To decide if beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I asked myself to define the meaning of beauty. By doing so, I figured out not everyone describes beauty in the same way. Some people look at it in shallow terms of appearance only while others consider the potential beauty of an item. For instance, a scratched, dented, paint chipped dresser may not be very appealing to one person. The next individual, however, may see the piece of furniture as the perfect addition to his or her bedroom after a little sanding and painting. Although many people may agree about the beauty of an object, human beauty is defined even more subjectively. The attractiveness of one’s appearance, personality, or sense of humor varies greatly from one person’s opinion to the next. As a result, beauty can ONLY be identified by the eye of the beholder. No definite standards or principles accompany the judgment of beauty.
This is so weird because I want to do my paper on this! Anyways, I 100% believe beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. Our cultural, peer, and social influences contribute to our perception of beauty. We were all raised differently and all have our own unique personalities, so why wouldn't out thoughts of beauty be unique as well?
So then beauty is always relative, always physical and never attached to any method or actions?
If I enjoy nice cars, and I go to some other state and steal a Corvette, bring it back here and paint it and change the vin number - do I have a beautiful car as long as I think so?
Beauty is totally in the eyes of the beholder. People in general are attracted to what their eyes think is pretty or beautiful. People don't only do this with other humans or animals but also material items such as clothes or fresh food. We even judge books titles and restaurant meals by their name or how they look. But, throughout time the beauty people seek has changed. What people use to think was beautiful back in the 1100's has changed thousands of times to what is considered beautiful now. Yet, this has changed because the people have changed along with society. Society almost sets up what is beautiful then the people go from there with what they choose to be beautiful.
I think this is a classic example of how individual choices make up for the collective standard. For example, why do girls wear make up, tan, and wear certain clothing? I think it is because society made that the beauty 'image'. To me, beauty is defined by society. This image changes over time for people, clothes, and interior design. An example of this change over time is comparing the 70s to now. Back then, everyone had long hair, wore bellbottoms, had orange shag carpets, and drove vans. Let's be honest now, if some guy in bellbottoms with really long hair drove up to me in his van, I would probably laugh in his face. To me, this all comes down to if beauty indeed IS in the eye of the beholder, then why would we still have styles and stereotypes through the ages? I think beauty is in the eye of the beholder to an extent, but the rest is implied by society. Individuals find something/someone attractive and these individual choices add up so that others feel compelled to find the same thing/person attractive. To put this into perspective, let's say a group of guys all find one girl really attractive. One of the guys, however, finds a completely opposite girl more attractive. He doesn't want to get laughed at, so he convinces himself that girl 1 is the image of beauty and he must stick to that 'type'. I think people have some room for personal preference, but the rest is implied by society.
Inner beauty is a different story, though. I believe inner beauty is completely in the eyes of the beholder because time and society have no effect on personalities.
I believe beauty is in the eye of the beholder as well. No two people have the exact idea of what beauty is. If two different people look at a painting one might believe it is the most beautiful painting in the world but the other might be like its a painting of a forest how is that beautiful. I think everyones preception of beauty can infuenced by the where they live, how they were brought up at home, and how society precives beauty.
What you have there Dr. Crozier is a beautiful stolen car. I dont necessarily agree with that. I do think there is a status quo that helps us define what is beautiful and what is not.
I agree with Melissa and the others. To me beauty seems to be in the eye of the beholder but I would also agree that society sets a standard for what "beautiful" really is. There is obviously a whole field of philosophy dedicated to thinking about this question, but I believe that is all that will ever be done; questioning because beauty has no answer or one definition as Margo said. I really like what Lauren said about inner beauty because that is something that has to be looked for much harder than outer beauty. I think inner beauty is the purer beauty because every other kind of beauty fads over time. To me inner beauty is just one example of how beauty is not just physical or relative. Methods and actions can certainly hold beauty . I think actions like running, laughing, and dancing are all beautiful because they are so humanistic. Finally to the question of whether the stolen car is still beautiful. Like Regan said the beauty of the car hasn't changed even though it is stolen. So really anyone who saw the car before and thought it was beautiful would still think so if they saw it again. The stealer, however, may start to feel a bit of guilt every time they look at it and sooner or later the beauty of the car may be tainted to that beholder. Therefore the beauty isn't lost it just isn't as pure, which to me is pivotal to what beauty is.
I think beauty is definitely in the eye of the beholder. I think a personal identification of some entity as beautiful indicates a connection to said entity. Pretty is judged by the societal status quo, making it separate from beauty. I know a woman who society would label overweight, who has dental problems, and a lazy eye. She is not what one would call pretty. When I talk with her, however, something that is beyond explanation fills me with the feeling that I am in the presence of beauty. One must conform to be pretty, one must fully embrace who they are to be beautiful, in my opinion. What and who I view as beautiful are different than anyone else's ideas of beauty because I think differently. Each person has their own standard of beauty. I think this has a connection to the attributes one either enjoys or wishes he or she had. When we see these ideas culminated in a foreign object or person, our awe for the said attribute manifests itself in the individual opinion of beauty.
Side note: my dad always says, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder. It all depends on which guy wants to hold her."
Yes, I believe beauty is in the eye of the beholder. No two or more people can have the same ideas about what is beautiful and what isn't. Everyone one believes that different things are beautiful and that there are different types of beauty. Therefore, beauty is one hundred percent in the eyes of the beholder.
I do believe that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Usually people find totally different things beautiful. This saying coicides with the saying that "one person's trash is another person's treasure". Together these sayings show that many people think this way. If all thought of beauty in the same way every one would look a specific way. This would change though once some one decided that they wanted show their personality through how they look. This would just lead back to beauty being in the eye of the beholder.
Well since everyone agrees with beauty is in the eye of the beholder, i will disagree. When the two words come together, "beatuful girl" I believe nearly everyone pops an image of a skinny good looking girl. Therefore she has beauty. Same goes with ugle. Somethings everyone would agree is ugly. Some beauty, however,is altered when love is involed.
I also believe that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. If someone wants to believe that something or someone is beautiful then that certain someone will be considered beautiful to that one individual. Yet, to the next person, that certain something or someone could be ugly. It all depends on how you want to look at something and how you believe it should be.
Dr. Crozier said... Okay - I will try this a THIRD time!
In my opinion "some" beauty is not in the eye of the beholder, as well as some ugliness. Liberty is always beautiful, but unjustified torturing of people for pleasure is always ugly. I would argue that some actions rise above what our opinion of beauty may or may not be - and therefore some situations of beauty or non-beauty become the same as Kantian Moral Imperatives. I think that the result of an ugly action can also be ugly, therefore universal ugliness (and beauty) occurs in both the mental and physical state - both rationally and emperically.
On the other hand, I think "most" beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I also think that beauty is largly influenced by what is practical (utilitarian) for society. I think that utilitarian beauty is present to a far greater degree than what many realize.
Sammy commented in class that in Europe you can see and "feel" the "oldness" - and Eurpoeans like that - find beauty in it. Some of them are sometimes critical of some Americans who often want everything to be "new" and "disposable".
Is it that the culture forms our beauty or does our beauty form our culture?
I grew up on a hog farm, and my dad would say "that's the smell of money" - so I became acustomed to the smell - probably liked it. I like the idea of chickens in the yard, and vegtable gardens, but I also like the taste of organic chickens and eggs better and fresh vegtables.
In fishing it "seems" like walleye, and trout are pretty "beautiful" but dogfish and eel are kind of ugly. I wonder if there is a "coorelation" between what kind of fish we think are beautiful, and what kind of fish we enjoy as gamefish, and like to eat?
Do I define my beauty or does beauty define my definition of it?
To say that everyone should prefer organic chickens is to give a "universifiability" concept of beauty to something that is obviously a matter of "preference". On the other hand to give "moral relativity" to something that is as concreate as justice or freedom - is, to me, to create a moral fallacy.
Do people often make preference issues into universal concepts of beauty or non-beauty? -- I think many do. Do people often make Universal Concepts into Matters of Preference - I think they often do.
In this way, I think that concepts of aesthetics and ethics have similar postulates.
I agree 100% that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Some people don't like colors or shapes or little details that other people might and that could determine whether a person thinks an object is beautiful or not. Also, some people agree a person is so pretty when others very much disagree!! It just depends on what you as an individual believe is beautiful so I say yes beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
I guess I never considered how beauty relates to our actions. I always thought of beauty as a way to describe our empirical world, but I still believe beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Maybe liberty is not beautiful to the one who wants to express total control over the people of the world. Of course, this individual’s personal liberty is valued above all else. In this situation, I believe double standards are present, and the ideal of universifiability is absent. Other people’s liberty may not be beautiful to the worldly ruler, but the controller’s own liberty is beautiful in his own eyes. For this reason, I think each person separately decides his or her own definition of beauty. Yes, we are all influenced by our surroundings, our backgrounds, and our cultures, but most people have truly unique views about beauty. Unfortunately, some of us try to hide our own definitions of beauty because the rest of society may not think the same way.
Gosh. Dr. Crozier your second follow up question is very puzzling and only makes me question beauty more. I don't want to seem as if I am simply agreeing, but to me Margo brings about a good point. Liberty and justice usually ruin the plans of a control freak and they would not find that beautiful at all. Yet the person seeking liberty would say it was beautiful. So really liberty (or other methdods/actions) are, in a sense situational. This to me suggests that again beauty is simply in the eye of the beholder. Dr. Crozier, are you asking if always and universally is something beautiful? I would say no because that would mean that everytime something occurs (say liberty for examples sake) it is precieved as beautiful to everybody who sees it. To somebody? Yes. To everybody? No way. I hope I'm not missing the point but this question is very difficult for me, so this is really the best of my ability to attempt an answer.
Yes. If a person wants something to look beautiful they will make that object beautiful in their mind. Beauty is different to different people. One person may think a rose is beautiful and another might just think its a plant. One person might think a pop singer is cute, another might think he/she is ugly. It depends on the person and their mind set.
I think beauty is in the eye of the beholder. like they say one mans junk is another man treasure. Lets say there is this nice car with engine problems that some guy can't fix, he thinks its junk. This other guy comes and look at it and thinks it the nicest car he has ever scene, but know he can fix the problem. Then this is a treasure to him. Therefor i think it is just personal preference and knowing what you can do with it.
I'm totally suggesting that a few (although very few) ideas (not physical things or appearance or anything like that) may be universally beautiful (or ugly). Along the same lines, one might say that "goodness" and beauty are similar.
On the other hand, when one talks about preference (beauty in the eye of the beholder) - many argue that 100% of it is what you want it to be, as you can see by reading through this blog.
Just for fun, to take a more radical step on preference beauty, some philosophers have argued that if ALL beauty is realtive and if all beauty if anything to anyone, then it actually becomes equal to or the same as nothing to no one.
In this case, beauty would be neither connected to or based on anything at all, and then there's really no beauty at all - its all just fiction and it doesn't really exist. ......................
However, the argument against the above argument I just made would be this: Most of us agree that we have things that we can define to be "beautiful", and it based on "something" because if it were based on nothing, then no one would have any sense of what we were talking about. So the fact that we can even talk about this concept means that it must be "something", which could be a hint that there "could" be some universal concepts or innate truths or something in this beauty question.
Like Ashley I am a little more puzzeled about beauty. I still think beauty is in the eye of the beholder but I also agree when you said some things like liberty is always beautiful and torturing people for fun is ugly. As for some philosophers saying all beauty is equal or the same as nothing I would have to almost disagree because there is always going to be someone with an opinion out there that is going to say one thing is more beautiful then another and get a little upset if anyone tries to tell them any other way.
I think I have to agree with the majority of people who commented and say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Of course society kind of gives us standards of what they consider beauty but that standard does not apply to everyone. If someone considers something beautiful then it is without question. It all depends on the person and how they view the world and life around themselves. I guess I can kinda see where philosophers would consider beauty equal or same as nothing because if everything is beautiful then there is no difference at all. I certainly think it means something but I can see where they come from.
I definitely think that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. It may be that society influences that opinion of what beauty truely is but that does not mean that society's opinion may not eventually become your opinion. Society's views can change all of your views but most of the time they will just be changed a little.
I think that beauty and goodness often go together. So if there are absolute goods, then there is absolute beauty. I think there is a danger, however, in equating beauty with goodness. That road leads to thinking that because a person or object is beautiful it is good. This is dangerous if we think about what makes us choose leaders. If we say that we choose someone because a person as beautiful as him or her cannot be bad, then are thinking is illogical.
Sometimes yes and sometimes no. Because a rose may be beautiful to one, but to another they find it a disgrace. So, I guess to myself, yes beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. Such as, the Holocaust to almost all of the world this was terrible and "ugly", but maybe to people who believed that Hitler was doing good that is a "beautiful" thing. It all depends on what your view point is on an object as to whether it is "beautiful". And yet there are many definitions to "beautiful". Beauty has many different views. Take Beauty and the Beast for example. At first the "Beast" was hideous, but as Belle and the Beast spent time together, the "beast" suddenly became "beautiful". So, yes to me beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
I strongly believe that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. It is all psychological. Everyone has a different opinion of what is and what isn't beautiful. As regards to the method or action involved, beauty is still in the eye of the beholder. The thief most likely thinks the car is beautiful before and after he/she stole it, because otherwise the car probably wouldn't have been stolen in the first place. So even though it's a stolen car, the thief might think it's beautiful, but another might think it's "ugly" or "disgraceful" because of the action taken. But then again, they probably aren't looking at the car as anything because they're most likely pointing fingers toward the thief as the "scandalous" or "ugly" one. Everyone has many different viewpoints about everything. If we are open-minded and accept these opinions, then our lives will be a lot less stressful.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder....everyone looks at events and objects differently. For example the Holocost to most was a horrible event, but to Hitler it was beautiful. Im not saying I agree with it or think it is right, therefore I do not find any beauty in that. But the beauty is how each individual sees it.
Yes beauty is in the eye of the beholder because no one can see beauty if it is not in their eyes or ears or anything if you don't hear a beautiful melody how do you know it was beautiful. Many people's ideas of beauty are different some thing country music is beautiful and others don't. It all is a matter of opinion and if think beauty isn't in the eye of the beholder where is the beauty being absorbed.
To decide if beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I asked myself to define the meaning of beauty. By doing so, I figured out not everyone describes beauty in the same way. Some people look at it in shallow terms of appearance only while others consider the potential beauty of an item. For instance, a scratched, dented, paint chipped dresser may not be very appealing to one person. The next individual, however, may see the piece of furniture as the perfect addition to his or her bedroom after a little sanding and painting. Although many people may agree about the beauty of an object, human beauty is defined even more subjectively. The attractiveness of one’s appearance, personality, or sense of humor varies greatly from one person’s opinion to the next. As a result, beauty can ONLY be identified by the eye of the beholder. No definite standards or principles accompany the judgment of beauty.
ReplyDeleteThis is so weird because I want to do my paper on this! Anyways, I 100% believe beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. Our cultural, peer, and social influences contribute to our perception of beauty. We were all raised differently and all have our own unique personalities, so why wouldn't out thoughts of beauty be unique as well?
ReplyDeleteSo then beauty is always relative, always physical and never attached to any method or actions?
ReplyDeleteIf I enjoy nice cars, and I go to some other state and steal a Corvette, bring it back here and paint it and change the vin number - do I have a beautiful car as long as I think so?
Beauty is totally in the eyes of the beholder. People in general are attracted to what their eyes think is pretty or beautiful. People don't only do this with other humans or animals but also material items such as clothes or fresh food. We even judge books titles and restaurant meals by their name or how they look. But, throughout time the beauty people seek has changed. What people use to think was beautiful back in the 1100's has changed thousands of times to what is considered beautiful now. Yet, this has changed because the people have changed along with society. Society almost sets up what is beautiful then the people go from there with what they choose to be beautiful.
ReplyDeleteI think this is a classic example of how individual choices make up for the collective standard. For example, why do girls wear make up, tan, and wear certain clothing? I think it is because society made that the beauty 'image'. To me, beauty is defined by society. This image changes over time for people, clothes, and interior design. An example of this change over time is comparing the 70s to now. Back then, everyone had long hair, wore bellbottoms, had orange shag carpets, and drove vans. Let's be honest now, if some guy in bellbottoms with really long hair drove up to me in his van, I would probably laugh in his face. To me, this all comes down to if beauty indeed IS in the eye of the beholder, then why would we still have styles and stereotypes through the ages? I think beauty is in the eye of the beholder to an extent, but the rest is implied by society. Individuals find something/someone attractive and these individual choices add up so that others feel compelled to find the same thing/person attractive. To put this into perspective, let's say a group of guys all find one girl really attractive. One of the guys, however, finds a completely opposite girl more attractive. He doesn't want to get laughed at, so he convinces himself that girl 1 is the image of beauty and he must stick to that 'type'. I think people have some room for personal preference, but the rest is implied by society.
ReplyDeleteInner beauty is a different story, though. I believe inner beauty is completely in the eyes of the beholder because time and society have no effect on personalities.
I believe beauty is in the eye of the beholder as well. No two people have the exact idea of what beauty is. If two different people look at a painting one might believe it is the most beautiful painting in the world but the other might be like its a painting of a forest how is that beautiful. I think everyones preception of beauty can infuenced by the where they live, how they were brought up at home, and how society precives beauty.
ReplyDeleteWhat you have there Dr. Crozier is a beautiful stolen car. I dont necessarily agree with that. I do think there is a status quo that helps us define what is beautiful and what is not.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Melissa and the others. To me beauty seems to be in the eye of the beholder but I would also agree that society sets a standard for what "beautiful" really is. There is obviously a whole field of philosophy dedicated to thinking about this question, but I believe that is all that will ever be done; questioning because beauty has no answer or one definition as Margo said. I really like what Lauren said about inner beauty because that is something that has to be looked for much harder than outer beauty. I think inner beauty is the purer beauty because every other kind of beauty fads over time. To me inner beauty is just one example of how beauty is not just physical or relative. Methods and actions can certainly hold beauty . I think actions like running, laughing, and dancing are all beautiful because they are so humanistic. Finally to the question of whether the stolen car is still beautiful. Like Regan said the beauty of the car hasn't changed even though it is stolen. So really anyone who saw the car before and thought it was beautiful would still think so if they saw it again. The stealer, however, may start to feel a bit of guilt every time they look at it and sooner or later the beauty of the car may be tainted to that beholder. Therefore the beauty isn't lost it just isn't as pure, which to me is pivotal to what beauty is.
ReplyDeleteI think beauty is definitely in the eye of the beholder. I think a personal identification of some entity as beautiful indicates a connection to said entity. Pretty is judged by the societal status quo, making it separate from beauty. I know a woman who society would label overweight, who has dental problems, and a lazy eye. She is not what one would call pretty. When I talk with her, however, something that is beyond explanation fills me with the feeling that I am in the presence of beauty. One must conform to be pretty, one must fully embrace who they are to be beautiful, in my opinion. What and who I view as beautiful are different than anyone else's ideas of beauty because I think differently. Each person has their own standard of beauty. I think this has a connection to the attributes one either enjoys or wishes he or she had. When we see these ideas culminated in a foreign object or person, our awe for the said attribute manifests itself in the individual opinion of beauty.
ReplyDeleteSide note: my dad always says, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder. It all depends on which guy wants to hold her."
Yes, I believe beauty is in the eye of the beholder. No two or more people can have the same ideas about what is beautiful and what isn't. Everyone one believes that different things are beautiful and that there are different types of beauty. Therefore, beauty is one hundred percent in the eyes of the beholder.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Usually people find totally different things beautiful. This saying coicides with the saying that "one person's trash is another person's treasure". Together these sayings show that many people think this way. If all thought of beauty in the same way every one would look a specific way. This would change though once some one decided that they wanted show their personality through how they look. This would just lead back to beauty being in the eye of the beholder.
ReplyDeleteWell since everyone agrees with beauty is in the eye of the beholder, i will disagree. When the two words come together, "beatuful girl" I believe nearly everyone pops an image of a skinny good looking girl. Therefore she has beauty. Same goes with ugle. Somethings everyone would agree is ugly. Some beauty, however,is altered when love is involed.
ReplyDeleteI also believe that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. If someone wants to believe that something or someone is beautiful then that certain someone will be considered beautiful to that one individual. Yet, to the next person, that certain something or someone could be ugly. It all depends on how you want to look at something and how you believe it should be.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDr. Crozier said...
ReplyDeleteOkay - I will try this a THIRD time!
In my opinion "some" beauty is not in the eye of the beholder, as well as some ugliness. Liberty is always beautiful, but unjustified torturing of people for pleasure is always ugly. I would argue that some actions rise above what our opinion of beauty may or may not be - and therefore some situations of beauty or non-beauty become the same as Kantian Moral Imperatives. I think that the result of an ugly action can also be ugly, therefore universal ugliness (and beauty) occurs in both the mental and physical state - both rationally and emperically.
On the other hand, I think "most" beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I also think that beauty is largly influenced by what is practical (utilitarian) for society. I think that utilitarian beauty is present to a far greater degree than what many realize.
Sammy commented in class that in Europe you can see and "feel" the "oldness" - and Eurpoeans like that - find beauty in it. Some of them are sometimes critical of some Americans who often want everything to be "new" and "disposable".
Is it that the culture forms our beauty or does our beauty form our culture?
I grew up on a hog farm, and my dad would say "that's the smell of money" - so I became acustomed to the smell - probably liked it. I like the idea of chickens in the yard, and vegtable gardens, but I also like the taste of organic chickens and eggs better and fresh vegtables.
In fishing it "seems" like walleye, and trout are pretty "beautiful" but dogfish and eel are kind of ugly. I wonder if there is a "coorelation" between what kind of fish we think are beautiful, and what kind of fish we enjoy as gamefish, and like to eat?
Do I define my beauty or does beauty define my definition of it?
To say that everyone should prefer organic chickens is to give a "universifiability" concept of beauty to something that is obviously a matter of "preference". On the other hand to give "moral relativity" to something that is as concreate as justice or freedom - is, to me, to create a moral fallacy.
Do people often make preference issues into universal concepts of beauty or non-beauty? -- I think many do. Do people often make Universal Concepts into Matters of Preference - I think they often do.
In this way, I think that concepts of aesthetics and ethics have similar postulates.
I agree 100% that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Some people don't like colors or shapes or little details that other people might and that could determine whether a person thinks an object is beautiful or not. Also, some people agree a person is so pretty when others very much disagree!! It just depends on what you as an individual believe is beautiful so I say yes beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
ReplyDeleteI guess I never considered how beauty relates to our actions. I always thought of beauty as a way to describe our empirical world, but I still believe beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Maybe liberty is not beautiful to the one who wants to express total control over the people of the world. Of course, this individual’s personal liberty is valued above all else. In this situation, I believe double standards are present, and the ideal of universifiability is absent. Other people’s liberty may not be beautiful to the worldly ruler, but the controller’s own liberty is beautiful in his own eyes. For this reason, I think each person separately decides his or her own definition of beauty. Yes, we are all influenced by our surroundings, our backgrounds, and our cultures, but most people have truly unique views about beauty. Unfortunately, some of us try to hide our own definitions of beauty because the rest of society may not think the same way.
ReplyDeleteGosh. Dr. Crozier your second follow up question is very puzzling and only makes me question beauty more. I don't want to seem as if I am simply agreeing, but to me Margo brings about a good point. Liberty and justice usually ruin the plans of a control freak and they would not find that beautiful at all. Yet the person seeking liberty would say it was beautiful. So really liberty (or other methdods/actions) are, in a sense situational. This to me suggests that again beauty is simply in the eye of the beholder. Dr. Crozier, are you asking if always and universally is something beautiful? I would say no because that would mean that everytime something occurs (say liberty for examples sake) it is precieved as beautiful to everybody who sees it. To somebody? Yes. To everybody? No way. I hope I'm not missing the point but this question is very difficult for me, so this is really the best of my ability to attempt an answer.
ReplyDeleteYes. If a person wants something to look beautiful they will make that object beautiful in their mind. Beauty is different to different people. One person may think a rose is beautiful and another might just think its a plant. One person might think a pop singer is cute, another might think he/she is ugly. It depends on the person and their mind set.
ReplyDeleteI think beauty is in the eye of the beholder. like they say one mans junk is another man treasure. Lets say there is this nice car with engine problems that some guy can't fix, he thinks its junk. This other guy comes and look at it and thinks it the nicest car he has ever scene, but know he can fix the problem. Then this is a treasure to him. Therefor i think it is just personal preference and knowing what you can do with it.
ReplyDeleteI'm totally suggesting that a few (although very few) ideas (not physical things or appearance or anything like that) may be universally beautiful (or ugly). Along the same lines, one might say that "goodness" and beauty are similar.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, when one talks about preference (beauty in the eye of the beholder) - many argue that 100% of it is what you want it to be, as you can see by reading through this blog.
Just for fun, to take a more radical step on preference beauty, some philosophers have argued that if ALL beauty is realtive and if all beauty if anything to anyone, then it actually becomes equal to or the same as nothing to no one.
In this case, beauty would be neither connected to or based on anything at all, and then there's really no beauty at all - its all just fiction and it doesn't really exist.
......................
However, the argument against the above argument I just made would be this: Most of us agree that we have things that we can define to be "beautiful", and it based on "something" because if it were based on nothing, then no one would have any sense of what we were talking about. So the fact that we can even talk about this concept means that it must be "something", which could be a hint that there "could" be some universal concepts or innate truths or something in this beauty question.
Like Ashley I am a little more puzzeled about beauty. I still think beauty is in the eye of the beholder but I also agree when you said some things like liberty is always beautiful and torturing people for fun is ugly. As for some philosophers saying all beauty is equal or the same as nothing I would have to almost disagree because there is always going to be someone with an opinion out there that is going to say one thing is more beautiful then another and get a little upset if anyone tries to tell them any other way.
ReplyDeleteI think I have to agree with the majority of people who commented and say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Of course society kind of gives us standards of what they consider beauty but that standard does not apply to everyone. If someone considers something beautiful then it is without question. It all depends on the person and how they view the world and life around themselves. I guess I can kinda see where philosophers would consider beauty equal or same as nothing because if everything is beautiful then there is no difference at all. I certainly think it means something but I can see where they come from.
ReplyDeleteI definitely think that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. It may be that society influences that opinion of what beauty truely is but that does not mean that society's opinion may not eventually become your opinion. Society's views can change all of your views but most of the time they will just be changed a little.
ReplyDeleteI think that beauty and goodness often go together. So if there are absolute goods, then there is absolute beauty. I think there is a danger, however, in equating beauty with goodness. That road leads to thinking that because a person or object is beautiful it is good. This is dangerous if we think about what makes us choose leaders. If we say that we choose someone because a person as beautiful as him or her cannot be bad, then are thinking is illogical.
ReplyDeleteSometimes yes and sometimes no. Because a rose may be beautiful to one, but to another they find it a disgrace. So, I guess to myself, yes beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. Such as, the Holocaust to almost all of the world this was terrible and "ugly", but maybe to people who believed that Hitler was doing good that is a "beautiful" thing. It all depends on what your view point is on an object as to whether it is "beautiful". And yet there are many definitions to "beautiful". Beauty has many different views. Take Beauty and the Beast for example. At first the "Beast" was hideous, but as Belle and the Beast spent time together, the "beast" suddenly became "beautiful". So, yes to me beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
ReplyDeleteI strongly believe that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. It is all psychological. Everyone has a different opinion of what is and what isn't beautiful. As regards to the method or action involved, beauty is still in the eye of the beholder. The thief most likely thinks the car is beautiful before and after he/she stole it, because otherwise the car probably wouldn't have been stolen in the first place. So even though it's a stolen car, the thief might think it's beautiful, but another might think it's "ugly" or "disgraceful" because of the action taken. But then again, they probably aren't looking at the car as anything because they're most likely pointing fingers toward the thief as the "scandalous" or "ugly" one. Everyone has many different viewpoints about everything. If we are open-minded and accept these opinions, then our lives will be a lot less stressful.
ReplyDeleteBeauty is in the eye of the beholder....everyone looks at events and objects differently. For example the Holocost to most was a horrible event, but to Hitler it was beautiful. Im not saying I agree with it or think it is right, therefore I do not find any beauty in that. But the beauty is how each individual sees it.
ReplyDeleteYes beauty is in the eye of the beholder because no one can see beauty if it is not in their eyes or ears or anything if you don't hear a beautiful melody how do you know it was beautiful. Many people's ideas of beauty are different some thing country music is beautiful and others don't. It all is a matter of opinion and if think beauty isn't in the eye of the beholder where is the beauty being absorbed.
ReplyDelete