What is beauty?

[zobothehobo]

When I was in the 11th grade, I was in a class called IB Theory of Knowledge (TOK). In that class, we discussed at great lengths what the answer to the question "what is beauty" is. We found as a class it's hard to put a definition on beauty. Because it is in the eye of the beholder... but some people were able to come up with good definitions that held true. These definitions could always come down to "everything/one is beautiful."

Since then I've done a lot more thinking on the subject. One of my favorite definitions is the one I've heard from James Marsters. I'll paraphrase a bit by putting together the pieces of my favorite ways it's been said to make sense.

"In my opinion, everyone is interesting enough to be stared at for an extended period of time. You don't want to stare at something that's boring, but no one is boring. Everyone is interesting. And if you think about it, that's beauty, isn't it?"

I wasn't sure I could find a better definition I liked more until tonight when I watched the Youtube Presents Taylor Swift interview tonight. The final question of that interview is Taylor's definition of beauty. Her response:

"Um, I think for me"¦beauty is sincerity. I think they are so many different ways that someone can be beautiful. You know, someone that's SO funny it makes them beautiful, no matter how they look because they're sincere in it. Or if someone is really emotional and moody and thoughtful, but that makes them beautiful because that's sincerely who they are. Or, you look out into the crowd and you see someone SO happy, that they're smiling ear to ear"¦and that sincerity comes through. I think that's what makes somebody beautiful and I've never felt like there's just one way to be beautiful. You know, tall or short, straight hair or curly hair, or whatever like how some people have definitions of their "types." You know, for me"¦I think that when I meet someone and there's that magical thing about them that makes them unforgetable. It's that they're sincere and honest in whoever they are. Be that funny, happy, sad, you know, going through a rough time, sarcastic"¦. I think that these personalities traits that come through when someones really sincere is what makes them beautfiul."

Essentially "beauty is sincerity." That idea is just incredible to me. This definition, to me, beats James'. Well... hand in hand together they are perfect. but Taylor's gave me an epiphany. I had never before considered sincerity as beauty. But now, I see this is exactly what I think too.

All of this reopened the question "What is beauty" to me. And I wanted to share this question... so what is beauty to you? What is your personal definition of beauty?

---------- Post added at 03:59 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:43 AM ----------

[MENTION=9799]Taake[/MENTION] agrees: TOK karma

SOMEONE ELSE LOVED TOK! Everyone at my school HATED TOK. I told them it was because they were looking at it wrong. They were trying to understand what the "right" answer was so they could get a good grade. That's the exact kind of thinking IB in general is trying to get you to NOT do. The purpose of TOK in the IB teaching philosophy is to at least start a sort of reversal of that thinking process. It's great for people like me, who never thought like that to begin with. My History of the Americas (History HL year 1) teacher hated TOK because he thought more along the lines of "there's a right and a wrong." Part of it was his subject. He was an incredible history teacher. He IS an incredible history teacher. But he's a history teacher. He deals with the past. There is a right and a wrong in history. There's what happened and what didn't. TOK is not like that. There's no right and wrong in knowing. That confused my HOTA teacher so he preached against TOK religiously. Since Quinn (the HOTA teacher) was kind of seen as the authority on all things IB (even though he was not our director), people listened to him and took the class worth a grain of salt. That really irritated me. But I loved TOK. I'm glad someone else did too.

 

[PrincessBuffy16]

I don't think I have a definition of beauty. I tried to define it, but like some other things I tried to define, like love and happiness, I failed.

I believe in universal beauty. There are people in this world who are truly beautiful.. to almost everyone. I have a friend like that, and everyone I have ever met who knew her said she's beautiful. So I believe in that, and I believe everything else is a matter of taste. I also believe we can spend our whole life preaching about beauty and what is beautiful to us.. and in the end, we're going to fall for something completely different. Because I truly believe true beauty comes from the inside.. everything you love about the person from the inside can cover everything you hate about the person from the outside.

I grew up thinking SMG is the most beautiful girl in the whole entire world. She's probably not, but to me.. she is and always will be.

 

[Kean]

I think sincerity is a very nice place to start when looking for beauty. I do think that you will find it in everyone, and I don't think it has anything to do with classical beauty. It's a smile or a laugh, a passionate speech or discussion, genuine anger and outrage. When you catch people in pure, unguarded, sincere moments it's like a glimpse into the soul. That's why I think it is beautiful.

However, there are limits to it. I don't think we really extend that appreciation to ourselves (and I'd never want us too! God, imagine the egos!) and also, we don't appreciate pure sincerity when it is bad intentions-a murderer, rapist etc. (Thank God for that too.)

 

[sisterofmercy]

There is no objective beauty, unless you count Plato's Forms in the realm of the Forms.

As far as my subjective take on it, beauty to me is music. It's hearing a voice in a cathedral and hearing it soar in the acoustics, being part of a crowd in complete silence as you watch a musician just take your breath away. It's hearing a song so inspiring and momentous that you can't help but cry; it's just that perfect and indescribable.

 

[caitaintdead]

I think the definition of beauty is being over complicated here. It's what gives an individual pleasure to gaze upon (or smell or touch I suppose). Isn't that it? You can wrap it up as much as you want, but I believe it's really that simple.

 

[Chosen Enemy]

Not sure how to answer this question as there's no one question.

I just know that when I look at my dog, I see all the good in the world. I see beauty beyond possibility. I know it would sound strange to you, she is a dog. But I do have that feelings of pure beauty when I look at her. And I don't even know what there is in her that makes me feels she's the prettiest thing I've ever seen. I can't point at that. It's just something I feel deep inside me, that maybe others wouldn't feel, and I just know what I know.

My point is, when looking for beauty, it's not something only visible, it's something you feel when looking at it. You just know without thinking. You don't need to think, because you just feel it. There are no words for beauty. Like there are no words for certain feelings. It's something beyond words.

 

[Whirlwind]

Here's a quote from the French philosopher Albert Camus I'll share: "Beauty is unbearable, drives us to despair, offering us for a minute the glimpse of an eternity that we should like to stretch out over the whole of time."

Though I think Scottish philosopher David Hume best describes my feelings on it: "Beauty, whether moral or natural, is felt, more properly than perceived."

 

[kittenpoker]

sometimes the words "beauty" "truth" and "love" circle my head and I think in essence they're all different ways of saying the same thing.

 

[sisterofmercy]

sometimes the words "beauty" "truth" and "love" circle my head and I think in essence they're all different ways of saying the same thing.

From a religious perspective they'd all come under the branch of 'God' I would think.

 

[wickedtiger86]

I think beauty can be in a lot of things. It doesn't have to be in appearance. Which is something that I run into with a lot of people. This idea that beauty is all about the physical.

I think it can be in an action or in an intention. It can be in a certain motion or even in a thought or an idea.

It can pretty much be found anywhere. Sometimes I just need to look a little harder to see it.

I guess my point is that I feel like beauty is a bit more fluid than most people think. It can take shape, it doesn't need to always be there, it can form and fall apart and sometimes even the falling apart is beautiful. And I do think that it can exist in everyone, if they let it.

If that makes ANY sense. I'm not feeling too articulate today. 😀

 

[LoveLoveLovix]

Beauty is love. When you love something or someone, that makes it beautiful. And in my mind, there's a reason for this. You see, people always try to make things how they like it. So beauty, being just a concept, can be anything. So we put beauty on what we love because all we can agree on beauty wise is that beauty is good. So beauty is your love for something. The more you love, the more beautiful. Like, for me, the most beautiful things in the world are my family, my girlfriend, and books (witness my geekdom).

So yeah. That's my thoughts on it.

 

[Valjavertjinn]

I htink that the little, simple things are beautiful. To me, elaborate greek arcitecture isn't as beautiful as an orange seed. Once I spent ten minutes staring at a seed looking at every little ridge and divet.

 

[Crazy Flakes]

There is no objective beauty, unless you count Plato's Forms in the realm of the Forms.

Hey, since we're on the topic of Platonic idealism, here's a good (and long) definition of Beauty from the man himself:

"Well then, she began, the candidate for this initiation cannot, if his efforts are to be rewarded, begin too early to devote himself to the beauties of the body. First of all, if his preceptor instructs him as he should, he will fall in love with the beauty of one individual body, so that his passion may give life to noble discourse. Next he must consider how nearly related the beauty of any one body is to the beauty of any other, when he will see that if he is to devote himself to loveliness of form it will be absurd to deny that the beauty of each and every body is the same. Having reached this point, he must set himself to be the lover of every lovely body, and bring his passion for the one into due proportion by deeming it of little or of no importance.

Next he must grasp that the beauties of the body are as nothing to the beauties of the soul, so that wherever he meets with spiritual loveliness, even in the husk of an unlovely body, he will find it beautiful enough to fall in love with and to cherish--and beautiful enough to quicken in his heart a longing for such discourse as tends toward the building of a noble nature. And from this he will be led to contemplate the beauty of laws and institutions. And when he discovers how nearly every kind of beauty is akin to every other he will conclude that the beauty of the body is not, after all, of so great moment.

And next, his attention should be diverted from institutions to the sciences, so that he may know the beauty of every kind of knowledge. And thus, by scanning beauty's wide horizon, he will be saved from a slavish and illiberal devotion to the individual loveliness of a single boy, a single man, or a single institution. And, turning his eyes toward the open sea of beauty, he will find in such contemplation the seed of the most fruitful discourse and the loftiest thought, and reap a golden harvest of philosophy, until, confirmed and strengthened, he will come upon one single form of knowledge, the knowledge of the beauty I am about to speak of.

And here, she said, you must follow me as closely as you can.

Whoever has been initiated so far in the mysteries of Love and has viewed all these aspects of the beautiful in due succession, is at last drawing near the final revelation. And now, Socrates, there bursts upon him that wondrous vision which is the very soul of the beauty he has toiled so long for. It is an everlasting loveliness which neither comes nor goes, which neither flowers nor fades, for such beauty is the same on every hand, the same then as now, here as there, this way as that way, the same to every worshiper as it is to every other.

Nor will his vision of the beautiful take the form of a face, or of hands, or of anything that is of the flesh. It will be neither words, nor knowledge, nor a something that exists in something else, such as a living creature, or the earth, or the heavens, or anything that is--but subsisting of itself and by itself in an eternal oneness, while every lovely thing partakes of it in such sort that, however much the parts may wax and wane, it will be neither more nor less, but still the same inviolable whole.

And so, when his prescribed devotion to boyish beauties has carried our candidate so far that the universal beauty dawns upon his inward sight, he is almost within reach of the final revelation. And this is the way, the only way, he must approach, or be led toward, the sanctuary of Love. Starting from individual beauties, the quest for the universal beauty must find him ever mounting the heavenly ladder, stepping from rung to rung--that is, from one to two, and from two to every lovely body, from bodily beauty to the beauty of institutions, from institutions to learning, and from learning in general to the special lore that pertains to nothing but the beautiful itself--until at last he comes to know what beauty is.

And if, my dear Socrates, Diotima went on, man's life is ever worth the living, it is when he has attained this vision of the very soul of beauty. And once you have seen it, you will never be seduced again by the charm of gold, of dress, of comely boys, or lads just ripening to manhood; you will care nothing for the beauties that used to take your breath away and kindle such a longing in you, and many others like you, Socrates, to be always at the side of the beloved and feasting your eyes upon him, so that you would be content, if it were possible, to deny yourself the grosser necessities of meat and drink, so long as you were with him.

But if it were given to man to gaze on beauty's very self--unsullied, unalloyed, and freed from the mortal taint that haunts the frailer loveliness of flesh and blood--if, I say, it were given to man to see the heavenly beauty face to face, would you call his, she asked me, an unenviable life, whose eyes had been opened to the vision, and who had gazed upon it in true contemplation until it had become his own forever?

And remember, she said, that it is when he looks upon beauty's visible presentment, and only then, that a man will be quickened with the true, and not the seeming, virtue--for it is virtue's self that quickens him, not virtue's semblance. And when he has brought forth and reared this perfect virtue, he shall be called the friend of god, and if ever it is given to man to put on immortality, it shall be given to him."

 

[Tome]

What is beauty?

😉 😉

 

[Thamior]

These definitions could always come down to "everything/one is beautiful."

You see, this makes no sense to me. First of all, on a basic level: That is not a definition, but an example. All you're saying is that people are beautiful. That's not a property of beauty, that's a property of humanity.

Ignoring that fact, I still don't like that school of thought. It's the same as when people say "everyone is special." Wouldn't that mean we're all the same, because everyone is special? Being special is something that, in it's nature, requires contrast. You can't be special unless there is a norm to compare you to. I think beauty is the same way. If we're all beautiful, doesn't that devalue the meaning of beauty? Beauty is special in part because it is rare. If it were true that everyone is beatiful - truly beautiful - then we'd be overwhelmed. The effect of looking at something truly beautiful is astounding, and if it were true that everything on this earth was beautiful, then we'd live in awe. And I'm not just talking about physical beauty. If we're beautiful because of our sincerity, or wit, or kindness, it still doesn't make sense to me that everyone can be beautiful. If it were true, then you wouldn't need to even use the word 'beauty.' If you say that the equation;

Person = beautiful

is true, then the word beautiful is meaningless if you use it to describe a person. Saying 'a beautiful person' in this case is like saying 'a feline cat.' It's redundant. That's why it makes no sense to me. I'm not trying to be mean or rude, I'm just trying to say that to me, beauty is a powerful word. Trying to say that everyone is beautiful takes away from a very important concept, and devalues the meaning of the word beauty.

 

[zobothehobo]

You see, this makes no sense to me. First of all, on a basic level: That is not a definition, but an example. All you're saying is that people are beautiful. That's not a property of beauty, that's a property of humanity.

Ignoring that fact, I still don't like that school of thought. It's the same as when people say "everyone is special." Wouldn't that mean we're all the same, because everyone is special? Being special is something that, in it's nature, requires contrast. You can't be special unless there is a norm to compare you to. I think beauty is the same way. If we're all beautiful, doesn't that devalue the meaning of beauty? Beauty is special in part because it is rare. If it were true that everyone is beatiful - truly beautiful - then we'd be overwhelmed. The effect of looking at something truly beautiful is astounding, and if it were true that everything on this earth was beautiful, then we'd live in awe. And I'm not just talking about physical beauty. If we're beautiful because of our sincerity, or wit, or kindness, it still doesn't make sense to me that everyone can be beautiful. If it were true, then you wouldn't need to even use the word 'beauty.' If you say that the equation;

Person = beautiful

is true, then the word beautiful is meaningless if you use it to describe a person. Saying 'a beautiful person' in this case is like saying 'a feline cat.' It's redundant. That's why it makes no sense to me. I'm not trying to be mean or rude, I'm just trying to say that to me, beauty is a powerful word. Trying to say that everyone is beautiful takes away from a very important concept, and devalues the meaning of the word beauty.

Well I think it means we're all beautiful and special in our own way. I'm special in one way, and my sister is in another. I'm more "normal" than her in one way, and she's more "normal" than me in another. My hair is prettier than hers, but her nose is better than mine. We're beautiful in our own way. It doesn't devalue beauty, it makes it more special by acknowledging that we all have our special form of beauty and that's what makes us beautiful and special. both of them.

 

[Washburne]

You see, this makes no sense to me. First of all, on a basic level: That is not a definition, but an example. All you're saying is that people are beautiful. That's not a property of beauty, that's a property of humanity.

Ignoring that fact, I still don't like that school of thought. It's the same as when people say "everyone is special." Wouldn't that mean we're all the same, because everyone is special? Being special is something that, in it's nature, requires contrast. You can't be special unless there is a norm to compare you to. I think beauty is the same way. If we're all beautiful, doesn't that devalue the meaning of beauty? Beauty is special in part because it is rare. If it were true that everyone is beatiful - truly beautiful - then we'd be overwhelmed. The effect of looking at something truly beautiful is astounding, and if it were true that everything on this earth was beautiful, then we'd live in awe. And I'm not just talking about physical beauty. If we're beautiful because of our sincerity, or wit, or kindness, it still doesn't make sense to me that everyone can be beautiful. If it were true, then you wouldn't need to even use the word 'beauty.' If you say that the equation;

Person = beautiful

is true, then the word beautiful is meaningless if you use it to describe a person. Saying 'a beautiful person' in this case is like saying 'a feline cat.' It's redundant. That's why it makes no sense to me. I'm not trying to be mean or rude, I'm just trying to say that to me, beauty is a powerful word. Trying to say that everyone is beautiful takes away from a very important concept, and devalues the meaning of the word beauty.

To me it's more about being special or beautiful in different ways. If it were the same we could might as well be manufactured in a factory. We as humans like to say that things are normal or you should think or do this or what but take any two people and they won't be 100% the same. Not even identical twins. If it suits everyones distinction of "special" can be discussed but I see special in that discussion as important, not totally unique.

Taste is also different. Maybe it would be more accurate to say that beauty can be found in everyone but not all can see it (at all times). Or something like that. Too see inside beauty you need to get to know someone pretty well.

An easy example of appearence beauty is Angelina Jolie. Is she beautiful or not? You'd never ever get the whole world to agree on one answer but there's definitely people that think she's beautiful. Would you simplify things and say that only one answer is correct? If so, do the majority win (good luck finding out the whole worlds opinion) or who will decide what's wrong or right?

 

[Thamior]

To me it's more about being special or beautiful in different ways. If it were the same we could might as well be manufactured in a factory. We as humans like to say that things are normal or you should think or do this or what but take any two people and they won't be 100% the same. Not even identical twins. If it suits everyones distinction of "special" can be discussed but I see special in that discussion as important, not totally unique.

I think in this case, you mean everyone is different. To me special means something else, but I see that your definition makes sense too. In that case, I guess it would be a truism that everyone is special, since everyone has at least some minor differences. I usually understand being "special" to be specifically a positive adjective, but I guess it doesn't have to be.

Taste is also different. Maybe it would be more accurate to say that beauty can be found in everyone but not all can see it (at all times). Or something like that. Too see inside beauty you need to get to know someone pretty well.

An easy example of appearence beauty is Angelina Jolie. Is she beautiful or not? You'd never ever get the whole world to agree on one answer but there's definitely people that think she's beautiful. Would you simplify things and say that only one answer is correct? If so, do the majority win (good luck finding out the whole worlds opinion) or who will decide what's wrong or right?

I don't think taste is relevant to what I said. I still think beauty is completely subjective, but I don't accept the idea that everyone HAS to be beautiful. I don't think that everyone needs to agree that someone is beautiful, I think it's subjective. My point is not saying who is beautiful and who is not; rather, I am making a statement about the nature of beauty. Essentially, I'm saying that beauty has to specifically refer to the most beautiful things/people. If beauty is universalized, it loses power, both as a word and as a concept.

The fact is, everyone has good qualities. That's not something I'm debating. I agree that it's worthwhile to get to know everyone that I meet, because they all have something interesting. HOWEVER, I think, by definition, beauty is a word that depends on your surroundings. If you are in a horrible place, and you see something mundane, like a rock, that is slightly less horrible than everything else, then you can say that rock is beautiful. If you are in a beautiful garden, filled with exotic colours and smells, then you won't think that a rock is beautiful at all. That's why I think it doesn't make sense that everyone can be beautiful. If everyone really does have some positive properties (which I think is true), then beauty needs to be redefined, in order to only apply to the most beautiful of the bunch. Otherwise, like I said the words 'beauty,' and 'person,' become synonyms, and thus beauty becomes obsolete.

 

[kittenpoker]

I don't really have anything to add except that i think this a very interesting discussion.

 

[Washburne]

HOWEVER, I think, by definition, beauty is a word that depends on your surroundings. If you are in a horrible place, and you see something mundane, like a rock, that is slightly less horrible than everything else, then you can say that rock is beautiful. If you are in a beautiful garden, filled with exotic colours and smells, then you won't think that a rock is beautiful at all.

More or less true. The surroundings definitely change the chance or risk of seeing something or someone as beautiful or not. In my opinion, don't want to claim it as fact.

I don't think taste is relevant to what I said. I still think beauty is completely subjective. I don't think that everyone needs to agree that someone is beautiful, I think it's subjective. My point is not saying who is beautiful and who is not; rather, I am making a statement about the nature of beauty. Essentially, I'm saying that beauty has to specifically refer to the most beautiful things/people. If beauty is universalized, it loses power, both as a word and as a concept.

Sorry. I'm lost. Not at all saying it's your fault. Probably my bad language skills. So feel free to think the following is stupid (even if you say it or not). If beauty is subjective how can it refer to the most beautiful things/people if not everyone has to agree about what's beautiful or not? Can you dumb it down for me please.

I don't accept the idea that everyone HAS to be beautiful.

Has is a strong word and not the one I'd use so I get that.

---------- Post added at 07:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:39 PM ----------

I think in this case, you mean everyone is different. To me special means something else, but I see that your definition makes sense too. In that case, I guess it would be a truism that everyone is special, since everyone has at least some minor differences. I usually understand being "special" to be specifically a positive adjective, but I guess it doesn't have to be.

I think a lot of people see words in different ways which is why so many misunderstandings happen, "I'm right, you're wrong." and all that. So I'll continue what I started. When people tell others they're special I see it mostly as "You're important. You matter. No matter what others think or say they can't take that away from you." Not "You stand out in a crowd." So still something positive. Sure, you can be different by the way you dress or behave for example and that can be seen as special too. It depends on the context. And in the "Everyone is special." case I might not see it as many do. Don't expect everyone to share my view.