Beauty

[Dream]

Sorry that I keep bumping this, I'd really like an answer though. This will be the last time this is bumped.

 

[ps139]

It does make sense, but I still have a hard time believing that. My previous statement regarded human beauty, but it can also be looked at the same way in art. Somebody designs a piece of art that I think is disgusting, while everybody else thinks is absolutely beautiful. Does this mean that I'm just plain wrong? Does this mean I'm mentally disadvantaged because I don't know what beauty is?

The exact same principle can be applied to humans. There is one girl I know that I think is absolutely beautiful. She does not look like a supermodel, but I think she is gorgeous. However, everyone that I've talked to do not see the same beauty as I do. They simply say "she's alright." Does this mean that I am wrong? Am I just delussional? I would have a hard time accepting this fact.

Well this is an important question. With any objective standard, "majority rules" does not apply. Lets take an easy one that we know of...
You are in a room with 99 people who do not think abortion is a sin. Is it? Of course it is. But we have the Church, and the Scriptures to guide us there. We have an infallible source on faith and morals to say "yes" or "no."
With beauty, do we have an infallible source? No, we do not. There are principles out there, and we can make guesses, but there is no Magisterium to say "X is prettier than Y." Why not? Well because in the long run its simply not important.
Also, when you are talking about a person, there are so so so many different facets of beauty, and I suspect that when someone says "oh she is gorgeous" and another one says "she is alright," well one is probably focusing on a certain aspect, the other is giving his opinion on the whole. (and these two people are not necessarily in respective order). Also, people have different preferences. Its somewhat like when I think someone is crazy because they don't like pizza! But I do not get upset, I just say, "more for me!" But with physical beauty, I think we all have different preferences too . I love the eyes. The eyes can do it for me and make the whole look a lot better. Another person who doesn't really consider the eyes may have a different opinion. So I guess my point is that for each of us, what we like and prefer is based on so many different things, and I believe there is an objective beauty, but in most cases except the really obvious ones, we cannot know for certain whether X is prettier than Y, or whether Christine is prettier than Lauren. Same thing with music. I know that the symphony orchestra I saw last night played better music than my little 13 year old sister. But if I compare the Grateful Dead to Led Zeppelin, if I compare two of their songs, can I know which one is better? I believe one is better, but I have no clue as to which that would be, and I really do not care, I like them both. . And the most important thing here is that it doesn't matter for anything. If it did matter, such as faith and morals matter, well then I truly believe God would have given us an infallible teaching authority on this.

Yes, of course. True beauty comes from within, but that doesn't mean that we should ignore God's gift of physical beauty.

No, it doesn't. But we should never let it take more importance than it deserves. Augustine expounds on this in Confessions, probably around Book 10 or 11, I forget which. Putting too much emphasis on physical beauty leads one down the wrong path, because its based on prefering the physical over the spiritual.
Something else... this is my theory about all types of art and music and literature based on everything I've experienced in life, and the principles I've seen at work in the universe. But its not been defined by the Church and I do not think it matters one bit in terms of one's salvation, so if you think I'm crazy (most people do ), feel free to dismiss me! I'm cool with that!

 

[Dream]

Well this is an important question. With any objective standard, "majority rules" does not apply. Lets take an easy one that we know of...
You are in a room with 99 people who do not think abortion is a sin. Is it? Of course it is. But we have the Church, and the Scriptures to guide us there. We have an infallible source on faith and morals to say "yes" or "no."
With beauty, do we have an infallible source? No, we do not. There are principles out there, and we can make guesses, but there is no Magisterium to say "X is prettier than Y." Why not? Well because in the long run its simply not important.

Agreed. If my previous post came across as "majority rules," then I apologize. This was not my inention.

Also, when you are talking about a person, there are so so so many different facets of beauty, and I suspect that when someone says "oh she is gorgeous" and another one says "she is alright," well one is probably focusing on a certain aspect, the other is giving his opinion on the whole. (and these two people are not necessarily in respective order). Also, people have different preferences. Its somewhat like when I think someone is crazy because they don't like pizza! But I do not get upset, I just say, "more for me!" But with physical beauty, I think we all have different preferences too . I love the eyes. The eyes can do it for me and make the whole look a lot better. Another person who doesn't really consider the eyes may have a different opinion. So I guess my point is that for each of us, what we like and prefer is based on so many different things,

...

Same thing with music. I know that the symphony orchestra I saw last night played better music than my little 13 year old sister. But if I compare the Grateful Dead to Led Zeppelin, if I compare two of their songs, can I know which one is better? I believe one is better, but I have no clue as to which that would be, and I really do not care, I like them both. .

Yes, very true. It may all come down to what you prefer. But then this goes to show that everything has beauty, just different types. I may prefer the beauty in a Beethoven Symphony, you might prefer the beauty of a classic rock song. If we have preference, then that means there is no set definition of what beauty is, but rather it is in the eye of the beholder.

and I believe there is an objective beauty, but in most cases except the really obvious ones, we cannot know for certain whether X is prettier than Y, or whether Christine is prettier than Lauren.

So are you saying that either God created Christine prettier than Lauren or vice versa?

And the most important thing here is that it doesn't matter for anything. If it did matter, such as faith and morals matter, well then I truly believe God would have given us an infallible teaching authority on this.

No, of course it doesn't matter, but I think it's something we've all been curious about. It doesn't really matter how many planets there are in our solar system, but it is something that many people are curious of.

No, it doesn't. But we should never let it take more importance than it deserves. Augustine expounds on this in Confessions, probably around Book 10 or 11, I forget which. Putting too much emphasis on physical beauty leads one down the wrong path, because its based on prefering the physical over the spiritual.

I agree completely. We should be happy of the gift of beauty, but not give it too much importance.

Something else... this is my theory about all types of art and music and literature based on everything I've experienced in life, and the principles I've seen at work in the universe. But its not been defined by the Church and I do not think it matters one bit in terms of one's salvation, so if you think I'm crazy (most people do ), feel free to dismiss me! I'm cool with that!

I know your statements are not official Church teachings, because if they were, I'd have half a dozen people here scolding me and telling me not to question the Holy Catholic Church.

In all seriousness though, your ideas are very intriguing. I enjoyed reading them very much so. I am still not quite sure what beauty truly is, but I have recieved quite a bit of interesting comments. Thank you for your responses.

 

[faerieevaH]

Your question is: is beauty subjective? Well, the answer is that parts of it are and parts of it aren't. Some things are predetermined, others aren't. Some parts are culturally defined, others aren't. And some parts are completely personal, and may be related with upbringing and values. For example wether you are thinking Britney Spears looks physically atractive or not. Even if you had never heard of her, she choses to sport a certain look. By your own choices, your upbringing, your values and your interests, you will have determined what you think is beautiful.

In other words, I do believe that partly we can 'educate ourselves' to be atracted to certain things, for good or for bad. To loose the 'natural triggers' though isn't easy. A simple example is this: a clear skin. People are naturally atracted to a clear skin. SOme people aren't born with this and no matter how much clearasil, dermatologists etc. it's very hard for them to get it. Does that mean those people can never be considered beautiful? Absolutely not. There are other points of beauty besides that skin, and people who are 'trained' to see beyond can absolutely see them as not just beautiful but magnificent.

 

[Dream]

Your question is: is beauty subjective? Well, the answer is that parts of it are and parts of it aren't. Some things are predetermined, others aren't. Some parts are culturally defined, others aren't. And some parts are completely personal, and may be related with upbringing and values. For example wether you are thinking Britney Spears looks physically atractive or not. Even if you had never heard of her, she choses to sport a certain look. By your own choices, your upbringing, your values and your interests, you will have determined what you think is beautiful.

In other words, I do believe that partly we can 'educate ourselves' to be atracted to certain things, for good or for bad. To loose the 'natural triggers' though isn't easy. A simple example is this: a clear skin. People are naturally atracted to a clear skin. SOme people aren't born with this and no matter how much clearasil, dermatologists etc. it's very hard for them to get it. Does that mean those people can never be considered beautiful? Absolutely not. There are other points of beauty besides that skin, and people who are 'trained' to see beyond can absolutely see them as not just beautiful but magnificent.

Intesting. So, by using your own example, you believe that we can "train" ourselves to find beauty in people without clear skin, though it may be difficult?

 

[faerieevaH]

Yes, I do believe that. Because we can 'train our eyes' to look for certain things. For example, if you always look first to the eyes, and this person has the most incredible eyes, you will notice the non clear skin as well, but since 'beautiful eyes' will be your number one priority in beauty, you'll find someone beautiful anyway.
Something that is said is that men for example 'look for the general picture' first. So if a man at first sees a completely stylish woman, with a radiant smile, he'll be less likely to notice the non clear skin right away.

The problem of course with this is that we can 'train ourselves', aware or non aware, to find beauty in things that are 'not of the natural norm' for a reason. To take a blunt example: training yourself not to look at clear skin right away, but to have charm as one of the first things that sets off your beauty triggers is one thing. Being indoctrinated by a surrounding culture to first look to cup size (in completely unnatural proportion) is another. There is a bosom/ hip ratio that is 'naturally' the standard to which men are atracted because in essence it would be a sign of health and childbearing abilities. However, culturally we are pushed to a different ratio that surrounds people everywhere, and thus we can become 'trained' to a different standard. Is this standard wrong?
Well... it deviates from the natural standard, but then again... so does 'not looking for the other natural signs' like clear skin, etc. Deviating from the 'natural norm' is not in itsself morally wrong. It depends on how and why you deviate.

 

[Dream]

Yes, I do believe that. Because we can 'train our eyes' to look for certain things. For example, if you always look first to the eyes, and this person has the most incredible eyes, you will notice the non clear skin as well, but since 'beautiful eyes' will be your number one priority in beauty, you'll find someone beautiful anyway.
Something that is said is that men for example 'look for the general picture' first. So if a man at first sees a completely stylish woman, with a radiant smile, he'll be less likely to notice the non clear skin right away.

The problem of course with this is that we can 'train ourselves', aware or non aware, to find beauty in things that are 'not of the natural norm' for a reason. To take a blunt example: training yourself not to look at clear skin right away, but to have charm as one of the first things that sets off your beauty triggers is one thing. Being indoctrinated by a surrounding culture to first look to cup size (in completely unnatural proportion) is another. There is a bosom/ hip ratio that is 'naturally' the standard to which men are atracted because in essence it would be a sign of health and childbearing abilities. However, culturally we are pushed to a different ratio that surrounds people everywhere, and thus we can become 'trained' to a different standard. Is this standard wrong?
Well... it deviates from the natural standard, but then again... so does 'not looking for the other natural signs' like clear skin, etc. Deviating from the 'natural norm' is not in itsself morally wrong. It depends on how and why you deviate.

A lot of that made sense to me. Thank you for the response.

 

[CarolineBlue]

If I can step in and add another little wondering to this discussion, as a Woman it seems as though the majority of men stare at your chest more than your eyes.

In The Bible, God made mention to a woman of ill repute about how He gave her a perfect body and all she did was use it for unHoly means.

If God is never wrong though, then why give her or anyone physical beauty if he wants them to concentrate more on the Soul/Spirit?
And why give men a constant lust for Sex and the basic attraction to women with big breasts etc...? If we are all to concentrate on the most important thing-the Soul and a persons' heart, then why not give humans the basic lust for someone nice rather than someone with physical beauty?

And God made Adam a Mate bcause we aren't supposed to be alone but many people are alone-with no-one.

Even the most chaste Catholic man(aside from Priests etc) is gobsmacked by long blonde hair. blue eyes and a killer body. If she's a nice person it's just a bonus.

No-one gets to know a Soul before they make their first impression first impressions are based on the first thing you see. If you see a face covered in pus-filled spots and acne and very skinny/fat body I doubt you'll hang around to get to know the Spirit inside the person.

Even many Saints are described as having overwhelming physical beauty. Now you might say their inner beauty "shone through" but there are many beautiful people on the inside who glow with happiness/Love but they are still not attractive physically.

And if we are to respect God made us how we are supposed to be, then are we to be punished for dying our hair blonde when it is naturally brown, or putting on lipstick?

Are women to be punished for wearing jeans instead of dresses? For not keeping our hair covered like Our Lady?

It just seems to me that if we are supposed to be chaste and celibate, then why are women able to conceive babies from as young as 9 in some countries? Why are womens' bodies able to conceive at such young ages if marriage and kids is meant for when you are an Adult.

I heard that Mary was about 15 when she had Jesus and St. Joe was about 19. I know they never had sex but isn't that a bit sick that she was a child when she had such a big responsibility thrust upon her?
And Mary was very beautiful in pictures etc. I know some are an Artists' impression alone but some must be close like the one in the Pieta.

 

[Dream]

That's a lot of questions to answer at once, CarolineBlue.

Basically, God gave us physical beauty as a gift. Yes, you are absolutely right in saying we should concentrate more on the soul, but this doesn't mean that we should ignore the gift of beauty that God has given with each soul.

God did not give men a consted lusting for sex, this is something that men have chosen to do by their own free will. I admit that I sometimes give into the temptation of lust, but now I am learning how to appreciate physical beauty without lusting. It may come as a surprise to you, but there are men who will see a pretty lady and think "wow, she is beautiful" without having the desire to have sex with her.

 

[bigsierra]

Have you watched Shallow Hal recently?

 

[Dream]

Have you watched Shallow Hal recently?

Unfortunatelly, yes.

Although it is one of the few movies I've seen with a morale, I lost too many brain cells in the process of watching it.

 

[bigsierra]

I just now watching it on TV. I hadn't seen it before. I'm willing to do without the last few brain cells it's wringing out of my head. I have no idea what the non cut for TV version would be like, so that's not really a recommendation. Even the TV cut goes a bit far on some things.

 

[Dream]

I just now watching it on TV. I hadn't seen it before. I'm willing to do without the last few brain cells it's wringing out of my head. I have no idea what the non cut for TV version would be like, so that's not really a recommendation. Even the TV cut goes a bit far on some things.

I don't remember the movie going too far on anything, so I'm guessing it's the same version.

But anyways, I don't have patience for movies. (But there are a few rare excpetions)

 

[Addaperle]

I realise I'm in half way through a discussin, but having read the OP, I was reminded of something said by one of the guys in the Community I live in. He said he knows when he looks at two women and finds one more attractive than the other, it is the marketing of our world that makes him think so. I know it's something he feels he's struggling with, and is making an effort to combat...

Clare xx

 

[Dream]

I realise I'm in half way through a discussin, but having read the OP, I was reminded of something said by one of the guys in the Community I live in. He said he knows when he looks at two women and finds one more attractive than the other, it is the marketing of our world that makes him think so. I know it's something he feels he's struggling with, and is making an effort to combat...

Clare xx

Yea, that's thinking along the same lines as faerieeva.

 

[Jesus'TroublesomeAngel]

Men in general(unless Christian) are always Sex, Sex, Sex...And even Christian men have to fight their love of physical beauty. I am not saying every man wants to have sex with every woman he sees but all men appreciate physical beauty it is the first thing that catches ones' eye. If it was merely man's lustful ways that did that women would be much the same and some certainly are. It's hard when maybe you're not that attractive to have to hear people say someone else is. Yes it is petty and wrong, but physical beauty is important on Earth and is appreciated by people. It's not something earnt nor does it measure how big your Heart is, but it's a factor.
Women though are the biggest victims of crimes, meaning males are the main perpetrators. By this reasoning, it's apparently something in their "make up" that makes men more susceptible to killing/raping/being more about looking at physical beauty only with a few exceptions.
Scientists will tell you that men simply have more testosterone and that that contributes to a lot of crimes commited, but if every creation of Gods' is perfect then why are there flaws in humans? Why do men have more Testosterone and are generally bigger/stronger than females who cannot protect themselves?(I know some can but in general, unfortunately, women are weaker). It makes women easier prey and as a Woman who finds it hard at times to hit back at certain persons, it makes me angry. Yes I can remove myself from a dangerous situation, but I'd like to think I could defend myself if I am mugged or something. It just hurts that men were given a physical advantage. Women and Men can be strong mentally and emotionally so I don't believe women were given some superior advantage over men. It would be nice to have a bit of strength to defend oneself without having to be a black belt in something.

Why are we flawed in that we are susceptible to the temptations of Sin?
God made us able to Sin and able to resist Sin. There is NO reason for people not raised as Christians to be loving of God or have morals. It's a foreign concept to them. So those people are going to have it easier in this life at times, yet harder when it comes to the next life stuff.