News:

MysticWicks endorsement: "At least Satanists HAVE a worldview. After reading this thread, I'm convinced that discordians not only don't, but will actively mock anyone who does."

Main Menu

So, we need a definition of beauty.

Started by The Good Reverend Roger, October 21, 2012, 08:06:21 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Anna Mae Bollocks

Quote from: V3X on October 23, 2012, 11:13:03 PM
Approaching this discussion from an alternative direction, the phrase "beautiful on the inside" clearly means "not physically beautiful." It could be said that it is trying to validate something that normally would be considered valueless because of a lack of physical beauty; but it is also translating "beauty" from a physical attribute to a spiritual one. It maintains that value is based on beauty, but it redefines beauty so that it is not a physical thing. In that way if you really believe someone is valuable because they are "beautiful on the inside," then unless you're talking about their internal organs, you have already moved past physical beauty as the main indicator of that person's value.

I think it's possible to use the phrase without being condescending or cynical, but i think specifying that they are "beautiful on the inside" is suspiciously redundant. Why not just describe the person as "beautiful," and let people who don't understand be confused until they figure it out? This happens quite often, where people are described as beautiful people when they are, at least in my opinion, not physically beautiful at all. I also think it may be important to continue to use the word "beautiful" in this context, in order to change the general associations of that word. Using semantics to sidestep the definition of "beauty," no matter how you do it, will always end up equating to some word or phrase that means "valuable but not beautiful." I'd rather there be no room for that kind of distinction to exist in language.

I think people were trying to do that for awhile in the late 60's. Not sure how it fell by the wayside.

NOT NECESSARILY STONED BUT BEAUTIFUL
                  /

Scantily-Clad Inspector of Gigantic and Unnecessary Cashews, Texas Division

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

Good points both, Vex and Stella, but Vex, I'd like to ask why you think it is important/worthwhile to change the general associations of the word "beautiful"? Wouldn't we then need a new word to describe things we currently refer to as beautiful?
"I'm guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk," Charles Wick said. "It was very complicated."


Mesozoic Mister Nigel

Quote from: V3X on October 23, 2012, 11:13:03 PMUsing semantics to sidestep the definition of "beauty," no matter how you do it, will always end up equating to some word or phrase that means "valuable but not beautiful." I'd rather there be no room for that kind of distinction to exist in language.

I'm wondering if I'm misreading this... do you really mean that you would like language to be less nuanced and able to make fewer distinctions?
"I'm guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk," Charles Wick said. "It was very complicated."


The Good Reverend Roger

Quote from: Man Green on October 24, 2012, 01:18:35 AM
Good points both, Vex and Stella, but Vex, I'd like to ask why you think it is important/worthwhile to change the general associations of the word "beautiful"? Wouldn't we then need a new word to describe things we currently refer to as beautiful?

Well, I tend to use the word in context, like they do in Spanish.  Or they would, if there was a Spanish word for beautiful.  Which there isn't.

There is only guapo, which can mean (depending on context):

1.  Any hot guy, or

2.  Roger (the literal definition)



" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

The Good Reverend Roger

Quote from: Man Green on October 24, 2012, 01:20:43 AM
Quote from: V3X on October 23, 2012, 11:13:03 PMUsing semantics to sidestep the definition of "beauty," no matter how you do it, will always end up equating to some word or phrase that means "valuable but not beautiful." I'd rather there be no room for that kind of distinction to exist in language.

I'm wondering if I'm misreading this... do you really mean that you would like language to be less nuanced and able to make fewer distinctions?

Doubleplus good!
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

Quote from: Man Yellow on October 24, 2012, 01:45:01 AM
Quote from: Man Green on October 24, 2012, 01:18:35 AM
Good points both, Vex and Stella, but Vex, I'd like to ask why you think it is important/worthwhile to change the general associations of the word "beautiful"? Wouldn't we then need a new word to describe things we currently refer to as beautiful?

Well, I tend to use the word in context, like they do in Spanish.  Or they would, if there was a Spanish word for beautiful.  Which there isn't.

There is only guapo, which can mean (depending on context):

1.  Any hot guy, or

2.  Roger (the literal definition)

:lulz:

And seriously, yes, context is everything. The word "bus" can have four vastly different meanings that I can think of off the top of my head, in English alone, depending on context.
"I'm guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk," Charles Wick said. "It was very complicated."


Mesozoic Mister Nigel

(Which is one reason I get irritated when people start arguing semantics when the meaning was amply contextualized.)
"I'm guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk," Charles Wick said. "It was very complicated."


The Good Reverend Roger

Quote from: Man Green on October 24, 2012, 02:43:11 AM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 24, 2012, 01:45:01 AM
Quote from: Man Green on October 24, 2012, 01:18:35 AM
Good points both, Vex and Stella, but Vex, I'd like to ask why you think it is important/worthwhile to change the general associations of the word "beautiful"? Wouldn't we then need a new word to describe things we currently refer to as beautiful?

Well, I tend to use the word in context, like they do in Spanish.  Or they would, if there was a Spanish word for beautiful.  Which there isn't.

There is only guapo, which can mean (depending on context):

1.  Any hot guy, or

2.  Roger (the literal definition)

:lulz:

And seriously, yes, context is everything. The word "bus" can have four vastly different meanings that I can think of off the top of my head, in English alone, depending on context.

Hmm.

A vehicle
A means of moving students from one district to another
A power distribution node
An ambulance
A bandwagon (ie, "get on the bus", "thrown under the bus")

" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

Don Coyote

Quote from: Man Yellow on October 24, 2012, 02:47:27 AM
Quote from: Man Green on October 24, 2012, 02:43:11 AM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 24, 2012, 01:45:01 AM
Quote from: Man Green on October 24, 2012, 01:18:35 AM
Good points both, Vex and Stella, but Vex, I'd like to ask why you think it is important/worthwhile to change the general associations of the word "beautiful"? Wouldn't we then need a new word to describe things we currently refer to as beautiful?

Well, I tend to use the word in context, like they do in Spanish.  Or they would, if there was a Spanish word for beautiful.  Which there isn't.

There is only guapo, which can mean (depending on context):

1.  Any hot guy, or

2.  Roger (the literal definition)

:lulz:

And seriously, yes, context is everything. The word "bus" can have four vastly different meanings that I can think of off the top of my head, in English alone, depending on context.

Hmm.

A vehicle
A means of moving students from one district to another
A power distribution node
An ambulance
A bandwagon (ie, "get on the bus", "thrown under the bus")

To gather up dinningware in a restaurant

tyrannosaurus vex

To cause to pop, as in "Imma bus a cap in yo ass."
Evil and Unfeeling Arse-Flenser From The City of the Damned.

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

"I'm guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk," Charles Wick said. "It was very complicated."


Mesozoic Mister Nigel

Of course, sometimes it IS important in a conversation to stop and clarify definitions, especially when a point hinges on a definition that may be unclear. But when adequate context is provided and the point doesn't really hinge on semantic fine points, it's just a diversionary tactic... Perhaps because the topic itself is Uncomfortable? I don't know.
"I'm guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk," Charles Wick said. "It was very complicated."


Don Coyote

Quote from: Man Green on October 24, 2012, 04:35:06 AM
Of course, sometimes it IS important in a conversation to stop and clarify definitions, especially when a point hinges on a definition that may be unclear. But when adequate context is provided and the point doesn't really hinge on semantic fine points, it's just a diversionary tactic... Perhaps because the topic itself is Uncomfortable? I don't know.

I suspect this may be the root of the issue.


tyrannosaurus vex

To my earlier point I think I was just saying you can call anyone beautiful, and let the context of the rest of your statement define it, but when you say "beautiful on the inside" you're providing the context of "but not on the outside" that overrides whatever other context might be there.

As for allowing the distinction in language it was a sloppy way of saying it might pay to intentionally leave out the "on the inside" part, because it forces the non-physical definition.
Evil and Unfeeling Arse-Flenser From The City of the Damned.

Freeky

Quote from: Man Green on October 23, 2012, 10:44:22 PM
Quote from: Faust on October 23, 2012, 10:29:51 PM
Quote from: Man Green on October 23, 2012, 10:23:17 PM
When we start going "OK, but *I* define beauty as this other thing that applies to anything I like and not to things I don't like", I think it's barstool time, because I think that anyone who does not have a cognitive disorder who has spent any amount of time observing Western society is capable of picking up on what "beauty" means in the context I brought it up in, in my thread, unless they are engaging in deliberate interactional vandalism.

I am not saying there's no place for a philosophy-wank thread on the True Meaning of Beauty, as well, but realistically, thanks to the magic of context, I don't think my post was actually ambiguous to those of us who participate in and observe Western culture and speak English as a first language, and I think it is disingenuous to pretend the meaning or intention are somehow ambiguous because, wait, but beauty has many meanings and we are all beautiful snowflakes and what is attractive is different to everyone.

And then there are cultural norms and shared realities and fashion magazines in your face everywhere, and again, the very fundamental basis of the point I was making is simple:

Not everyone is beautiful, and  that's OK. It does not make someone fundamentally bad, wrong, stupid, or worthless if they fail to meet someone's, ANYONE'S, definition of "beauty". I would far rather see THAT meme spread than the idea that everyone has validity because they're "beautiful" in some way to somebody.
The way the modern cultrual norms and fashion magazines define beauty is with boring looking people with boring looking features.
They aren't beautiful they are vaguely fuckable.
It's ok not to be physically like them, but it has very little to do with anything resembling beauty.

OK, but even disregarding the effects of social programming, even given variances in individual taste, why is so much value being placed on beauty, that even the attempt to argue that human value is not dependent on beauty and that a person who is not beautiful is still a valid and valuable human being, is met with so much pushback?

I can tell you what happened in my head only:

In this, I cannot shake my society's meme of people who are beautiful have more value than those who don't. There isn't a model in use that even comes close to your "it's okay if you're not beautiful." 

The meme "Everyone is beautiful in their own way" has a special significance for me personally. I really believe that most people are beautiful if you know what light you need to look at them in.

I have spent my teenage and adult years cultivating in myself something that could pass for pretty or beautiful, because it's damned hard to please anyone if you arent (there's that 'i live in this society" again.)

The societally pretty people I'm school were cruel and acted like because I don't look like them, I had less value. Living under the "Everyone is beautiful" mantra eases the sting of those memories.

To hear about how I am pretty or beautiful makes me feel good. Everyone loves to be flattered.

Earlier that very evening o had told my pregnant friend how beautiful she looked, and I wished that I could have been half as pretty as her during my pregnancy. I did of to make her feel good, because she has already gained a big babby bump, but is still true. In reply, she gave me a hug and told me I'm beautiful in my own way, which according to your op, what she actually told me wad "I feel sorry for you because you're fucking ugly. Happy birthday!"


So yeah, knee, meet jerk.