Re: What is beauty?

[Aiviet Nguyen <aiviet@cat.syr.edu>]

Hello,
  I have decided to keep quiet on this thread. However, the positivism
made me open my mouth.
  First, the process told by Anh Tuan says that ** the average of beauty
is the beauty of average **. I am not sure that I would have chosen the
average one. Up to now my taste used to be different. I am always able to 
show which beauty is the one chosen by the average, but that is not 
always the same as my type. Maybe, Freud could have taken me as a patient.
  Second, I have not always been excited in young women (perhaps I did 
not have a chance to meet a good one). My ideal woman was always a middle 
age. To me the really good woman should have a mature beauty in her 
middle age. So at this point, your theory failed. Don't tell me that is 
because I am not capable for reproduction :-)))  
  

On Tue, 1 Jul 1997, Hong Lam Vu wrote:
> 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.

   Third, I don't think so. IMHO, any excitement for external beauty is 
mixed with sexuality including the beauty of a math equation, or of a 
painting by Da Vinci,...
   So in some sense, everybody has a small homosexuality as built-in. If 
you live in an anomalous environment, this capability ( the word use 
maybe not polotically correct)can develope. For example in the arabic
world.
    This is not a handicap at all. Don't think that I have ever fallen in 
love with a guy:-))) Just think well about that.

> Positivists do not
> know what THE beauty is. Maybe they say: It depends on your definition.
>
   Fourth, I am also a positivist, but I know what is the Beauty, that
satifies a given need. ( For instance my need).
   As the beauty has its origine in the sexual instinct, if the 
individual is not there, we cannot talk about the beauty.
   Some ontologists can talk about the beauty of God. I don't think
that God makes any diference between beautifulness and the ugliness.
Otherwise, he would have never created Satan.
  That is so perhaps because he does not have the need for reproduction.
The unique ability of creature is already enough for him. For him, Adam
and Eva were equally beautiful as the Snake.
    
> 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.

Cheers
Aiviet