This is a bit tangent to the subject, but I was struck by the statement, "If your vision is normal and my vision is normal and we are both in favorable lighting conditions we should agree on which objects are red, which green, and so forth."
Aren't we forever seperated from actually knowing wether we are percieving those colors in the same way? For example, what if I see what you call red when I look at something you call the color green? As a child each time my parents pointed at an object and said, "green" it taught me that the color I was percieving at that moment was called green. But it no way lets me know wether or not my parents were percieving that color in the same way I did. All I have really learned is that when that wavelegth of light excites the rods and cones of my retina, I should describe the experience as "green" if I wish to communicate it to someone else.
It is a problematic issue throughout our discourses. If I talk about a table, you understand basically what I am saying, but I have no control or understanding of what image and ideas occur to you when you hear the word. I may think of a modern danish table, while your brain interprets the word as an 18th century French piece.
Sorry it's a bit afield of the discussion, but it is a pervasive and interesting problem.

While one may not be able to provide sufficient conditions for intersubjective agreements, I stil think we can try to provide those that are necesary. Now, if we could find those, wouldn't it be enough to use those to argue that the disagreement arises out of these necesary conditions not being satisfied.
例如，就像你指出的，一个人必须首先具备必要的能力，比如拥有能够感知物体的器官。色盲的人无法欣赏某种颜色混合的和谐。同样，音盲也不能完全欣赏音乐。如果我们将这些论点外推到我们区分事物的精细程度，难道我们就不能充分解释在品味问题上存在分歧的原因吗?
我的其中一个论点如下。有几件事会妨碍我们欣赏一件物品，或者更具体地说，它的“美”。一个人可能心情不好。一个人的注意力可能不够集中。我能想到很多原因。从本质上讲，我想说的是，我们在经验中观察到的“明显的”主观性或相对性，是由于没有满足某些必要条件而产生的。
I can also think of other weaker arguments like the problem of ego. The fact that one is unable to appreciate a certain beautiful object immediately causes ones ego to spring into action and say, "I don't understand this and I certainly don't like this. Since I know that beauty is subjective, there is no reason why I should like or dislike this. I can very well pronounce a fully justified, yet opposite judgement" This seems to me the most common reason that people get away making erroneous judgements about matters of taste. Somehow, in today's modern and democratic world, objective moral and aesthetic values have become notions entwined with authoritarianism and intolerance. These seem to be even more forceful in leading people to some extreme forms of subjectivism and relativism leading to the trivialization, and ultimately, the destruction of the very notion of beauty.

I think that the beauty is subjective and has several dimesions depending upon the knowledge of the observer. For example, the perception of things of a particle physicist would be entirely different than the person who is unfamliar with the atomic structure of materials. Also beauty depends upon the mental state, for example I remember from my student days that nothing appeared beautiul to me just before the tedious test. Here are my suggestions or postulates to experience things at the highest level of beauty:
1. Everything and experience is infinitely beautiful unless it proves otherwise.
2、认为事物是无限美丽的，只要它们不会对我们的健康造成不良影响。例如，二氧化碳并不是无限美丽的，因为呼吸它会导致健康问题。另一方面，玫瑰是无限美丽的，因为它们的气味不会引起任何不良反应(除非人们对气味过敏)。
3. The person perceiving beauty should have good concept of infinity otherwise he/she would not be able to perceive beauty at the peak levels.
4. Beauty is language dependent therefore to perceive beauty at higher levels one should learn new languages or try to improve the existing language.
Thank you.

1. Humans give the truth of beauty to nature through the use of thought.
2. One thing will be beautiful one person, and not to another due to differences in education.
3. The highest determination of beauty will be through the application of a priori concepts and Categories.
4. There is some beauty which cannot be rationalized such as the sublime.
5. Feeling has been described as amongst the lowest form of thought, but how is it applied to beauty.
6. The application of the Concepts of Space and Time is the most direct link to beauty e.g. Locke's primary's qualities.
7. Then there is Eros.

In the eyes of the beholder there are millions of you, but in the moment of truth there is only one of us.
在观者的眼中，有无数新的时刻在支配必然性的动态和美的表现。然而，只有一种品质不受时间、空间和感知的影响，那就是，我们需要理解美的同一种表现形式，也就是美的真实原因。美的根本原因是普遍的创造需要存在于困惑对称的和谐交换中，这是我们现实的纯粹本质。
The source of beauty is creation itself. The necessity to exist and perfect oneself is the ultimate goal of the soul. Perception about beauty changes according to one?s given circumstance and one?s ability to deal with its dynamics. In the light of existence everything tends to perfect itself, because everything wants to exist within the circle of the inseparable unity of ONE. In the circle of one, beauty has its meaning and purpose. Any motion in space, existence of time in the moment of living, and all of life?s characteristics that make this world appear as such, are the ultimate manifestation of beauty, which finds its home in our brilliant ability to perceive and acknowledge its existence, keeping us constantly in love with life itself, and that is the highest sentiment of beauty.

According to Plato the goal of Man and Eros is not Beauty, but reproduction in birth in beauty. I will not continue to repeat the old philosophy of Plato concerning Beauty, but try to bring a new explanation concerning Beauty. In my first interpretation Beauty is synonymous with Power. The second interpretation is that Beauty has to do with Symmetry.
尼采关心的是权力意志。我认为尼采会将他的理论命名为，对美的意志。有美丽的外表，力量被认为是美丽的，数学对一些人来说是美丽的，艺术是美丽的，音乐是美丽的，艺术和科学是美丽的，等等。任何能给你力量或本身有力量的东西都可以被视为美丽。事实上，我认为这两个词的意思其实是一样的，只是这两个词的解释不同，美是女性的，力量是男性的。尽管这两个词看起来不同，但它们是同一个意思。
第二种解释是，美与对称有关。有很多电视节目都展示了具有对称特征的人脸比没有对称特征的人脸更有吸引力。这些电视记者看到了这两个概念之间的联系，但是，难道不是吗?t know how they connect exactly.
虽然记者们不知道为什么这种相关性存在，但约翰·洛克在检查第一、第二和第三品质时就知道了这种相关性。在完成一篇关于洛克的文章后?我注意到他的主要品质可以通过对称性来判断。然后我想起了讨论对称与美之间关系的电视节目。
下面是洛克吗?S解释他的品质。洛克指出，无论心灵自身知觉到什么，或者知觉的直接对象是什么，叫做想法。他把在我们头脑中产生想法的能力称为一种品质。有三种类型的品质:第一、第二和第三。
According to Locke primary qualities are inseparable from the body no matter what force is placed upon it. The primary qualities are found in every particle which is able to be perceived. If you take the example of a grain of wheat and divide it into parts, it still has the primary qualities of ?solidity, extension, figure, and mobility.? The grains of wheat retain the primary qualities no matter how many times they are divided, until the division becomes insensible. The primary qualities produce in us, ?solidity, extension, figure, motion or rest, and number.?
According to Locke secondary qualities are not in the object itself but have the power to produce in us sensations through the primary qualities; the secondary qualities are also known as sensible qualities. The primary qualities, ?bulk, figure, texture, and motion? produce in us the secondary qualities ?colours, sounds, tastes, etc..? The tertiary qualities are barely qualities, and are defined by Locke, ?For the power in fire to produce a new colour or consistence in wax or clay by its primary qualities, is as much a quality in fire as the power it has to produce in me a new idea or sensation of warmth or burning, which I felt not before, by the same primary qualities, viz., the bulk, texture, and motion of its insensible parts.? The tertiary qualities are also known as powers and depend on the primary qualities.
The primary qualities of ?extension, figure, number, and motion of bodies,? come through the perceivers eyes and produces ideas in us. The secondary qualities are not in the objects themselves, but have powers to produce sensations in us, and depend on the primary qualities. The primary qualities that we perceive are actual resemblances to the primary qualities in the object, but the secondary qualities that we perceive are thought to be resemblances but are not resemblances in the object. The tertiary qualities are not thought to be resemblances in the object and are not resemblances in the object. The primary qualities alone exist and are real. The secondary qualities do not exist because they need the perceiver in order to be experienced, if we take away our senses from our body then the secondary qualities do not exist
These primary qualities are important in perceiving Beauty. The primary qualities ?solidity, extension, figure, and mobility? are similar to Kant?s a priori qualities as Space and Time. In my view symmetrical objects are perceived as Beautiful because they are more easily to perceive by the human consciousness than a symmetrical objects. The human mind seeks order in the world. It is through making order of the world that we survive.

beautiful and uly are two extreme concepts and thus become absolute questions that are difficult to define or explain. beauty is a concept to explain what exists and what will always exist.

There's a difference between integrated and non-integrated knowledge, relative to the concept of beauty. Integrated knowledge will come from the genius of the philosophy of aesthetics, and non-integrated knowledge will come from everyone else. Know the genius and know the truth about beauty.

How do you know that the appreciation of beauty by genius is not a lie? I would rather go with what nature considers beauty than what philosophical scholars describe as beauty. I would rather go with what the masses consider to be beauty than what a few scholars would describe as beauty. There is more of a chance that this is closer to the real beauty in nature. Beauty is linked to survival and for the masses not to know this beauty would mean that they would not survive. There is more of a chance that scholars could be deceiving themselves into believing that beauty is something different or higher than what is ingrained in the masses. They might have even deluded themselves to the point in which they are not even speaking the language of beauty, when they think they are. The appreciation of beauty by scholars may even be deluded due to what they have been taught, not knowing that what they have been taught has been created to support another purpose than the truth, some social structure.

Homer,
Let me clue you in. The genius of the philosophy of aesthetics is understood in relation to the christ of christianity or the buddha of buddhism. They are of a class above the philosopher or the scholar. It sounds like you suffer from sheep mentality, who are led to an open shame. In a dark non-integrated age, such as this one, people can think and do what they want. But, when the genius turns on the integrated light, his subjects who come to recognize their subjection to him, will be separated from the sheep who remain lost. The subjection to the genius is based on the fact that the genius is the one who is enlightened, and that enlightenment is based on the transcendence of the "object" of art. From the perspective of the genius, when an individual creates an object, they are understood as the individual who created that object. The genius' enlightenment makes it so there is nothing hidden from them. ( the seer ) The genius can separate the good trees, who bare good fruit, from the bad tree, who bares bad fruit.
Homer, a question for you. In your lifetime, have you bared a good fruit, and if you could, give me an example. Let's see if it passes the genius test. The key is to do a service that integrates the community. I'm sorry to say that selling insurance or a lawyer doesn't qualify, if that helps you at all.
The title of this topic should of been "Beauty and the subjection to the genius".

我不同意一个人需要他的个人?耶稣还是佛陀?看到真正的美。我知道有一个比学者和哲学家、祭司或神学阶层更高的阶层，但我不相信这个阶层需要存在。真理不仅是大自然赋予少数人的，也是给予那些愿意并能够聆听大自然声音的人的。目标不是让人类群体由牧师(包括美学教育家)领导，而是让每个人都能够引导自己走向真理，让每个人都继承真理。
天才欺骗自己相信只有他能看到美。他也许能以一种非常精细的欣赏眼光看到美。他们对美的欣赏和语言可以如此精细，以至于他们不再说美的共同语言，可能会走出美的界限。
This age is not dark and non-integrated, it just is. The idea that an individual should subject himself to another human, because that person has deemed himself a genius is absurd. A true genius is not looking for followers; he is looking for people to free themselves and to become independent thinkers. The people who do not follow the genius are not lost. Those you consider to be lost know true beauty, though they cannot describe it.
Scholars are deluding themselves if they think that they are the only ones who know true beauty. Geniuses would be deluding themselves if they think they have to lead others into beauty. The appreciation of beauty exists in the mind of every human being/common man, not only in scholars, seers, and priests.
At the very core of every human mind there is a mechanism of the appreciation of beauty. I am seeking to understand this mechanism. It is not complicated though people are very forgetful of it, unless they have a mental affinity for it.
到目前为止，我确信埃及人对马的看法是正确的。或平衡。这一观点与内稳态和对称的观点一起被带入了现在。还有亚里士多德?中庸之道。至于那种认为一种行为要美丽就必须融入社会的想法，我认为是荒谬的。美丽很简单;它存在于人类的思想中。

Homer,
We are in complete disagreement. I'm going to leave at that. You've heard of the saying "don't cast your pearls before swine". I'm sorry to say it applies here.

The solution to the problem lies in a constructivist, rather than an essentialist approach to beauty. Beauty is not something which is "out there" as an essence waiting to be uncovered, rather, it is the result of gradual processes of association, i.e. the maturation of the discerning mind. When I learn to appreciate something - for instance, good wine - I do so by learning to associate the color, smell, and taste of the wine with sensations I find pleasing in myself and in dialogue with others. This is how the great human crafts, such as wine-making, evolve and mature. It's a mistake to think in terms of an abstract, essentialist, definition of beauty. Rather, beauty is more like a practice, a learned habit.

如果你觉悟了，你就会知道有一种真理，一种方式，一种生活，一种美。你能解释美与艺术及其历史的关系，与人类意识的进化的关系吗?我是一名教师，就这种理解而言。Colby，如果你是或者曾经是一个艺术家，被赋予了成为并成为美学哲学的天才的天赋，你就是我。通过你的评论，我可以看出你的生活远没有达到任何看起来有意义和完整的东西。如果我错了，请另行告知。确保你的正直与整合有关，比如艺术、科学、哲学、宗教、思想、身体、精神、灵魂，... .如果不是，请理解你的评论是狗屎。

Pythagoras: Beauty is Harmony
Sophists and Pre-Socratics: Beauty is Pleasure
Socrates: Beauty is the measure of how good something performs its function. Beauty cannot be separated from function.

Homer,
Those guys were philosophers. A prophet of beauty knows what beauty is, based on their own doing, and that the artist's or philosopher's attempt to capture it is futile. Know this truth, and you will know the truth about beauty. If you claim to know anything about beauty, tell me about it in relation to your own knowing and doing. Jesus said that you can teach of what you have seen. Homer, what have you seen?

This age is not dark and non-integrated, it just is. The idea that an individual should subject himself to another human, because that person has deemed himself a genius is absurd. A true genius is not looking for followers; he is looking for people to free themselves and to become independent thinkers. The people who do not follow the genius are not lost. Those you consider to be lost know true beauty, though they cannot describe it.

Does anyone know of any text that either Freud of Jung wrote concerning the "mania" described by Plato.
I found the following interesting paragraph in a book, "Philosophies of Art and Beauty" by Hugh Bredin:
这种神力激发的狂热的理论，作为一种礼物被赐予，是后来所有神秘主义和狂喜艺术理论的基础。它也为后续的理论奠定了基础，即艺术生产所需的心理过程中，无意识和无意识因素。通过普罗提努斯和伪狄奥尼修斯等新柏拉图主义者的调解，它强烈影响了中世纪早期——例如维多利亚时代——并在文艺复兴时期和浪漫主义时期再次出现。它的最新表现是弗洛伊德和荣格所支持的无意识灵感影响理论。"
我对荣格的作品特别感兴趣。这本书没有给出任何确切的文本，无论是弗洛伊德或荣格。

starbox,
The integration, which I'm claiming to have completed and became enlightened to is based on the arts, sciences, philosophy, science, and mind/body/spirit/soul. Currently, these conponents are non-integrated, and because of that this age is dark, it just is. ( Homer is a perfect example. ) Starbox, who do you subject yourself to? Have you ever had an integrated teacher, who could increase your integrity, and at the same time increase your intelligence? I'm going to figure you haven't, by your comment.
you said,
“真正的天才不寻找追随者;他希望人们能够解放自己，成为独立的思考者。不追随天才的人是不会迷失的。那些你认为已经迷失的人，虽然无法用语言描述，却知道真正的美。"
With a comment like that, I don't know why I'm bothering to respond. Though don't feel bad, your normal is this society. I should just let you and Homer work this out for yourselves. On that note, I think I will.

If you're a genius, Ken, then why can you not understand the use of simple grammar?

What is more important the Form or the expression of the form. When a person sees a form something in their mind processes it. The person cannot even control how their mind processes the form, but the form will have an effect. An effect so powerful it can almost enslave the mind. The mind itself is betrayed because it cannot change the processes in it that interact with the form. But the form is so powerful. Enslaved by forms. Now their are gods among us who themselves are the forms that enslave us.

if you hold it the case that there is a mental world and a physical world that are separate (a la Descartes) how do you tell whether the object of your attention is mental or physical? How do you cleanly separate mental and physical given the ambiguity of those ideas and other ideas such as concept? It will come down to one person saying they see directly or appeerceive or some such, that there is a world separate from a mental realm and another saying they don't see it at all. One says they see there is a world independent of the mind and another says they don't see it.
That such categories as mental and physical can be useful or convenient seems clear but that they are necessary or useful or even relevant in all contexts of life seems eminently dubitable. What seems more accurate to say of the world is that there are different points of view in different contexts of life. It is fine to spin out arguments pro and con concerning a presumed distinction between mental and physical or some other such category but I think it will get you no closer to universal consensus about any aspect of the issue. The party in the majority will dominate but there will always be a minority dissent. I think it is time to face it-- if universal assent to some set of propositions is unachievable then why make it the goal of philosophy-- ---to aim for the unachievable seems delusional.
当然，哲学的伟大之处在于，我们可能会争论什么是妄想，什么是可实现的，什么是不可实现的。
But what would philosophy be aimed at then if not universal assent? It would be aimed at truth separated from the chimeric goal of universal assent; it would be truth as it arises in the individual who then links with others of like mind and argues against others with a different truth. Philosophy would continue as before
但不需要执着于寻找一组不容置疑的陈述。
Individual truth is my label for a conception of truth wherein truth is not relative truth to the one in whom in arises---it is the truth (in both a subjective an objective sense) it is indubitable, it is conviction--but it can be replaced by another truth that arises subsequently. This is a conception of truth that acknowledges time--- truth as dynamic rather than truth as timeless uniform and static.
In my conception os dynamic truth truth arises and operates and is indubitable in one context and when the context changes, another truth arises and is just as indubitable and replaces the other. The one fades and the next arises as indubitale as any one unchanging truth because when it arises it arises as indubitable--- it is just not irreplacable as universal truth would be. Whatever truth is in a particular context or point in time or situation, is truth, but that truth can be and is replaced. In other words truth is a serial thing not a fixed thing; the idea of a permanently fixed and static truth is inaccurate. Truth in context is fixed and static and indubitable (indubitability is what defines truth, yes?) until the context changes and it is replaced by the truth arising in that next context.
The physicist leaves his collider and goes to buy bananas-- the physics truth is replaced by the produce store truth and then the get in the car truth and then the go home truth and so on. I leave my position here in front of the computer and the ideas I espouse here, the truths arising in this context, are replaced by the
commute home truth and the eat dinner truth and so on.
suppose I think of a philosophical problem all day. Is it the same context or different if I think in my car or the gym or my bathtub?
But the question arises is my definition of changing context ambiguous? how to tell when a context is changed? rather than a different truth arising in the same context? And this points out the ambiguity of words
and resulting ambiguity in definitions of truth or any other term. Is there such a thing as a concept apart from the concept of concept? Some will say yes some no.
Assumptions and definitions will vary. It all remains
an open question.
也许最终，最简单、最广泛的真理似乎是问题最少的:“某事发生了”——这是我们对这个世界所能说的一切，尽管我们对“某事发生了”的华丽、复杂和冗长的表达让我们似乎说了更多的东西。
When I leave this room I will think of other things and
other truths, other states of affairs and ideas of states of affairs will arise.

The notion of beauty is in for a bigger upset than at any time in history since the proliferation of the mirror. Move over Rubens!

当然，虽然我们都同意，虽然许多人可能认为美是主观的，但有一个客观主义的“公式”的美。看看阿奎那(Aquinas)的比例、完整性和澄清度，这似乎很有道理。如果美只存在于观者的眼中，那么在我看来，这就意味着在我们关于美与非、恶与非、善与恶的道德定义上，笼罩着一片令人心酸的阴云。

Yes Nathan, i thoroughly agree and i believe that you have raised a very poignant point. Everyone must be lost for words as they haven't commented. Very insightful.

This really helped with my philosophy homework on "What is beautiful to modern society." Thanks alot!

Logically speaking, when somebody is going to the gym, in order to achieve the maximum aesthetic result he tries to workout muscles of both sides(left and right) equally, in order to achieve the maximum symmetry possible!!That is very difficult because people are either left handed or right handed, and normally one side is more trained than the other.this leads to small body asymmetries , because the more trained side is slightly more massive than the other side!!
同样的事情也发生在脸部。构成脸的是骨骼、皮肤和肌肉。我们知道，一边和另一边的相似程度越高，这张脸就越有吸引力。这是对称。这是什么意思?个人如何介入并提升它的美?当然，迄今为止，科学还不能改变骨骼，创造出完美对称的头骨。这一点非常关键，因为骨骼的形状在很大程度上决定了对称性和美感。没有人能仅仅通过移植克劳迪娅·希弗斯的皮肤就能让一个丑陋的女人变美，因为皮下的骨头会帮助丑陋留在那里。
One other parameter of a faces attractiveness are the underlying muscles.No one has absolutely symmetrical muscles, because muscles from the dominant side are more used, and that leads to small asymmetries in left side and right side muscle fibers.I really wonder if someone can intervene in that with some techniques,and which are these, and create equal sided muscles.I also wonder if the creation of identical sized muscles on both sizes can enhance, even slightly, the beauty of a face.I think that studies must be made in that direction

Vincent van Gogh painted several night scenes and became fascinated with depicting the stars (most famously with his Starry Night paintings) and the light effects of the night. Van Gogh has achieved an effect of luminosity with the use of contrasting colors and tones. The darks compliment the lights, the blues intensify the oranges, and the purples bring out the yellows.
Van Gogh wrote about the Cafe Terrace at Night painting in a letter to his sister, saying "Here you have a night painting without black, with nothing but beautiful blue and violet and green and in this surrounding the illuminated area colors itself sulfur pale yellow and citron green. It amuses me enormously to paint the night right on the spot. Normally, one draws and paints the painting during the daytime after the sketch. But I like to paint the thing immediately.
的确，在黑暗中，我可以把蓝色当作绿色，把蓝色的紫丁香当作粉色的紫丁香，因为很难区分色调的好坏。但这是唯一能让我们远离传统的夜晚的方法，因为只有微弱的苍白的光线，而即使是一根简单的蜡烛，也已经为我们提供了最丰富的黄色和橙色。"
The cafe still exists today and is a popular destination for those following the footsteps of Vincent van Gogh.

the doubly subjective, not only dependant on minds for its existence

I think I get the point, just don?t agree 100 percent. Some movies are not for everybody and some movies are just plain bad. If someone wants to say Catwoman, Wild Wild West, Batman and Robin, Battlefield Earth, Babylon A.D. etc, are OK films or enjoyable, that is one thing but it is another to say those movies are the greatest of all time. I don?t even know how anyone could argue a movie is great when the people involved in making it even say its bad.

I find that beauty is such a personal thing. I love beauty of silence. Total complete silence...and stillness. the scent of a flower completely in bloom. the simplicity and perfection of a breeze at the top of a mountain. the intricacies of snowflake. the shadow of a bonnet across a mother's face at 4:00. the sensation i get from the scent of a ripe meyer lemon. an old flag that no longer bears meaning. an uncut line of love from a complete stranger gazing out of the window of a passing train. these are moments of sheen and beauty to me that most try to capture in a painting or a sculpture or a film... these are the personal moments of beauty that I have experienced as such and that remind me I am alive.

我不同意，我认为美不仅仅是表面的。女人越了解她，就越美丽。我想，如果你在浏览一本杂志，你就会发现肤浅的东西。但在现实生活中，一个第一眼有吸引力的女人一旦被证明是个混蛋，她在我眼中就会立刻失去她的美丽。

?Nice convo, you two. You may have the last word, as I?m out for now. cya!?
Better yet, in the spirit of fair play, let?s pick it up from here another time. I?m with you on the time crunch?in the same situation on this end. Best wishes on the book Jim, and on the promotion.