Speaking from an existential perspective I inherently trust the notion of beauty to be the absolute love of life and all forms. That being said.
The eternal bond between the here after and now un-telling story of forbidden relationships and hidden love. That emptiness which stir a lake bed with boats of all types seamlessly coming together than expatiating continuously through-out. Pontificating and harmoniously without anybody by their side loveless flowers loosely are one but become so clear as a bouquet.
The interconnectivity that is discontinuity. The longing for here a life here after and the day after that. The beautiful antiquity that is pure existence and long life unbound, cured in absolute compassion and care for souls. Equality that isn’t matched by nonother, a cycle of absolute kindness and goodness too divine for some. Blinding in it’s approach it held men hostage until they told the real story. Never knowing the true face of beauty meant to have not lived at all.
The vastness and depths of beauty were no match for any man can long for anything yet love didn’t have a clock and was always ticking. Good and gentle vibes eroding earths soil from the scourge of sin (or whatever sin maybe). It’s the magic of this kindness which spawns more gifts, more noisy dew drops that stop on by and give a hand instead of asking for one. A dead-end as disloyalty toward fellow man. The context in which i wish to portrayed beauty was beyond what lips could speak. was not to suffer with my love the true passion of beauty or was it to love life so much that i couldn’t turn around and try to go backwards.
When the standard quo wasn’t readily available and isn’t going back at all, but staring us directly in the face a new inhuman ability to sense inner beauty? What than? How must we try and express beauty? Was it each good thing we ever heard and spoke about a person that we knew to pass through the doors of life in fear we’d soil his reputation with impurities? Bashing one another instead of trying to see true and absolute beauty in one another? That, or to even speak more finely of the nature they arrived from? How and in what context would you sculpt the shape of beauty yourself?
Beauty is a subjective combination of qualities, such as shape, colour, or form, that pleases the aesthetic senses, especially the sight or the mind. It can also be particular behaviours and expressions that evoke a sense of delight or harmony, like, for instance, the adorable innocence of a kitten or the pure joy of a baby’s laughter, which can be just as captivating and beautiful to many people as any physical object or scene.
Beauty is where you see, hear, touch, taste, smell, feel it. True beauty is when someone else experiences it too.
Beauty
Physical = symmetry + proportionality. Reproductive healthy = probabilities.
Mental/Psychological/Spiritual = brain/mind symmetry + proportionality, manifesting stable and flexible (adaptive) personae - charisma.
Two types of attraction
Attraction based on insecurity, self-hate, seeking traits that compensate for those, an individual feels are lacking in himself.
Attraction based on self-love, seeking traits that reflect those an individual appreciated in himself. Love can be blinding.
Both may be the product of under- or over-estimations.
Harmony - compatibility.
When an individual senses in another a compatible body/mind synthesis.
Beauty in the abstract
Perception and appreciation of spatial/temporal potentials, probabilities.
Imagine falling into the Leopardian trap like that. Not that even he did, but at least was honest enough to point it out.
Fuck dude. Honestly what is wrong with this place. Is anyone capable of saying “A is true” without at once also demanding “A is THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH ABOUT IT”?
Naw, you’re not.
Sesame Street time.
If such comments are below you, why don’t you rejoin the ether, and hover over the waters beyond the clouds somewhere else?
I’m with bob on this one
BeAuTy iS SuBjEcTiVvE
We’re a bit vitriolic in our thoughts rather than more expressed forms of criticism. Bitterness to do better, speak more finely, and see more aestheticism in a world without color. Regardless of appropriation we express modes of self gratification more than honestly. Just wondering where all our grand form of beauty stands is all.
A completely spontaneous and subjective thing of beauty:
“…beneath the surface of winter, the miracle of spring is already in preparation; the cold is relenting; seeds are wakening up. Colours are beginning to imagine how they will return. Then, imperceptibly, somewhere one bud opens and the symphony of renewal is no longer reversible. From the black heart of winter a miraculous, breathing plenitude of colour emerges.” - John O’Donohue.
There’s an unclear understanding between ugliness and truth, the ugly truth if you will. Perceptible in all form of existence to create a form of ever living beauty is to have seen beauty at one point in life. That true beauty may have existed in the same permeable reality as anyone else but to have truly experienced it is a questionable fact. Nobody has seen this beautiful earth [False]. The intrinsic nature to precept absolute beauty would have not existed without the ugly truth. Images and labels were placed in syntax to express divine beauty in the nature of people. To have accepted the truths as ugly or beautiful as they seem may have never been easily perceptible with just the human eye yet more in the heart than anything. As relating to love. Love in all things natural and unnatural.
I don’t know what’s unclear about ugly truths—they’re just the truths you don’t like. Therefore, they are also subjective feelings that are unique to everyone. If something is true, I believe that it is important to recognise it as such, even if you don’t like it.
I suspect you mean that people who have experienced beauty also try to create beauty. However, “true” beauty – what is it? There are some things that are generally found to be beautiful, so in consensus, we would quickly come to an agreement. But asking whether you have “really” experienced it seems nonsensical - just because beauty is subjective?
The feeling of seeing something as beautiful is not questioned just because it has an unpleasant side. The rose is still beautiful, even if it has thorns. The toxic cloud that shimmers in different colours can still be beautiful. The deadly animal can still brim with grace.
It is true that love beautifies many things, and some things that are considered ugly by consensus appear beautiful to the lover. Love is blinding, sometimes to the detriment of the lover, yet the feeling is there.
Do you not think that there is an average mean, of that which is beautiful and that which is not?
…ergo, the ‘golden ratio’
.
Dr. Kendra Schmid, an assistant professor of biostatistics, uses the golden ratio and 29 other measurements to study facial sex appeal. These measurements are calculated to determine a person’s beauty on a scale of 1 to 10. What does she measure?
A. First, Dr. Schmid measures the length and width of the face. Then, she divides the length by the width. The ideal result—as defined by the golden ratio—is roughly 1.6, which means a beautiful person’s face is about 1 1/2 times longer than it is wide.
B. Next, Dr. Schmid measures three segments of the face—from the forehead hairline to a spot between the eyes, from between the eyes to the bottom of the nose, and from the bottom of the nose to the bottom of the chin. If the numbers are equal, a person is considered more beautiful.
C. Finally, statisticians measure other facial features to determine symmetry and proportion. On a perfect face, Dr. Schmid says the length of an ear is equal to the length the nose, and the width of an eye is equal to the distance between the eyes.
Most people score between 4 and 6, and Dr. Schmid says no one has ever been a perfect 10.
Of course there are objective criteria of beauty, how do you think those beautifying face-changing AI filter apps work?
A precise def. + knowing makes necessary condition truth must be knowledge and knowledge must be truths. Something felt as an introspection couldn’t be farther from reality to a certain being capable of understanding reason. I suppose the infallible beliefs we sense as honest beauty can’t be described in just plain words.
[P is true,
S is justified in believing P]
So it’s like this you know, the systemic justification is towards borders of curiosity, rather than actually knowing what it is that’s idolized.
adherents
Adherents confuses these beliefs.
JS
What is wrong with you people