Beauty is something we all love; is it in the eye of the beholder or in the object to be seen?

All in the eye,naturally.





one- the actual pair of eyes . and





second but more important- the inner eye,Beauty is something we all love; is it in the eye of the beholder or in the object to be seen?
bah - curse you neoplatonicists!!!





the modern answer is BOTH! ( a dichotomy posed as such only holds water in the rarified atmosphere of pure, staged and DRAMATISED dialectic - the 'aunt sally' of plato)





i can show you how what is beautiful to me is not beautiful to you, whatever your sensual description is...





and i can demonstrate absolute beauty by calling on mysticisim(all absolutes are mystical - ask your tutor to explain!)....





love? bah! what do you MEAN? love is an action not a sentiment





commonality? bah! you have been seduced by the inductive schemata of inductive reasoning





you ask a question about the ephemera of epistemological classification - what is black? what is white? but the truth is neither black nor white...nor grey...the truth is all colours, held at once, truth and falsehood of this 'rational discourse' understood as two sides of the same coinage - the discs that blind you as you float across the river to the land of yo9ur ignoble death and Truth.





behold - southpark answers all! mmmokay?Beauty is something we all love; is it in the eye of the beholder or in the object to be seen?
Both. There are two categories. First is the UGLIES, second is the BEAUTIES. Then the individual decides which among the BEAUTIES he finds beautiful. However, it is almost impossible for someone to fine beauty among the uglies. So it is both.
Both..
Beauty is a problem of vanity and superficiality. Such attachment to things that are subjectively and visually appealing is a rather shallow existence. Our society is littered with examples of this superficiality.





An object is an object. Beauty is only a judgment made about the object. Of course, where there is beauty there is also disgust and that which is not beautiful. Such a tormented existence.
the psychology textbook states the former is correct.





Mostly. To an extent.
it is all in the eye of the beholder...if you ever see wicked the musical...a character says...i wish i could be beautifulfor you...and the other character says...you are...and the first one says...don't lie....and the second one says...it's not lying, it's looking at things differently.
both.
beauty is in the object to be seen but only the eye of the beholder chooses what to see - so if the beholder's choice is not to see the beauty, it may not be seen in the object





look at me, see my reflection


look at me, see my flesh


look at me, see my expressions


look at me, recognize my features


talk to me , see my beauty
It's mostly in the eye of the beholder...but there are some strandards of beauty that seem to be universal...like symmetry in features (in either objects or people). Still, I think we all have certain things that attract us, and they may not be the same for others. For instance, I find a slight overbite to be attractive! I'm not sure why, but it's always appealed to me. I can only guess that I knew someone at one time (when I was very young) that had an overbite and was very kind or appealing in some way, and that has caused this attraction.
How do you know the ocean or a mountain or a person is beautiful, unless you percieve it to be? I have seen an ocean I do not find attractive to swim in, yet others see it as beautiful simply b/c God created it. Our level of attraction varies. I think those people who say both, are Really saying


';if you think she's beautiful, then I think she's beautiful.';


';if my television says she's the it girl, then I say she's the it girl.';

lotion cream