How do you define beauty?

[Frost Mage]

People toss around beautiful all the time, this is primarily when referring to someone's physical attractiveness, and it bugs me. I believe, as much as I'd like to call people beautiful at times, they just aren't until I've talked to them and understand just who they are.

Call them hot, or attractive, or even sexy, but I just don't like when people call celebrities that they've never met "beautiful", or people that they hardly know.

To me, beauty comes from not only the outside, but the inside, anyone can be beautiful, as beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. For instance, my girlfriend, while extremely attractive, I don't date her for her looks, I date her because of who she is, and that person is truly beautiful.

I don't know, been debating this with myself and a few other people, and I'd like to get a few more opinions on this. ;~;

 

[Teal]

RE: What is beauty?

You are now putting inner beauty and outer beauty under one word. Both exist, and everyone can see these in different people/places etc. although tastes usually don't vary extremely much, and some things can thus almost objectively be called beautiful.

 

[Guilty Spark]

RE: What is beauty?

Beauty is basically anything that is pleasing to the senses (generally eyesight). Some people may be pleased by seeing those celebrities. So, basically people wouldn't be wrong to call someone they don't know beautiful.

 

[Frost Mage]

RE: What is beauty?

I understand what you mean, Guilty Spark, but I prefer to call people that I find attractive just that, attractive. When I think of beautiful I think of someone classy and sweet, not usually what you find in celebrities it seems.

 

[Elite Stride]

RE: What is beauty?

I'm a lot like you. I will rarely think someone is "attractive" or "beautiful" just by seeing a picture of them or seeing them walk down the street. I lump character and outward appearance together so much that my definition of "beautiful" depends on both factors combined. The most attractive person on earth could be standing in front of me, but if they have a crappy character, they aren't even physically attractive anymore in my mind. So kinda like you, I have to at least have talked to them once to form a solid opinion. It's really weird, I know.

For example there was this one girl back in high school that most of the guys thought she was FINE and a lot of the girls thought she was gorgeous. The thing is, she was known for sometimes being a stuck up, elitist, rude brat to people. Everyone knew it, but they still thought she was "hot". Personally, I could hardly see her outward appearance as appealing at all because her personality just seemed to ruin it.

Of course there are many ways we can look at "beauty". It's not always about physical appearance, as we all know.

 

[Haunted Water]

I remember a picture my gf showed me on her phone. In it, it said "I'm not sexy, I'm beautiful." She looked at me and said "Get this right. I'm beautiful, not sexy. Start calling me that, and we'll have problems."
To this day, I've always referred to her being beautiful.
Beauty is, of course, a personal preference. However, this means that my definition of beauty differs from someone else's, like Elite Stride's, for example (not picking on you, just comparing and stuff).
I sort of agree with this, mostly because if she is a perfect ten, but has the attitude of a 5-year-old (snotty when things don't go as planned) and/or acting better than everyone else is a major character trait, then she can go take a class on how to act like a normal human being.
However, that said, I admit that beauty is weighted heavily on appearance for me at first. This is where most of my insecurities reside, so I won't delve into that. Many people have tried, and I never had one come back out.
I've always found that both attractivity and personality are relatively equal when it comes to beauty. One complements the other, but neither should supplement the other.

 

[Frezgle]

I remember a picture my gf showed me on her phone. In it, it said "I'm not sexy, I'm beautiful." She looked at me and said "Get this right. I'm beautiful, not sexy. Start calling me that, and we'll have problems."
To this day, I've always referred to her being beautiful.

Being called beautiful just feels forced when it happens to me :v

"Beautiful" typically evokes classy, pure imagery. Unsoiled by mankind, untainted by sin!
Or something. It's one of those words that's so subjective it doesn't quite mean any one thing anymore, if it ever did. Like "hipster".

To me, beauty is an aspect that something has if it appeals to me on a deeper level than just what it is or what it looks like. I think insects are beautiful because not only are they efficient and made of eye-pleasing segmented parts, but they are also a keystone of any area's ecology. Their greater role, much bigger than what they are by themselves, makes them beautiful to me.

BUT again, subjective. If you think marshmallows are beautiful then more power to you; hell, I love marshmallows

 

[Joeypals!!]

Beauty, as we know, breaks into inner and outer beauty. Outer beauty usually breaks down into what we like in a girl or guy (for me, I personally prefer my guys blonde and my girls brunette). Inner will typically be something to do with personality based on past experience and how you move on past them.

This being said, barely anyone is "beautiful". The pretty girls who think they are hot sh*t at school? Sure they are pretty, but they are no more beautiful than a bag of garbage. Same goes for people that look bad on purpose (in other words, looking bad from genetics does not count. I'm talking about the slobs.) (probably due to confidence problems). You may have a beautiful inside, but it's your fault for not exemplifying this.

Now, this doesn't mean that you have to be good looking AND have a warn heart to be beautiful. While that may seem like the easiest route, it isn't as then you're probably just chasing purity and beauty like Reese Witherspoon (look what that got her. Sorry, too soon?). I'll lay it out clear now: If you maintain your looks and you aren't a complete @$$/female dog to everyone in your line of sight, then I would consider you beautiful.

 

[Polaris]

There are a lot of people who like to make up definitions for abstract things such as beauty, but for the most well-guided and consistent ideas on it I suggest you go to the master of abstract things:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-aesthetics/
We can stand around all day and talk about how we wish to define something, but ultimately definitions to begin with are subjective. There IS truth, but with simply off-the-cuff definitions based on our twisted views of the world molded by media, non-indifferent teachers, and subconscience bias we just get confused. Logic. You need it. And without logic, there's noway to come to an answer we can all agree with on a subject like this.

Basically, provide logic and science here, not definitions. I know that it's technically off topic of the thread, but I cringe when I see topics like this.

 

[Mora]

I feel "sexy" is kind of degrading. It's sex in adjective form; you might as well be calling that person a sex object. Those are just my connotations with the word. I like to say aesthetically pleasing, but I get wierd looks when I do, so I don't that often any more. I think the best I've ever done was "enthralling", but that doesn't specifically mean beautiful. If you just say attractive, you can't go wrong.

 

[Starboard Driger]

As Teal said, inner beauty and outer beauty are two completely different things that cannot be bundled into one word. For example, can we say Batman is a beautiful man on the outside? Yes. Can we say he's a beautiful person on the inside? No, because we have not met him.

(I realize that was the worst analogy I could have possibly made there, but I kind of have a thing for Batman. I suppose I could've said Megan Fox and it would've made more sense, but hey, Batman is about as real as she is amirite?

...

...Nobody? ok. )

As for my personal definition:

beau·ty
noun \ˈbyü-tē\

1: the quality or aggregate of qualities in a person or thing that gives pleasure to the senses or pleasurably exalts the mind or spirit : loveliness
2: a beautiful person or thing; especially : a beautiful woman
3: a particularly graceful, ornamental, or excellent quality
4: a brilliant, extreme, or egregious example or instance

 

[Rally]

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." I feel like that line applys to who you are, and specifically what the person likes.

As said before, inner beauty and outer beauty are two different things. In the Pretrachean times, men got to chose who the wanted to marry, without their consents, and based it off of looks. Some of those ideas still factor into what we see today, but inner beauty now also plays a role. You wouldn't want to date someone that made you upset, right?

 

[Elite Stride]

There are a lot of people who like to make up definitions for abstract things such as beauty, but for the most well-guided and consistent ideas on it I suggest you go to the master of abstract things:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-aesthetics/
We can stand around all day and talk about how we wish to define something, but ultimately definitions to begin with are subjective. There IS truth, but with simply off-the-cuff definitions based on our twisted views of the world molded by media, non-indifferent teachers, and subconscience bias we just get confused. Logic. You need it. And without logic, there's noway to come to an answer we can all agree with on a subject like this.

Basically, provide logic and science here, not definitions. I know that it's technically off topic of the thread, but I cringe when I see topics like this.

You are on a public forum, why do you cringe at this? This is a place thats sole purpose is to host a marketplace of ideas, not some kind of standard set by a scholar. In the end, the opinions of a scholar shouldn't, and don't set the broader meaning. The only thing that does matter is how the "twisted views" of society have defined beauty, because the societal meaning of the word is how we are living and responding to it within our culture. How are our "twisted views" different than Plato's on a topic like this? He's just another person.

What kind of science are you referring to here? You can't bring what somebody sees as beautiful down to a science. This is something that is largely defined individually. The title of the thread isn't "Please give me the Oxford's definition of beauty!". This topic is calling for that broader meaning.

As Teal said, inner beauty and outer beauty are two completely different things that cannot be bundled into one word. For example, can we say Batman is a beautiful man on the outside? Yes. Can we say he's a beautiful person on the inside? No, because we have not met him.

(I realize that was the worst analogy I could have possibly made there, but I kind of have a thing for Batman. I suppose I could've said Megan Fox and it would've made more sense, but hey, Batman is about as real as she is amirite?

I think it's perfectly possible to bundle beauty under one meaning once a person has gotten a feeling for both inward and outward appearance. The two factors here are physical and emotional judgments of beauty; both are very much influenced by the brain. Negative associations with an emotional judge of character can diminish what you precieve as appealing to the eye (physical attraction) because in a way, it's all linked. For example, If I think an apple looks delicious, but I bite into it and it tastes like herpes, it's very possible that I will associate the bad taste with the sight of the apple, and it's no longer going to look appealing to my eye.

 

[Polaris]

There are a lot of people who like to make up definitions for abstract things such as beauty, but for the most well-guided and consistent ideas on it I suggest you go to the master of abstract things:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-aesthetics/
We can stand around all day and talk about how we wish to define something, but ultimately definitions to begin with are subjective. There IS truth, but with simply off-the-cuff definitions based on our twisted views of the world molded by media, non-indifferent teachers, and subconscience bias we just get confused. Logic. You need it. And without logic, there's noway to come to an answer we can all agree with on a subject like this.

Basically, provide logic and science here, not definitions. I know that it's technically off topic of the thread, but I cringe when I see topics like this.

How are our "twisted views" different than Plato's on a topic like this? He's just another person.

Actually, considering the beliefs of an internet-obsessed 8 year old child is quite a different thing than considering the beliefs of a philosopher who spent years upon years of his life thinking and writing about the subject at hand. Doesn't make him right, but it certainly means his beliefs are better founded and had been given much more thought.

You are on a public forum, why do you cringe at this? This is a place thats sole purpose is to host a marketplace of ideas, not some kind of standard set by a scholar. In the end, the opinions of a scholar shouldn't, and don't set the broader meaning. The only thing that does matter is how the "twisted views" of society have defined beauty, because the societal meaning of the word is how we are living and responding to it within our culture.

I never denied that this is a "market place of ideas", are you denying that we should provide reasons for our beliefs of the nature of beauty? How can we argue over any topic, let alone beauty, if we don't use some kind of thought-process?

What kind of science are you referring to here? You can't bring what somebody sees as beautiful down to a science. This is something that is largely defined individually. The title of the thread isn't "Please give me the Oxford's definition of beauty!". This topic is calling for that broader meaning.

When talking about aesthetics, it's more than sensible to discuss psychology. After all, that's where we conceive beauty in the first place.

Obviously people aren't liking what I'm saying, and I really don't want to linger on some pokemon forum trying to teach people how to discuss things, but I just wanted to throw out my two cents.

 

[TheTPCProductionz]

The idea of a logical and scientific explanation of the term "beauty" makes me laugh, everyone has their own defintion of the term "beautiful". No one person is right, it doesn't matter, if you think someone is beautiful, but I don't. Does it matter ?, I'd say the only girl I think is beautiful is my girlfriend. I am expected to say that because I am her boyfriend, but it isn't the reason why I say it. It's because I truly believe she is. I have had other males comment on her looks, they say. She is fit, hot has a nice rack and a great arse, but they don't know her like I do. If you feel the need to define beauty, with science, then well I feel sorry for you. It's like the subject of Love, can you define love ? Is it one thing, or a multitude of things ? When it comes to looks and feelings, only you can define your own feelings.

 

[Polaris]

The idea of a logical and scientific explanation of the term "beauty" makes me laugh, everyone has their own defintion of the term "beautiful". No one person is right, it doesn't matter, if you think someone is beautiful, but I don't. Does it matter ?, I'd say the only girl I think is beautiful is my girlfriend. I am expected to say that because I am her boyfriend, but it isn't the reason why I say it. It's because I truly believe she is. I have had other males comment on her looks, they say. She is fit, hot has a nice rack and a great arse, but they don't know her like I do. If you feel the need to define beauty, with science, then well I feel sorry for you. It's like the subject of Love, can you define love ? Is it one thing, or a multitude of things ? When it comes to looks and feelings, only you can define your own feelings.

...
Beauty itself is nothing according to you if it's simply something that happens to be with no psychological, philosophical, and even no spiritual/religious basis (as you don't give a basis).
Which is my entire point, and what frustrates me about this new "philosophy" people have developed that teaches that there is no truth, and that everything is purely subjective. If you study these things, you'll find there's more than enough evidence to show that with things such as beauty, because we are all humans with a human nature, we all have a grasp of the same feelings. We even can recognize the same feelings, not to deny personal preference, but we do feel the same things in similar ways to a very great extent when it some to things such as this. Then why do we have different definitions of beauty? BECAUSE we have different definitions describing different things! I already aknowledged the fact we all have different definitions, in fact, the first thing I said was that definitions are subjective. That's why I say that describing our ideas of beauty and providing some reasons for them make sense, we are all using the same name to describe different things. I've read the comments here, and I understand and have felt the same way you all have felt about the things you describe. Why?, because we are all human. You'd have to have some really skewed views on human nature and psychology to believe we are all fundamentally different.
...
What I'm trying to say is, beauty is not exclusively subjective. The definitions we choose to give it is, but we are all capable of experiencing and do experience such things fundamentally in the same ways.

So what we should do with this thread, if anybody is up to it, is come to a definition of beauty we can all relate to on a basic level. There is a point in which we diverge, but we all start from the same place, and that's where the science and the logic and the what have you come in. Giving our own definitions without reasons gets us nowhere in getting to the reality of the subject.

...sorry if what I'm saying is a bit confusing, I used to do this kind of thing a lot and I'm really rusty.

 

[r3skyline]

Beauty is my wife. Especially when she said she had a tiny waist big booty. LOL.

 

[TheTPCProductionz]

The idea of a logical and scientific explanation of the term "beauty" makes me laugh, everyone has their own defintion of the term "beautiful". No one person is right, it doesn't matter, if you think someone is beautiful, but I don't. Does it matter ?, I'd say the only girl I think is beautiful is my girlfriend. I am expected to say that because I am her boyfriend, but it isn't the reason why I say it. It's because I truly believe she is. I have had other males comment on her looks, they say. She is fit, hot has a nice rack and a great arse, but they don't know her like I do. If you feel the need to define beauty, with science, then well I feel sorry for you. It's like the subject of Love, can you define love ? Is it one thing, or a multitude of things ? When it comes to looks and feelings, only you can define your own feelings.

...
Beauty itself is nothing according to you if it's simply something that happens to be with no psychological, philosophical, and even no spiritual/religious basis (as you don't give a basis).
Which is my entire point, and what frustrates me about this new "philosophy" people have developed that teaches that there is no truth, and that everything is purely subjective. If you study these things, you'll find there's more than enough evidence to show that with things such as beauty, because we are all humans with a human nature, we all have a grasp of the same feelings. We even can recognize the same feelings, not to deny personal preference, but we do feel the same things in similar ways to a very great extent when it some to things such as this. Then why do we have different definitions of beauty? BECAUSE we have different definitions describing different things! I already aknowledged the fact we all have different definitions, in fact, the first thing I said was that definitions are subjective. That's why I say that describing our ideas of beauty and providing some reasons for them make sense, we are all using the same name to describe different things. I've read the comments here, and I understand and have felt the same way you all have felt about the things you describe. Why?, because we are all human. You'd have to have some really skewed views on human nature and psychology to believe we are all fundamentally different.
...
What I'm trying to say is, beauty is not exclusively subjective. The definitions we choose to give it is, but we are all capable of experiencing and do experience such things fundamentally in the same ways.

So what we should do with this thread, if anybody is up to it, is come to a definition of beauty we can all relate to on a basic level. There is a point in which we diverge, but we all start from the same place, and that's where the science and the logic and the what have you come in. Giving our own definitions without reasons gets us nowhere in getting to the reality of the subject.

...sorry if what I'm saying is a bit confusing, I used to do this kind of thing a lot and I'm really rusty.

Well no one would be able to come to an agreement on what defines beauty, you know if someone is beautiful. If you feel the need to subject it, to define it then carry on. Yes technically love is science, but you don't think about it that way. Beauty is subjective, to the person who we are judging and the said individual judging.

Most people will say their partner is beautiful, it's down to a few things.

1. They have certain factors that appeal to their partner. ( Face,Legs,Stomach,Boobs, Arse,etc. )

2. They love them and have grown used to them. ( I believe if you love someone, enough you believe they are beautiful )

3. Others comment on your partners looks and or body.

Do you have a partne ?r, though this is a stupid question because you could lie. Science is revolutionairy,it's a major part of life but it isn't what makes me happy.

 

[Frost Mage]

I don't think it matters at all what someone looks like if you love them enough. At least it shouldn't.

I think of outer beauty as what catches the eye, and then their inner beauty is if they can follow up on how good they look, not something many people can do.

 

[Polaris]

Well no one would be able to come to an agreement on what defines beauty, you know if someone is beautiful. If you feel the need to subject it, to define it then carry on. Yes technically love is science, but you don't think about it that way. Beauty is subjective, to the person who we are judging and the said individual judging.

Of course no agreement could be made on an individual level, but on a basic level, unless people are fundamentally different, it should most certainly be possible to come to a definition.

Most people will say their partner is beautiful, it's down to a few things.

1. They have certain factors that appeal to their partner. ( Face,Legs,Stomach,Boobs, Arse,etc. )

2. They love them and have grown used to them. ( I believe if you love someone, enough you believe they are beautiful )

3. Others comment on your partners looks and or body.

Do you have a partne ?r, though this is a stupid question because you could lie. Science is revolutionairy,it's a major part of life but it isn't what makes me happy.

Again, the reasons for why these things are beautiful stem from something alike in all of us. Which one(s) of these items we deem "beauty" is personal preference, but these all are elements stemming from similar feelings we all have. Science doesn't make me happy either, although it amazes me and can make me happy.

And to your question...
No, I'm 15 and I don't have a girlfriend. I do have a few friends, and they make me very happy. And I view them as having uniquely beautiful personalities, regardless of gender, because I believe that a fundamental part of beauty is goodness, and they most certainly have good personal natures.