A long, a short, a thin, a thick, one beautiful, all the same to it's identity.

It happens every once in a while and everytime it happens the joy is great.

Cause we are all the same, allthough different and unique.

Maybe it was the desire for more that clouded us? That made us leave that one beautiful so that we had more choice?

Cause as it is now, some are beautiful, some are hard to place, but the rest are ugly.

No one is ugly. I'm sure there are extreme cases, some is seen as ugly almost as if it were standard ugliness. But really when seen how that person reflects it's personality he/she cannot be said to be ugly. Maybe not pretty, or nice, or beautiful, but why should we classify people as such? There are one beautiful, have your eyes at her (or him if you are a girl) hey! you don't need to stare! the rest are normal people, people that should be treated with their identity (not with their looks!).

It's that way.

I'm sure many liked to keep it that way. At least until they discovered that the same eyes that called others ugly looked at them too.

This is for the individual, and is a individual view, it is one pointer to a place where we used to be. We can still be there.

So what is the point of this thread? "No one is ugly"?

So what is the point of this thread? "No one is ugly"?That is not the point of the thread, ugliness is a point of perception.

The point of this thread, is that everyone is unique and their value shouldn't be determined by their looks. The one who adapts this view also see that no one really is ugly, allthough many people are nice looking, but it's a consequence of the change of perception, what matters is not that no one is ugly, what matters is that everyone is unique and their identity should be treated with that in mind, instead of the looks.

Or do you want all girls to be like Paris Hilton?

Sure...but what about the truly nice things that is buried deep down Paris? The girls don't know what that is, they only imitate the looks, in return loose their own identity (was that too strong?), since the look of Paris don't necessarily have to do with the outside, but the inside as well. As such any girl if bringing forth what they have inside, can be just as good looking as any star (with their identity intact).

If they don't loose their identity (which some girls (I can imagine) feel they do) they at least don't show it to people around them, making us think they are thinner than they really are (and probably enhance the view of some that think they are meat - for sexual purpouses only).

Am I NOT onto something?

I don't think so...


What you're saying is that perception is specific to the experiencer.

Well.... A=A.

I don't think so...


What you're saying is that perception is specific to the experiencer.

Well.... A=A.We don't know A.

Perception is unique to whom is percepting and he values it with his own preferences.

But what we perceive is the same.

We see the same picture. But we interpret it differently.

To perceive a picture is to see it. But to understand it is to interpret it.

What you are thinking of is perceiving an idea. Idea in itself is in itself unique to everyone, therefor we can perceive the idea differently from eachother. But a painting is perceived the same for anyone.

This is not the only thing I say though, and it is NOT what matters in this thread.

We don't know A.


You miss my point. By analogy, I was simply pointing out that your statement was tautologous, and therefore, pointless.



Perception is unique to whom is percepting and he values it with his own preferences.


Which was my point.



But what we perceive is the same.


Incorrect. Or at the very least, unprovable. This point of view assumes an independent objective reality obtains. Moreover (and more importantly), it assumes that theoretically, we could come to have knowledge of this.

The simple fact that we are each individuals denies this possibility (barring telekinesis... lol).


We see the same picture. But we interpret it differently.


See above.
And of course we interpret it differently; it would be impossible to do otherwise.


To perceive a picture is to see it. But to understand it is to interpret it.


This directly contradicts your previous statement.

One cannot perceive without interpreting.

Ugly and beautiful are as ugly and beautiful do.

You miss my point. By analogy, I was simply pointing out that your statement was tautologous, and therefore, pointless.I know that you were, but the thing is that it isn't pointless or I wouldn't have written it. It isn't pointless from my perspective, so if it is pointless in your perspective then it could be interesting for you to figure out why it is meaningful in mine.





Which was my point.Yes, but that wasn't the essence of my starting post (no one is ugly wasn't the essence either, but you are getting there).





Incorrect. Or at the very least, unprovable. This point of view assumes an independent objective reality obtains. Moreover (and more importantly), it assumes that theoretically, we could come to have knowledge of this.When unprovable we should assume what our senses tell us, no need to fool those in vain. When in doubt we should assume what has the most meaning, why disappointment when we have the chance of triumph, we allready believe in the highest meaning, all else is disappointment.

The simple fact that we are each individuals denies this possibility (barring telekinesis... lol).Still we should assume that the world looks more or less the same for everyone. Allthough I can stretch myself to believe that each person perceive the world through a slightly different filter, but still see the same colours (if not colourblind or other faults), the same shapes, etc. as I would if in the same perspective.


This directly contradicts your previous statement.

One cannot perceive without interpreting.Yes I can. I'm one of those who daydream alot, if I feel like it my eyes can be fixated at a point, and I just glare into space. There is no interpretation, but there is perception. It's also very, very relaxing to do so.

So I know that it's possible to perceive without interpreting. We also perceive of alot of things that we don't interpret, not to say that we only interpret what we focus on, but close to that. Some of the details that we didn't interpret gets interpreted in dreams instead.

I know that you were, but the thing is that it isn't pointless or I wouldn't have written it. It isn't pointless from my perspective, so if it is pointless in your perspective then it could be interesting for you to figure out why it is meaningful in mine.


Fair enough, everyone's entitled to their opinion, but this isn't the Opinion section. Being tautologous, it is pointless. So, unless you're prepared to invalidate formal logic, or come up with a new one, you need to explain how it's not both tautologous and pointless.




Yes, but that wasn't the essence of my starting post (no one is ugly wasn't the essence either, but you are getting there).


lol
Falling to ad hominem ???
That's unlike you...



When unprovable we should assume what our senses tell us, no need to fool those in vain. When in doubt we should assume what has the most meaning, why disappointment when we have the chance of triumph, we allready believe in the highest meaning, all else is disappointment.


With this, I have to agree. Pragmatically sound, I have no problem with this. Still, it must be kept in mind that when working from a hypothesis (..there is an objective reality..)we are always bound by the principle of verification, and therefore it only takes one single case to disconfirm the entire hypothesis.



Still we should assume that the world looks more or less the same for everyone. Allthough I can stretch myself to believe that each person perceive the world through a slightly different filter, but still see the same colours (if not colourblind or other faults), the same shapes, etc. as I would if in the same perspective.


I wouldn't go so far as to say "should", but again, pragmatically, a sound policy.



Yes I can. I'm one of those who daydream alot, if I feel like it my eyes can be fixated at a point, and I just glare into space. There is no interpretation, but there is perception. It's also very, very relaxing to do so.

So I know that it's possible to perceive without interpreting. We also perceive of alot of things that we don't interpret, not to say that we only interpret what we focus on, but close to that. Some of the details that we didn't interpret gets interpreted in dreams instead.


Well, i can't possibly deny your experiences, but theoretically, I would claim that you are indeed still interpreting. Perhaps not actively, but interpretation nonetheless. Pure perception, sans interpretation, IMO, would necessitate a 'blank spot' in memory.

Fair enough, everyone's entitled to their opinion, but this isn't the Opinion section. Being tautologous, it is pointless. So, unless you're prepared to invalidate formal logic, or come up with a new one, you need to explain how it's not both tautologous and pointless.Well, what I was saying is that each person has it's own identity, personality etc., each person is unique.

Therefor, there shouldn't be comparisons made between people, and without comparisons no one really is ugly, but the "ugliest" for a person would be to see her/him as his/hers identity and not romanticise about it as we would with beautiful people.

Do you see what I mean? There is no ugly. But only "not beautiful", and when seen as "not beautiful" is to simply just recognise the person from her/his personality. As a matter of "fact/oppinion" to say "not beautiful" is wrong too, since we are not judging the bodily look, but the look of the personality.




lol
Falling to ad hominem ???
That's unlike you...I was serious, it wasn't the essence of this thread. In the sum of points in this thread "no one is ugly" is present, in the sum of points in this thread "Perception is unique to whom is percepting and he values it with his own preferences" is also present, but not the essence of it.

The essence of this post is not bound to the observer, but bound to what he is observing.

In the base of things, it may come down to my "taste" of things, for me flowers looks much the same, but to a flowerist each flower has a unique characteristic, and he would probably argue that no flower is ugly.

The same with paintings if you are a painter or just a simple observer (etc. etc.)

Indeed we judge things differently depending on who we are, but if we take any kind of logic into this, wouldn't it be that everyone is unique by themselves and shouldn't be compared with other people.

You might say that we don't actually compare them to other people, but rather compare them to our taste, in which we find some characteristics of people beautiful, and some characteristics of people ugly. However, it is my belief based on my own experiances that when we think of someone as ugly, it is because we have had bad experiances with someone with a similiar look (we might have been angry at someone, or someone has displayed a anger against you etc., so you start to see her/him as ugly, then it goes on to others which you find ugly because they look like the first person).

I may of course be wrong with this. For example there is the golden section (I think that was what it was called) which is the ratio between the longer part and the shorter of (any?) part of the body, I think it should be around 1.61 or something like that. Most things in nature have this number, and the closer to 1.61 it is, the more attractive it seems to be. Also in math this number is important and probably where the name comes from.

However, that is just info for the curious (like me!) and is NOT important...well not THAT important for the essence of this thread.




With this, I have to agree. Pragmatically sound, I have no problem with this. Still, it must be kept in mind that when working from a hypothesis (..there is an objective reality..)we are always bound by the principle of verification, and therefore it only takes one single case to disconfirm the entire hypothesis.Yes, and hopefully, when disconfirmed, you get to know where you were wrong, so that you may correct it while the essence is unaltered (it's too important of an essence to be discarded without many, many trials).





Well, i can't possibly deny your experiences, but theoretically, I would claim that you are indeed still interpreting. Perhaps not actively, but interpretation nonetheless. Pure perception, sans interpretation, IMO, would necessitate a 'blank spot' in memory.Well, with interpretation I mean, active interpretation, as in aware interpretation. I realise that judging beautifulness in people might be an inactive interpretation, as in unaware interpretation, but I argue that at some time in that persons life, it should have been an active interpretation which somehow set the standard. Much like we learn to drive a car, and we have to think about everything we do, but then it goes to the inactive part where we more or less just have to will in order to drive.

Habit I guess, anyhow, there shouldn't take THAT much to recognise peoples personality, instead of judging their looks as ugly. I really don't think so. I have see alot of people that some probably would say was ugly, but I just don't see them that way, allthough I have seen them in the past. Smile and the world smiles with you, I guess.