Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 47

Thread: What Is Beauty?

  1. #31
    Sanity Is For The Weak
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Hanna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Norwedish
    Ancestry
    Norwedish
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    Norway Norway
    Location
    Trondheim
    Gender
    Family
    Precis når du vil
    Occupation
    Student
    Politics
    Logic
    Religion
    Perfectionism
    Posts
    988
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    When I see beautiful native scandinavian children, then I think its natures wonderful masterpiece.
    Jeg er over gjennomsnittet bitter, og liker stort sett ingen andre enn meg selv


  2. #32
    Senior Member Moody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Last Online
    Tuesday, July 10th, 2012 @ 09:18 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    Albion
    Subrace
    Paleo-Atlantid
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    State
    Essex Essex
    Location
    England
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Investigator of Souls
    Politics
    Pan-Germanic Nationalist
    Religion
    Runosophy
    Posts
    1,904
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9
    Thanked in
    9 Posts

    What is beauty?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hanna View Post
    When I see beautiful native scandinavian children, then I think its natures wonderful masterpiece.
    This is the racial aspect of Beauty, of course. However, it raises another point - that of youth.

    Does a person need youth to be beautiful?

    In broader terms, does all decay [for visible aging is nothing but decay] militate against Beauty?

    From the Platonic perspective it must, as the Form of Beauty is Immortal and therefore Unaging.
    Why are there beings at all, & why not rather nothing?
    [Leibniz/Heidegger]

  3. #33
    Sanity Is For The Weak
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Hanna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Norwedish
    Ancestry
    Norwedish
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    Norway Norway
    Location
    Trondheim
    Gender
    Family
    Precis når du vil
    Occupation
    Student
    Politics
    Logic
    Religion
    Perfectionism
    Posts
    988
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Moody View Post
    This is the racial aspect of Beauty, of course. However, it raises another point - that of youth.

    Does a person need youth to be beautiful?

    In broader terms, does all decay [for visible aging is nothing but decay] militate against Beauty?

    From the Platonic perspective it must, as the Form of Beauty is Immortal and therefore Unaging.
    Let me put this way, Teenage is Nature's gift, aging is Nature's work of art. I hope you're happy with the explanation
    Jeg er over gjennomsnittet bitter, og liker stort sett ingen andre enn meg selv


  4. #34
    Senior Member Moody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Last Online
    Tuesday, July 10th, 2012 @ 09:18 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    Albion
    Subrace
    Paleo-Atlantid
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    State
    Essex Essex
    Location
    England
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Investigator of Souls
    Politics
    Pan-Germanic Nationalist
    Religion
    Runosophy
    Posts
    1,904
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9
    Thanked in
    9 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Hanna View Post
    Let me put this way, Teenage is Nature's gift, aging is Nature's work of art.
    Aging gives humans the chance to develop their higher selves as the unworked for gift of youthful beauty fades.

    This makes aged wisdom somewhat tragic, in my view.

    I think the quip has it: "youth is wasted on the young"!

    Quote Originally Posted by Moody View Post
    Aging gives humans the chance to develop their higher selves as the unworked for gift of youthful beauty fades.

    This makes aged wisdom somewhat tragic, in my view.

    I think the quip has it: "youth is wasted on the young"!
    Why are there beings at all, & why not rather nothing?
    [Leibniz/Heidegger]

  5. #35
    Moderator "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Sigurd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Online
    1 Week Ago @ 06:57 PM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Bavarii, Saxones, Suebi, Alamanni
    Subrace
    Borreby + Atlantonordoid
    Country
    Germany Germany
    Location
    Einöde in den Alpen
    Gender
    Age
    30
    Zodiac Sign
    Libra
    Family
    Engaged
    Politics
    Tradition & Homeland
    Religion
    Odinist
    Posts
    9,079
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    50
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    175
    Thanked in
    101 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Moody View Post
    This is the racial aspect of Beauty, of course. However, it raises another point - that of youth.

    Does a person need youth to be beautiful?
    Calling on the mythology, no it does not require youth. The goddess Holda is alternatively quoted as an elderly, grandmotherly figure and a goddess of beauty (which is where her well likely comes from )

    I feel that they do not however exclude each other. Youth is one type of beauty, advanced age is a different type of beauty. One who is beautiful in youth can be ugly in age if they age unnaturally or well, unbeautifully, and likely vice-versa.

    Just like youth radiates a certain type of characteristics which are aesthetically pleasing, age will radiate other types of these characteristics. When we think of a young lass to draw our eyes, different things come to mind than when we think of motherly beauty, or when we behold the tested visage of a war veteran.

    An aged person can of course only be beautiful if the decay has not taken away their beauty but instead possibly added to it: Many old books will be antiquaries, but that does not mean that all books will be of antiquarian value just because they are old. And some paintings are more aesthetically pleasing partially because they no longer look fresh.

    Hence, an aged person can be beautiful if they "age well", and in that I do not mean the retaining of youthful features.
    -In kalte Schatten versunken... /Germaniens Volk erstarrt / Gefroren von Lügen / In denen die Welt verharrt-
    -Die alte Seele trauernd und verlassen / Verblassend in einer erklärbaren Welt / Schwebend in einem Dunst der Wehmut / Ein Schrei der nur unmerklich gellt-
    -Auch ich verspüre Demut / Vor dem alten Geiste der Ahnen / Wird es mir vergönnt sein / Gen Walhalla aufzufahren?-

    (Heimdalls Wacht, In kalte Schatten versunken, stanzas 4-6)

  6. #36
    Senior Member Eccardus Teutonicus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Last Online
    Thursday, April 12th, 2012 @ 10:48 PM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Austro-British
    Ancestry
    Lothian, Cork, Donegal, Austria
    Subrace
    Paleo-Atlantid
    Country
    Confederate States Confederate States
    Location
    The Wasteland
    Gender
    Family
    Engaged
    Occupation
    Scholar
    Politics
    Elitism
    Religion
    Medieval Catholicism
    Posts
    268
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    It still seems to me that we are restricting beauty far too much by keeping it in the realm of "What I find beautiful" and physical beauty. Is there beauty in youth? I would say that depends on if you find beauty in the naïveté inherent thereto. There is great ugliness in ignorance and great beauty in wisdom; beauty in the truest sense, divorced from the physical attractiveness of any given concrete thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Moody
    Of course, the Platonic view is that the pure Ideal of Beauty, its particular Form cannot be fully realised in physical expression.
    Any such expression - even by the greatest artist - is a mere imitation and approximation of this perfect Form of Beauty.

    Only the Philosopher-Ruler can get near to the Form through contemplation.

    Therefore all physical manifestations of Beauty [whether in beautiful art or beautiful persons] are mixed and imperfect.

    Does the pure Form of Beauty need to convey anything other than itself, its Beauty?
    I think not.

    It is only human and imperfect art which needs to 'say something' besides itself [and therefore be mixed with lust, politics or ethics etc.,].
    Pure Beauty is sheer Beauty and so is 'empty'.
    I don't know if I'd say it is empty; I would say that true beauty is the fullest kind of beauty because of its sublimity.

    Art, indeed, is that which is mere imitation, and therefore needs to communicate something, which is why I speak of true art in those terms. Art, after all, shares common roots with our word "artificial", that which is made, which is inherently tied to the Greek τέχνη, the lowest form of knowledge, the realm of the cave-dwellers (for those on-lookers to this discussion, see Plato's Allegory of the Cave, The Republic 7:514a–520a and his Analogy of the Divided Line, 6:509d-513e). So it makes sense that perfect art (which is inherently imperfect) would be the expression of best imitation.
    οὐκ ἐμοῦ, ἀλλὰ τοῦ λόγου ἀκούσαντας ὁμολογεῖν σοφόν ἐστιν ἓν πάντα εἶναί.
    Heraclitus

  7. #37
    Senior Member Moody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Last Online
    Tuesday, July 10th, 2012 @ 09:18 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    Albion
    Subrace
    Paleo-Atlantid
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    State
    Essex Essex
    Location
    England
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Investigator of Souls
    Politics
    Pan-Germanic Nationalist
    Religion
    Runosophy
    Posts
    1,904
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9
    Thanked in
    9 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Sigurd View Post
    Calling on the mythology, no it does not require youth. The goddess Holda is alternatively quoted as an elderly, grandmotherly figure and a goddess of beauty (which is where her well likely comes from )
    I feel that they do not however exclude each other. Youth is one type of beauty, advanced age is a different type of beauty. One who is beautiful in youth can be ugly in age if they age unnaturally or well, unbeautifully, and likely vice-versa.
    Just like youth radiates a certain type of characteristics which are aesthetically pleasing, age will radiate other types of these characteristics. When we think of a young lass to draw our eyes, different things come to mind than when we think of motherly beauty, or when we behold the tested visage of a war veteran.
    An aged person can of course only be beautiful if the decay has not taken away their beauty but instead possibly added to it: Many old books will be antiquaries, but that does not mean that all books will be of antiquarian value just because they are old. And some paintings are more aesthetically pleasing partially because they no longer look fresh.
    Hence, an aged person can be beautiful if they "age well", and in that I do not mean the retaining of youthful features.
    'Youth' in this context does not purely mean 'young', but rather 'in the prime of youth'.
    By the latter definition a person [or a culture etc.,] is at the peak of their condition - like the noonday sun they cast no shadow.
    This is the optimum point for beauty.

    Another point before that peak and any point after it, and beauty is not at its most beautiful.

    Aged things cannot therefore be beautiful in comparison with a thing in its prime.

    I think it a misuse of langauge to refer to aged things as 'beautiful'. They can be 'lovely, 'charming', 'exquisite', 'engaging' - even 'awe-inspiring', but we must reserve the term beautiful for things that are in their prime. Otherwise we fall into the modern trap of calling 'everything' beautiful and thereby lose all sense of distinction.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Wagnerian View Post
    It still seems to me that we are restricting beauty far too much by keeping it in the realm of "What I find beautiful" and physical beauty. Is there beauty in youth? I would say that depends on if you find beauty in the naïveté inherent thereto. There is great ugliness in ignorance and great beauty in wisdom; beauty in the truest sense, divorced from the physical attractiveness of any given concrete thing.
    Again, we must watch our language. To say that a mind is 'beautiful' is to make a metaphorical statement.
    What this statement really means is 'this mind is excellent as a mind, like a beautiful thing in its prime is beautiful'.
    We transfer the term beauty [which depends on the sensual] purely as a metaphor to something that is non-sensual.
    This doesn't change the fact that in essence, 'beauty' refers to the things in their prime which can be perceived sensually.
    If we reject metaphor, then it is perverse to call wisdom 'beautiful'.


    ...So it makes sense that perfect art (which is inherently imperfect) would be the expression of best imitation.
    This is an obvious self-contradiction. By Plato's lights no man-made art can be 'perfect'.
    Why are there beings at all, & why not rather nothing?
    [Leibniz/Heidegger]

  8. #38
    Senior Member Eccardus Teutonicus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Last Online
    Thursday, April 12th, 2012 @ 10:48 PM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Austro-British
    Ancestry
    Lothian, Cork, Donegal, Austria
    Subrace
    Paleo-Atlantid
    Country
    Confederate States Confederate States
    Location
    The Wasteland
    Gender
    Family
    Engaged
    Occupation
    Scholar
    Politics
    Elitism
    Religion
    Medieval Catholicism
    Posts
    268
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Moody View Post
    Again, we must watch our language. To say that a mind is 'beautiful' is to make a metaphorical statement.
    What this statement really means is 'this mind is excellent as a mind, like a beautiful thing in its prime is beautiful'.
    We transfer the term beauty [which depends on the sensual] purely as a metaphor to something that is non-sensual.
    This doesn't change the fact that in essence, 'beauty' refers to the things in their prime which can be perceived sensually.
    If we reject metaphor, then it is perverse to call wisdom 'beautiful'.

    This is an obvious self-contradiction. By Plato's lights no man-made art can be 'perfect'.
    I should probably have put quotation marks around "perfect" to clarify my meaning.

    Regarding beauty as a metaphor, I disagree. Beauty is not a metaphor. There is such a thing as a beautiful mind, and wisdom is indeed beautiful in the truest meaning of the word beautiful. You have failed to refute my point that we are making beauty far too physical and placing it in a realm where it does not belong- the sensual. Beauty, true beauty, belongs to a higher realm than the sensual; it belongs to the which can be felt with the heart and mind, not with the eyes and hands. Physicality can have beauty on only the lowest and most superficial level, attractiveness. In this sense, physical beauty is far more of a metaphor because it is the most removed from the true definition of Beauty.

    One can use beauty metaphorically, I suppose, if one has such a superficial notion of it, but the true use of the word in saying "a beautiful mind" is not "this mind is excellent", but rather "this mind is beautiful, i.e. this mind moves the heart and stirs the mind in the way all beauty moves the heart and stirs the mind." There is real beauty there; it is a redundancy to refer to "abstract beauty": all beauty is abstract, in that it cannot be felt or touched with the senses, it can only felt or touched with the soul.

    And so, I reiterate, in our definition of beauty we are far, far to concrete and far, far too physical. Beauty cannot be reduced in this way or you result with things like abstract art: what is pleasing to the eye to one person can disgust another, and vice versa. Holding Beauty to such a relative standard is absurdity incarnate.
    οὐκ ἐμοῦ, ἀλλὰ τοῦ λόγου ἀκούσαντας ὁμολογεῖν σοφόν ἐστιν ἓν πάντα εἶναί.
    Heraclitus

  9. #39
    Senior Member Moody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Last Online
    Tuesday, July 10th, 2012 @ 09:18 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    Albion
    Subrace
    Paleo-Atlantid
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    State
    Essex Essex
    Location
    England
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Investigator of Souls
    Politics
    Pan-Germanic Nationalist
    Religion
    Runosophy
    Posts
    1,904
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9
    Thanked in
    9 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by The Wagnerian View Post
    ... Beauty, true beauty, belongs to a higher realm than the sensual; it belongs to the which can be felt with the heart and mind, not with the eyes and hands. Physicality can have beauty on only the lowest and most superficial level, attractiveness. In this sense, physical beauty is far more of a metaphor because it is the most removed from the true definition of Beauty.
    What then is the metaphorical content of non-physical beauty which makes it applicable to what you claim is only metaphorical physical beauty? What is it about a physical thing that invites the comparison with the true non-sensual beauty that you claim originates the metaphor?

    One can use beauty metaphorically, I suppose, if one has such a superficial notion of it, but the true use of the word in saying "a beautiful mind" is not "this mind is excellent", but rather "this mind is beautiful, i.e. this mind moves the heart and stirs the mind in the way all beauty moves the heart and stirs the mind." There is real beauty there; it is a redundancy to refer to "abstract beauty": all beauty is abstract, in that it cannot be felt or touched with the senses, it can only felt or touched with the soul.
    But surely, if you are right, to call a work of art 'beautiful' is the most profound thing - not superficial. You are comparing it [according to you] metaphorically with the greatest beauty, the non-physical. You are using a metaphor too - only in the other direction.
    I say that things are ab-stracted from the physical - i.e., that the physical comes first.
    From there the abstractions and the Universals are made.
    Therefore mankind first understands beauty as a physical thing and then starts to develop his intellect, abstracting towards concepts and making metaphors which begin in the concrete.

    And so, I reiterate, in our definition of beauty we are far, far to concrete and far, far too physical. Beauty cannot be reduced in this way or you result with things like abstract art: what is pleasing to the eye to one person can disgust another, and vice versa. Holding Beauty to such a relative standard is absurdity incarnate.
    You prejudice your argument by mentioning "abstract art" - surely Classical Art would be far better a comparison. Here the Form of the Beautiful is first realised in sculpture and then - later - inspires philsophers to make abstractions using Reason. Only after the development of sculpture does Plato offer the Theory of Forms.
    Why are there beings at all, & why not rather nothing?
    [Leibniz/Heidegger]

  10. #40
    Moderator "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Sigurd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Online
    1 Week Ago @ 06:57 PM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Bavarii, Saxones, Suebi, Alamanni
    Subrace
    Borreby + Atlantonordoid
    Country
    Germany Germany
    Location
    Einöde in den Alpen
    Gender
    Age
    30
    Zodiac Sign
    Libra
    Family
    Engaged
    Politics
    Tradition & Homeland
    Religion
    Odinist
    Posts
    9,079
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    50
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    175
    Thanked in
    101 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Moody
    Aged things cannot therefore be beautiful in comparison with a thing in its prime.
    The question to be asked however is - can there be beauty in decay, or must beauty refer to something in its prime? I.e. Does it follow that because late spring/early summer is the time of blossom; or that because late summer/early autumn is the time of harvest, that they automatically hold more beauty than late autumn/early winter ... or could it be argued that there is a beauty in the falling of coloured leaves, and the increasingly longer nights because the decay takes place in a natural course - or would such instead be more of a romanticisation of the obscure, much like one can be attracted to a substantially older man or woman?
    -In kalte Schatten versunken... /Germaniens Volk erstarrt / Gefroren von Lügen / In denen die Welt verharrt-
    -Die alte Seele trauernd und verlassen / Verblassend in einer erklärbaren Welt / Schwebend in einem Dunst der Wehmut / Ein Schrei der nur unmerklich gellt-
    -Auch ich verspüre Demut / Vor dem alten Geiste der Ahnen / Wird es mir vergönnt sein / Gen Walhalla aufzufahren?-

    (Heimdalls Wacht, In kalte Schatten versunken, stanzas 4-6)

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. What Is Beauty?
    By Blutwölfin in forum Fashion & Beauty
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: Wednesday, August 17th, 2016, 04:27 PM
  2. An astonishing beauty
    By aneurysm in forum Men, Women, & Relationships
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: Tuesday, March 28th, 2006, 01:18 PM
  3. Whatever Became of Beauty ?
    By Gorm the Old in forum Music & Hymns
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Saturday, June 11th, 2005, 09:45 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •