

--A
Moderator: Fist and Faith
I don't mean to sound belligerent, but come on, Av, what slippery slope are you sliding down here? Now suddenly ugliness and brutality = beauty?Avatar wrote: I was talking about the often brutal "things that are true" that Dennis mentioned. Depsite their ugliness, callousnes and frequent brutality, doesn't the very fact that they are true invest them with some quality of beauty?
You're completely wrong: Nobody will disagree with you on this!Avatar wrote:Never mind, we'll find somebody to disagree with us.
--A
But the expression 'Beauty is skin deep' observes that beauty is often a mask for coarser things beneath: a deception, a lie. And, as deceptions go, it works pretty well ... what does that say about us?JemCheeta wrote:About the Truth to Beauty thing... how I've always seen it, I've always said that truth=beauty, because to me the height of beauty is goodness in the world ...
That's why I rarely come here. Not even a politician can convolute as happily as a philosopher. I mean, when Clinton asks what "Is" is, it's only semantics - but you guys can get twenty pages of debate on the subject!Avatar wrote:
Isn't there something beautiful in exposing false beauty too though?
--A
If we see something and think it beautiful, how can we say that there is no beauty there?Avatar wrote:I think that the answer to WayFriends observation is along the lines of Jem's "false beauty." It's just that external appearance can, metaphysically anyway, have little or nothing to do with actual beauty.
Examples of beauty being used to hurt me?Wayfriend wrote:If we see something and think it beautiful, how can we say that there is no beauty there?Avatar wrote:I think that the answer to WayFriends observation is along the lines of Jem's "false beauty." It's just that external appearance can, metaphysically anyway, have little or nothing to do with actual beauty.
Rather: There is no requirement that beauty cannot be linked to what is not beautiful, cannot serve what is not beautiful. Beauty is a slave to whomever possesses it, and, having no purpose of its own beyond being, it serves the purpose of whomever weilds it. You have to watch out for beauty - beauty can be used to hurt you.
Do we enjoy the beauty of a sunset? Yes. Because we cannot see any way that a sunset is there other than just to be
Not quite clear on the "take what's yours" bit, but as for Ex's from Hell -- we're back to what is done with the beauty, not the beauty itself. In other words, the onus is still on those who percieve the beauty.Wayfriend wrote:Wherever a beautiful mask is used to lure you into destruction or to take whats yours. The sub-topic of 'girlfriends from hell' alone would take pages.Plissken wrote:Examples of beauty being used to hurt me?
Plissken wrote:That's why I rarely come here. Not even a politician can convolute as happily as a philosopher. I mean, when Clinton asks what "Is" is, it's only semantics - but you guys can get twenty pages of debate on the subject!Avatar wrote:
Isn't there something beautiful in exposing false beauty too though?
--A
I like that, but I think Plissken may have a point about the onus being on the perceiver.WayFriend wrote:There is no requirement that beauty cannot be linked to what is not beautiful, cannot serve what is not beautiful. Beauty is a slave to whomever possesses it, and, having no purpose of its own beyond being, it serves the purpose of whomever weilds it.
As I mentioned very early on, I think there's a lot about beauty that we're prewired with, but, like everything else about prewire, that ain't the whole story - there's always the nurture side.Avatar wrote:Is it beauty's fault that we're so susceptible to it?