How do we realize something to be beautiful or ugly?

[Age]

Que?

Just referring to the OP title.

...sorry. Didn't real eyes the OP title had me defined as an illiterate little twerp.

I think "vegetariantaxidermy" is referring to some one "else" here.

Also, if "bahman" had written, '... recognize something as ...', then I would have responded differently. But considering that if "bahman" wrote the title alone, then ONLY "bahman" would KNOW what 'it' was ACTUALLY meaning and referring to.

[Age]

...sorry. Didn't real eyes the OP title had me defined as an illiterate little twerp.

Did you write the OP? I thought it was someone else. So exhausting...

Oh. For once I may have been paranoid...without the effect of Pa_annoyed.

Are you SURE that it would be the VERY FIRST time you have been 'paranoid'?

And, what does 'Pa_annoyed' even mean or refer to, to 'you', "attofishpi"?

[Age]

bahman,

All meaning is in the eye or consciousness of the beholder, but there are things that constitute the beautiful and the ugly/monstrosities. There are degrees of the beautiful and the further an object or organism is from the beautiful the closer the object or organism is to non-existence, monstrosities by their form, structure and thus constitution are on the edge of existence. Beauty is relative to well being. It is not difficult for the adult or senior to appreciate the beauty of healthy youthfulness, the vitality the radiance the energy all constitute a beautiful child. If one is talking about other creatures the same applies how close is the individual to the ideal of his species, nature chooses the most fit to survive, that means fine in form and structure. There is even beauty in simplicity when form, structure and function are beautiful in the given example of its kind. We see too that in society we all tend to treat the beautiful better than the run of the mill, the just adaquate or homely individual, being unattractive in society is a heavy burden, often needing a strong character to carry that burden. Beauty is the essence of natural and artificial selection with all things in the right measure, ordered, balanced etc. Weakness, ware, illness and time all detract from the beautiful, for all things including the beautiful are temporal.

I understand what you are saying but that does not answer my question.

bahman,
It all speaks to the orders of being the order of our own being, one doesn't need a diploma to recognize that certain characteristics certain qualities are not manifest in an object. We are use to the order of beings being all around us, samples of every species of object animate or inanimate. You might have a point yet, I wonder how much it depends upon the health and the order of the observer, can someone of very low intelligence not recognize the beautiful when it is indeed that?

What do you 'class' 'beautiful' 'on', EXACTLY, which would make you then JUDGE "another" as being of VERY LOW 'intelligence' IF they did NOT 'recognize' what you 'class' as being so-called 'beautiful' 'beautiful' as well?

Sorry guess your right, I didn't make it clear in the above. Maybe it is something like Hume's statement about cause and effect we don't really see the process but it is more the habit that it is assumed, we take for granted a certain standard of things as a precondition.

[Age]

"How do we realize something is ugly?" I would say that the way we realize something is ugly is how something affects us, which can be mind-blowingly complex involving as it would one's whole history of experiences. There is I think though a base experience that the condition of said matter needs to meet certain standards in order to be beautiful, violating these standards involves the degrees of ugly, these standards of course are often referred to in the study of art proportion, balance, form, and function, etc. Without a doubt though it is our experience of the subject matter and this can vary widely among individuals, the old saying beauty is in the eye of the beholder seems a truism.

When the 'subject matter' is the EXACT SAME one EVERY one has 'experienced', then True 'beauty' and 'ugliness' can be REALIZED, DISCOVERED, SEEN, or UNCOVERED.

Contradictory, and controversially, 'beauty' and 'ugliness' lies within the 'immaterial' and NOT in the 'material'.

[Age]

I know that beauty is in eyes of the beholder. But I was wondering how we realize something as beautiful or ugly. To me, that is the duty of the subconscious mind to provide a sense of beauty or ugly with the subject of our experience. The reality is that there are all just forms that we experience and non of them is either beautiful or ugly.

Because of subject/object duality of mind, and because of physical bilateral symmetry, beauty of form and face is inherently recognized on a scale of symmetry, and this not dependent upon cultural interpretation or training. A perfectly symmetrical face and body is beautiful to anyone in any culture, although expressions are sometimes culturally dependent.

Is there such a thing as a 'perfectly symmetrical face and/or body'?

If yes, then will you provide us with an example, or a pic?

If you do not, then why not?

And, what happens if a so-called 'ugly face, or ugly body', was so-called 'perfectly symmetrical'?

Also, WHY would some 'thing' made up of exactly similar parts facing each other or around an axis NECESSARY make that 'thing' 'beautiful'?

Beautiful behavior is recognized as appropriateness, which is culturally dependent but also linked to the body’s inherent sense of symmetry, proportion, balance, and the economy of both mind and body motion. Physical proportions can be mathmatically measured and symmetry of form follows certain guidelines of proportion.

Now here we are starting to get somewhere, that is; it is 'behavior', which is what is Truly 'beautiful' or 'ugly', itself.

Physical forms of 'beauty' or 'ugliness' is just too arbitrary to even be worthy of REAL discussion, but WHY ALL of 'you', adult human beings, are SO JUDGMENTAL of physical 'beauty' and 'ugliness' is some 'thing', which NEEDS to be DISCUSSED, OPENLY and Honestly, that is; IF 'you' REALLY want to MOVE ON and CREATE a MUCH BETTER, and thus MORE MORE 'beautiful', 'world', through BEAUTIFUL BEHAVIOR.

Because of this, we recognize Jabba the Hutt as ugly because his body is an amorphous mass, and while his face is symmetrical, the juxtaposition of symmetry and jellyfish just makes more ugly, which could account for his ugly disposition.

So, you ended up REFUTING your OWN previous CLAIM here anyway.

"It's unfortunate what we find pleasing to the touch and pleasing to the eye is seldom the same." - Fabienne

Will you provide examples?

[attofishpi]

Did you write the OP? I thought it was someone else. So exhausting...

Oh. For once I may have been paranoid...without the effect of Pa_annoyed.

Are you SURE that it would be the VERY FIRST time you have been 'paranoid'?

And, what does 'Pa_annoyed' even mean or refer to, to 'you', "attofishpi"?

PA_annoyed (phonetically identical to paranoid) - PA <-- God is annoyed when I eat from the Tree of Know_Ledge.

Then this happens..

PA_annoya (phonetically identical to paranoia) - PA <-- God will annoy me for 3 MONTHS TORTURE IN HELL

[Age]

Oh. For once I may have been paranoid...without the effect of Pa_annoyed.

Are you SURE that it would be the VERY FIRST time you have been 'paranoid'?

And, what does 'Pa_annoyed' even mean or refer to, to 'you', "attofishpi"?

PA_annoyed (phonetically identical to paranoid) - PA <-- God is annoyed when I eat from the Tree of Know_Ledge.

Then this happens..

PA_annoya (phonetically identical to paranoia) - PA <-- God will annoy me for 3 MONTHS TORTURE IN HELL

WHEN and HOW do you supposedly eat from the tree of knowledge?

And, what does 'the Tree of Know_Ledge' mean or refer to, to you?

[attofishpi]

That is TOP SECRET

[Agent Smith]

I'm just waitin' for this girl to realize how beautiful she is!

[MagsJ]

I'm just waitin' for this girl to realize how beautiful she is!

What girl..

That’s a beautiful thing to be waiting on, Agent Smith.. fruition?

[popeye1945]

We determine what is ugly through our degree of attraction and repugnance, but the cause of those reactions is the state of the constitution of the given subject to its ideal specimen of its given species. We have a constitution before we are born, and this determines among other traits our outer physical health in its manifestation. A very poor inner constitution speaks of a very poor outer constitution on some levels, it may affect most of the totality of the phenotype/physical body or just certain aspects thereof. The constitution is your real self, only different from other selves through your level of health, so, it is not an even playing field for all individuals of a given species. Society tends to treat the beautiful of its species much better than the lesser gifted less fortunate of its kind.

This is quite a complex thing. The inner constitution determines the physical manifestation, and the physical manifestation being what we generally speak of in terms of beautiful or ugly, but the process is not even complete there. One's constitution must weather the storm of the environmental context it finds itself within, for the environment can physically and emotionally mold the constitution into something that could be termed beautiful or ugly. The environmental context is either beautiful or ugly, nurturing or hostile. The constitution in its reactions to this can become the ugliness or beauty of the environmental context. Both the beautiful and the ugly make up our societal context, and our reactions to others create an environmental context that either becomes more beautiful or increasingly ugly. The old saying context defines indeed has some merit. In turn, I speculate that the health of the given environmental context might ultimately determine at least in some cases, the formation of the healthy constitution of the fetus, and thus the future beauty of species/society, and round and round we go.

[jasonlava]

I know that beauty is in eyes of the beholder. But I was wondering how we realize something as beautiful or ugly. To me, that is the duty of the subconscious mind to provide a sense of beauty or ugly with the subject of our experience. The reality is that there are all just forms that we experience and non of them is either beautiful or ugly.

I can't agree more. On top of that, we are manipulated indirectly by the social standards which aren't very specific either. I think at the end of the day we should remain with our perspectives and to accept other's points as well.

[nemos]

The handsome one is the brave, and the ugly one is the pervert.

I am not going to declare physics a god and science a religion. For me, they are just useful tools, or a field of activity. By the way, there are other branches of science besides physics, e.g. biology. And within the life sciences, beauty has a rather beautiful definition:
Beauty is biological usefulness.
Or in other words, the way in which we are told whether an object meets the criterion of usefulness and even how much, in subjective measures of course.