with this (and encompasses a lot of the factors listed above). I think I'm with FM.

Ah, the joy of semantics!

Is appearance merely physical?

[Tim]

No, beauty is about appearances.

Whether or not something/someone is attractive however can have little to do with this (and encompasses a lot of the factors listed above). I think I'm with FM.

Ah, the joy of semantics!

Is appearance merely physical?

That's the traditional definition.

If you were asked to describe someone's appearance you wouldn't get involved in character traits (or at least I wouldn't).

[Polar Bear]

No, beauty is about appearances.

Whether or not something/someone is attractive however can have little to do with this (and encompasses a lot of the factors listed above). I think I'm with FM.

Ah, the joy of semantics!

Is appearance merely physical?

That's the traditional definition.

If you were asked to describe someone's appearance you wouldn't get involved in character traits (or at least I wouldn't).

Well, possibly.  How somebody physically appears to you and how somebody appears to you are different in my opinion.   You can appear to be agitated, angry, gentle, etc., for instance.

[Hot Flatus]

Some people think this is beautiful.

The meaning of the word 'beauty' is a bit contextual. A great many posts here are about sexual attractiveness.  

[Ian H]

No, beauty is about appearances.

To the eyes?

Ears?

Nose?

Mind?

[Dave]

No, beauty is about appearances.

To the eyes?
Ears?
Nose?
Mind?

To the eyes, at least to start with. They are our most accurate long-range sense. But people and things can get more or less beautiful as more senses come into play ("I really fancied her/him until s/he opened her/his mouth...").

As has been mentioned already, there are at least two definitions of beauty we are using here, linked but different, I think - 'pure' physical attractiveness, which you can apply to any object - person, tower block, bike and sexual attractiveness, which is (usually) only applied to other people.

[Tim]

Well, possibly.  How somebody physically appears to you and how somebody appears to you are different in my opinion.   You can appear to be agitated, angry, gentle, etc., for instance.

But if you were to say that someone appears agitated/angry/... then you are still ony describing how they appear, not whether they actually are agitated/angry/... . It's just shorthand for behaviour, not the actual character traits.

No, beauty is about appearances.

To the eyes?

Ears?

Nose?

Mind?

The mind interprets, it does not observe.

It's the difference between the results of an experiment and the conclusion you can draw from the results.

[Ian H]

The mind interprets, it does not observe.

Well yes, literally, but I was thinking of the way you gauge the the beauty of the written word, for instance.

[Tim]

Well yes, literally, but I was thinking of the way you gauge the the beauty of the written word, for instance.

As in the image that is conjured by the written word?

In which case you would be assessing the beauty of an image that you have created in your own mind based upon the written words, rather than the words themselves - which leads to differing opinions based upon whoever is assessing, not only through the differing images that are brought about to each critic/assessor, but then how that image compares to their interpretation of ideals.

It's the same with assessing art in any form - you are generally assessing your interpretation of it, rather than the object itself.

[redshift]

<snip concrete>

Some people think this is beautiful.

The meaning of the word 'beauty' is a bit contextual. A great many posts here are about sexual attractiveness. 

Equally, these

'Beauty' seems to me to be about objects.  I'm not sure I'd apply that to people.

[Ian H]

It's the same with assessing art in any form - you are generally assessing your interpretation of it, rather than the object itself.

I don't think you need to restrict that to art. For example, a woman I know well, who might not be a figure of beauty to some (no, I'm not speaking of my partner) became in my eyes beautiful as I got to know her.

[border-rider]

In which case you would be assessing the beauty of an image that you have created in your own mind based upon the written words, rather than the words themselves - which leads to differing opinions based upon whoever is assessing, not only through the differing images that are brought about to each critic/assessor, but then how that image compares to their interpretation of ideals.

It's the same with assessing art in any form - you are generally assessing your interpretation of it, rather than the object itself.

Isn't that always the case, even when using your senses directly ?

My understanding of cognition is that it's dependent on a self-consistent (and only self-consistent) internal world-model

Mind is likely to be an emergent property of all the other systems management stuff, and (here I'm relying on reading New Scientist ) one leading theory is that mind is anyway a post hoc construct.  We only think we think stuff, in other words - in fact  the reactions and actions happen and then are packaged in the instrument that we call mind

[Tim]

I don't think you need to restrict that to art. For example, a woman I know well, who might not be a figure of beauty to some (no, I'm not speaking of my partner) became in my eyes beautiful as I got to know her.

But is that your interpretation of her, rather than her herself (which I think is how I read your post)?

i.e. she's as beautiful as she ever has been, but your interpretation of this has changed. The image you hold of someone is not the synonymous with the person themself.

Or is it she has become attractive/appealing (of which beauty is a part) to you?

I think we'll be back to arguing about the semantics of this.

[Tim]

Isn't that always the case, even when using your senses directly ?

My understanding of cognition is that it's dependent on a self-consistent (and only self-consistent) internal world-model

Mind is likely to be an emergent property of all the other systems management stuff, and (here I'm relying on reading New Scientist ) one leading theory is that mind is anyway a post hoc construct.  We only think we think stuff, in other words - in fact  the reactions and actions happen and then are packaged in the instrument that we call mind

I think that is the issue I have with understanding the concept of "free-will".

The point I was trying to make is that the mind is used in the assessment of the senses, and to interpret and draw conclusions from these. A property such as beauty is the result of assessment of merely the senses, rather than in the case of something such as attractiveness it becomes an assessment of the senses plus an assessment of the interpretation and conclusions that can be drawn from these.

[Ian H]

Or is it she has become attractive/appealing (of which beauty is a part) to you?

My evidence is just my personal experience, but it was as real to me as a physical change.

The senses may gather the raw data, but it's always the brain that interprets it.