Then beauty is no more than a personal preference. That doesn't seem complete to me.

In sum. if someone says, "That's beautiful," then for you it is beautiful, though you yourself might not agree. The trouble with this is that "beautiful" remains without definition or meaning.

Why "appreciated" is not good enough for you?

I agree that we feel that there is a difference between "appreciated" and "beautiful" but we can explain that this is due to the usually similar taste of people regarding beauty.

Is it good enough for you? How does that mesh with your OP?

Now, I didn't get what you mean.

Anyways, now that we have defined "beauty" (at least partially), can you help me find its general origin?

Beauty is what most people say it is? Just a minute ago it was an "important group." The difficulty here is that any discussion needs a pretty firm starting point - a proposition or something like. With that, you either get where you want to go, or you get somewhere else via adjustment of the original proposition.

We, however, are discussing something without first establishing a good starting point. And rather than getting anywhere near where you might have expected to get, you're pushed in the direction of acknowledging one or both of the propositions that a) you don't know what it is, and b) it isn't anything in itself.

Let's talk about one individual experiencing beauty, what is this experience's origin?

Anyways, now that we have defined "beauty" (at least partially), can you help me find its general origin? — Isaac Shmukler

So far, it seems to be what a bunch of people say it is, period. That's not going to resolve any arguments. I think more thinking is required, which is never going to happen until ignorance is acknowledged.

An important group is not required, unless one wants it to be importantly beautiful.

One person. Ok. The experience would seem to comprise an extensive and complex set of sub-experiences that in themselves are not easy to characterize. First: are the actions or reactions?

If that is what you meant to ask. These sub-experiences are reactions, I would say.

If reactions, then arguably caused by the external something - let's call her a ballerina, yes? The difficulty here is that if caused, then the effect ought to be the same in different people, yes?

There could be a cultural factor or some other reasons causing individuals to react differently to the same ballerina.

Then we're back to in the beholder. The question becomes, I suppose, "Is the ballerina beautiful?" Yes? Or no?

Let's look through the entire life of a single individual, why is it that some things are beautiful to his eyes and some aren't?

An impossible question, even as to one thing in one moment! Let's try this approach: is the beautiful a matter of psychology?

I will try to answer my question and you are welcome to comment.
I have found a common factor to the phenomenon of beauty: The extent by which the object seems to be designed thoughtfully. The more an object gives this impression the more it will be beautiful.
This is of course, not scientific, but many examples confirm this theory.
Again, the more there is an impression that there is a "thought behind" the object, the more the object will be beautiful.

This is why sophistication and symmetry very often contribute to beauty.
A chaotic art is not a disproof to this theory since its chaotic effect is intentional.

Any intended simplicity is also merely another kind of sophistication.

is the beautiful a matter of psychology? — tim wood

What is the other possibility?
(I am afraid that we will continue only later since I have to go now.)

I have found a common factor to the phenomenon of beauty — Isaac Shmukler

Now beauty is a phenomenon?

How about this: something is beautiful when someone says it is. That is, it is entirely subjective. But it's a fair question to ask how or why or by what criteria someone holds something to be beautiful. And it is equally fair to disagree.

It's possible that after a number of such interviews, some criteria will emerge as common to beauty. Are they beauty? I think not. What then is common to them and is that beauty? It seems to me that at even if at some level of abstraction you arrive at one thing or set of things that seem always to attend the beautiful, that none of them are beauty itself.

That leaves beauty in the beholder. Now you can turn to Kant's Critique of Judgment - and good luck with that!

t.v. movies and fashion magazines probally has a hand in this...

; ;

Beauty can be both objective and subjective. Objectivity and subjectivity do not necessarily negate each other. Suppose we defined beauty as the aspect of attraction in something. Isn't that as objective as it is subjective?

Sure, but who decides? Beauty - the beautiful - is a tough nut to crack.

Beauty is a relationship - both objective and subjective. Because everything in LIFE is dependent upon each other, therefore, everything in LIFE has the capacity to attract another and has beauty as an inherent quality. However, there is also the beauty that is a real-time relationship between aspects that are in a particular phase of activity/interrelation - this is relative and subjective.

For example: Suppose you live somewhere in the Alps and outside your house is a most captivating scenery. However, due to the demands of your employment there is never time to enjoy that beauty. Now, also, suppose your neighbour is a work/stay-at-home individual who wakes up every morning and meditates to the beautiful scenery. Though such is the predominant state of their relation to the Alps' beauty, it does not take away from it. At any time, should they wish and for whatever reasons, any of them could ignore that beauty as much as they could appreciate it. That is what free-will is about - CHOICE. To me, ugly just means a lack of appreciation!

I'm not against anyone's definition of beauty. I am against definitions that aren't good definitions. Above you say that "beauty is a relationship." In the next sentence you say that things have beauty as an inherent quality. This has to be fixed. But what I don't think you're getting is that you're aimed at a criteriological understanding, which is exactly not what the beautiful is. So the first thing to decide is if beauty is any kind of thing at all. If yes, its quiddities and special features.

If you decide that beauty just is not any sort of thing at all, that might be correct. But it calls for an account of just what it is that beauty refers to - that isn't beauty itself.

To me, beauty is just my feeling about something. The feeling, like all other emotions, vacillates through time and circumstances changes.

You fail to understand how both absoluteness and relativity, or objectivity and subjectivity, interrelate with each other. An inherent quality is also a relationship. To give an example closer to home:

Dna is an inherent quality in our genetic make-up. However, it is also a relationship in the sense that multifarious dominant and recessive factors combine to give the specific outcome that we are. It expresses both the overall person as well as the multiple channels of activity.

Allow me to explain in principles:

The truth, though singular and unyielding, cannot be expressed only in unity. If that were the case, then there would be no multiplicity. The ultimate is also the fundamental; the greatest is the simplest. That which is absolute is also the most relative. Hence LIFE is not just the whole but the individual as well.

Beauty is an aspect of the absolute, but only with respect to its relative aspects. If beauty was the quality of attraction in the absolute only, what would it be attracting? There would be nothing beyond itself to attract, else, it would not be absolute. However, because it operates in the whole through the many, it is both a principle and a relationship. It defines both identity and activity.
Another analogy would be a comparison with sense perception. Not only are we aware of our whole body as one, but also of each appendage independently though not detached. We can move one arm or leg while the other remains dormant even though sensation is continuously active in both.
The fundamental principle of beauty is the same - it is present within all life, though, by its activity, particular areas can be exemplified over others depending on choice.

As an identity, we can speak of that or that being the beauty of something. As a relationship, we can also speak of beauty as being in our perception, that is, in our minds, thoughts, emotions, feelings, sentiments, etc. Unfortunately, our language, as yet, does not filter perspective and cannot differentiate between subjectivity and objectivity without giving a lengthy and often tiresome discussion.

[When science discovered the atom, it proclaimed it to be the fundamental of life. Years later, simpler configurations have been discovered, but because the language is still the same, we find that we keep shifting from one ultimate to another. Scientists want to claim that what they have discovered is the furthest in human knowledge, though, over the years, philosophy has proved that literal fact and practical fact are not the same. Science works in literal activity while philosophy works in practical activity. Hence, philosophy, however primitive it may be, realized that the world was a globe thousands of years before science saw that it was.]