Re: What is beauty?

[Thu-Huong Tran <tran@robles.callutheran.edu>]

Sorry ca'c anh/chi.
I accidently replied to the wrong message.
Please disregard!!!!!

TH
----






At 03:06 PM 7/1/97 -0500, you wrote:
>Hi Karl  :-)
>Comments for below???
>Btw, did you like the watermelon? It's so sweet, huh?
>
>thanks
>Huong
>
>
>At 02:40 PM 7/1/97 -0500, you wrote:
>>Hi ba'c Die^~m, ba'c Tua^'n,
>>
>>>  DQ: The^' nhu*~ng o^ng Hay ba` Homosexual thi` sao ? DDa~ co' va`i 
>>> nghie^n cu*'u ve^` va^'n dde^` na`y nhu*ng to^i kho^ng theo do~i, kho^ng 
>>> bie^'t nay dda~ dde^'n dda^u ? Ba'c cho 1 ba`i ve^` Gene ddi!  to^i 
>>> ra^'t thi'ch hu*o*'ng na`y! 
>>
>>Homosexuality is not an average but an exception. It is an exeption
>>partly because it's not fit for the biological reproduction. Homosexuality
>>is a handicap in the evolutionary process.
>>
>>
>>> 
>>> >        Well, this is a paradox: while beauty is THE average, but 
>>> average is
>>> >not necessarily THE beauty, may be A beauty. An average flower is not 
>>> the
>>> >best flower, according to the theory of measurement. However, all the 
>>> best
>>> >flowers are resulted from the average. Complicated huh? Let us see any 
>>> other
>>> >comments.
>>
>>I'd like to put the question another way. Non-average MAY be beautiful. Is
>>average ALWAYS beautiful? If yes, I must believe in our good Darwin.
>>
>>
>>> 
>>>  DQ: Co' pha?i xa^'u dde.p la` do o'c ngu*o*`i ta nha^.n thu*'c ra 
>>> kho^ng ? Thi' du.: co' ngu*o*`i nhi`n thi` tha^'t dde.p nhu*ng ngu*o*`i 
>>> kha'c thi` tha^'y thu*o*`ng hoa(.c du*?ng du*ng . Theo ba'c vie^.c 
>>> information processing in brain ngu*o*`i ta dda~ ro~ chu*a a. ?
>>> 
>>
>>Your question have caused headache for the philosophers since Adam and
>>Eva's time. Ontologists claim that there is the only beauty which exists
>>per se, independently from your tast, your idea or what ever. Others say
>>that beauty is relative, it depends on that or this. Positivists do not
>>know what THE beauty is. Maybe they say: It depends on your definition.
>>
>>As a positivist, I first define my object that it is the perception of
>>beauty and not the beauty in ontological terms.
>>
>>Cheers,
>>La^m.
>>
>>
>>
>
>