NationStates Jolt Archive

I have been asked to write a paper about true beauty and have come up with the conclusion that there is no beauty in the world. We as a people, argue, send plagues, war and deceit where ever we go. We deforest the trees and pollute the oceans, we divorce and murder and crush anything deemed beautiful. Think about it. We fall in love (beauty), between fighting (not beautiful) and sex (beauty) we decide to get married (beauty?) and eventually have children (beauty). Then we decide that we don't like one another, we cheat and lie (not beautiful) then divorce (not beautiful) only to send ourselves to psycologists that pump us with pills and and tear our children from us because we are not "legally sane". How is that beauty?
Of course there are the execptions of the people who defeat the ugly nature of humanity and live a decent life, being happy.

But what is TRUE BEAUTY if BEAUTY is over run by the UGLY!?

Ugliness and beauty are in the mind of the beholder.

Some people see beauty in a sunset, some people see beauty in a mathematical equation, some people see beauty in destruction, some people see beauty in a pair of breasts. There is no 'true beauty', but to say that there is no beauty in the world is silly, especially since you named examples of what you thought is beauty.

Now think of it this way: If everything was 'beautiful' could you appreciate the fact that it is beautiful? And if you couldn't appreciate it, wouldn't it then cease to be beautiful and simply be? A perception of ugliness must exist in order for one to hold a perception of beauty.

I realise that 'beauty' is a human concept, but does that mean it must only be applied to humans?

I have been asked to write a paper about true beauty and have come up with the conclusion that there is no beauty in the world. We as a people, argue, send plagues, war and deceit where ever we go. We deforest the trees and pollute the oceans, we divorce and murder and crush anything deemed beautiful. Think about it. We fall in love (beauty), between fighting (not beautiful) and sex (beauty) we decide to get married (beauty?) and eventually have children (beauty). Then we decide that we don't like one another, we cheat and lie (not beautiful) then divorce (not beautiful) only to send ourselves to psycologists that pump us with pills and and tear our children from us because we are not "legally sane". How is that beauty?
Of course there are the execptions of the people who defeat the ugly nature of humanity and live a decent life, being happy.

But what is TRUE BEAUTY if BEAUTY is over run by the UGLY!?


Your mom :eek:

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Some find Skinny people beautiful, while others find Overweight people beautiful.

Some find beauty in the solitude of the mountains or the majasty of the plains while others in the hustle and bustle of the city.

Some find creation beautiful and others find it in destruction.

What is beauty? Beauty is that which makes us, as individuals pause and reflect on what we see, hear, or experience. Beauty is what we want to share with others even tho the definition is different. Beauty is what you as a person makes of it and not what we, as a society makes off of it.


that is what Beauty is.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Some find Skinny people beautiful, while others find Overweight people beautiful.

Some find beauty in the solitude of the mountains or the majasty of the plains while others in the hustle and bustle of the city.

Some find creation beautiful and others find it in destruction.

What is beauty? Beauty is that which makes us, as individuals pause and reflect on what we see, hear, or experience. Beauty is what we want to share with others even tho the definition is different. Beauty is what you as a person makes of it and not what we, as a society makes off of it.


that is what Beauty is.Ju, can I steal that quote? Thanks. ;)

What is beauty? Beauty is that which makes us, as individuals pause and reflect on what we see, hear, or experience. Beauty is what we want to share with others even tho the definition is different. Beauty is what you as a person makes of it and not what we, as a society makes off of it.


that is what Beauty is.
Sorry, but this is cliche.
Let me say this:
If it is true, then beauty doesn't exist.

I understand that "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder". So now I ask you, why do we still have standers of beauty? Say Playboy, or supermodels, even celebrities? If beauty is in an individual's opinion, then why is society swayed by the beauty of others opinions of beauty? If we truely understood the concept of this "beauty in the eye" theory we would never have anorexia, or depression based off of level of attraction or looks.

True beauty will be the silence when we have finished the job. :)

I'm doing my part? Are you? :)

I have been asked to write a paper about true beauty and have come up with the conclusion that there is no beauty in the world. We as a people, argue, send plagues, war and deceit where ever we go. We deforest the trees and pollute the oceans, we divorce and murder and crush anything deemed beautiful. Think about it. We fall in love (beauty), between fighting (not beautiful) and sex (beauty) we decide to get married (beauty?) and eventually have children (beauty). Then we decide that we don't like one another, we cheat and lie (not beautiful) then divorce (not beautiful) only to send ourselves to psycologists that pump us with pills and and tear our children from us because we are not "legally sane". How is that beauty?
Of course there are the execptions of the people who defeat the ugly nature of humanity and live a decent life, being happy.

But what is TRUE BEAUTY if BEAUTY is over run by the UGLY!?

There is still good in the world. Recently a *cute IMO* girl I know and I went to a lan station to help out with a lan party. It was thrown for children with Ausbergers syndrome, and it was a blast, even if there were only me, her, and the eviloverlordIMEANorganizer looking after 7 of them going crazy.

Beauty is all around you, when you look out your window or when you turn on your television. /matrix. Seriously, we have Hitlers and Edward Longshanks, but there are Einsteins, Hawkings, Rommels, and Mercureys. There are even Bosches and Salvador Dalis. (o_O wtf?)

It may cost you three hours in a dark Lan station, or a few weeks at Philmont, but it's out there.

beau·ty
n. pl. beau·ties
1. The quality that gives pleasure to the mind or senses and is associated with such properties as harmony of form or color, excellence of artistry, truthfulness, and originality.
2. One that is beautiful, especially a beautiful woman.
3. A quality or feature that is most effective, gratifying, or telling: The beauty of the venture is that we stand to lose nothing.
4. An outstanding or conspicuous example: “Hammett's gun went off. The shot was a beauty, just slightly behind the eyes” (Lillian Hellman).
There, with no emo bullshit.

Ju, can I steal that quote? Thanks. ;)Go right ahead... :D

Sorry, but this is cliche.
Let me say this:
If it is true, then beauty doesn't exist. Beauty exsists but how it exsists depends on the individual.

My fivepence of a further sixpence here ....

"Beauty is the promise of happiness."

-Somewhere, someone.

I understand that "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder". So now I ask you, why do we still have standers of beauty? Say Playboy, or supermodels, even celebrities? If beauty is in an individual's opinion, then why is society swayed by the beauty of others opinions of beauty? If we truely understood the concept of this "beauty in the eye" theory we would never have anorexia, or depression based off of level of attraction or looks.

Because people are superficial, insecure and social.

("Yo mama" stopped being funny a long time ago. [At this point, it would only be appropriate for someone to say 'like yo mama/that's what yo mama said'.] We could probably do with moving on.)

I think you're missing the point, somewhat. Shitty things happen, and sometimes 'beautiful' scenario scenarios break down. Oh well. Surely beauty, if it's anything, has to be rare and precious. The majority of life won't be beautiful, by definition. From that, the observation that, well, the majority of life isn't beautiful becomes rather redundant. I don't think you can expect to find it in such situations as you cite; but I also feel it's pointless to look there in any case.

That doesn't answer your question. But I'm not really in that sort of mood anyway.

I understand that "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder". So now I ask you, why do we still have standers of beauty? Say Playboy, or supermodels, even celebrities? If beauty is in an individual's opinion, then why is society swayed by the beauty of others opinions of beauty?
What do you mean by 'society is swayed by it'?
It isn't like all of society is one big homgenous mass. Using the example of Playboy, not all people find the same women in Playboy attractive, and not all people even like Playboy.
If we truely understood the concept of this "beauty in the eye" theory we would never have anorexia, or depression based off of level of attraction or looks.
As far as I know, often these disorders result from not living up to one's own standards of beauty, and other times they are caused by rejection by others based on their standards.

("Because people are superficial, insecure and social.")

Wouldn't that contradict what beauty is?

Beauty exsists but how it exsists depends on the individual.
Let me say this again: it's because of this quality that it doesn't.
Consider this paralell to morality. We all believe that there is a wrong - I believe that it is wrong to kill millions of people, Hitler thought that it was good. If I don't say "my morality is THE morality", then we have a situation were killing millions and not killing millions is of the same morality, and, even more, claiming that morality still is important.
Because, you see, ther is an inherent quality in being - being has to have meaning, in the sense that to be is to be objective, removed from interpretations. Otherwise, anything I could imagine would be true, just because it is possible.

Beauty is a state of mind where one rejects how things should or ought to be and accepts things for how they are.

ok, need to break this down...
I understand that "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder". So now I ask you, why do we still have standards of beauty? Say Playboy, or supermodels, even celebrities? that's marketing. not beauty. in the past, what I would call "Chubby" was the height of beauty. Nice well rounded women were considered the Favored because of their "Earth Mother" figures. as time went on, it became the 'Heron Chix' look. thin waifs that look like a stiff sneeze would break them. now it's settled back to the inbetween look. Marketing looks at the popular trends and works with that. Supermodels were once full figured people, then they turned into the waif thin figures, and now they're comming back with the full figured person.

If beauty is in an individual's opinion, then why is society swayed by the beauty of others opinions of beauty? Because Society is made up by individuals. and in society, majory rules. Remember, "A person is smart, wise and patient. People are Dumb foolish and rash."

If we truely understood the concept of this "beauty in the eye" theory we would never have anorexia, or depression based off of level of attraction or looks.that goes back to the individual and their search for perfection. when they percieve their bodies to be ugly, then they will either a) accept it (and realize that they are beautiful in their own right,) or b) fix it. and unfortunatly, how some of them choose to fix their problems are more harmful to themselves and really places an emotional strain on those close to them.

Let me say this again: it's because of this quality that it doesn't.
Consider this paralell to morality. We all believe that there is a wrong - I believe that it is wrong to kill millions of people, Hitler thought that it was good. If I don't say "my morality is THE morality", then we have a situation were killing millions and not killing millions is of the same morality, and, even more, claiming that morality still is important.
Because, you see, ther is an inherent quality in being - being has to have meaning, in the sense that to be is to be objective, removed from interpretations. Otherwise, anything I could imagine would be true, just because it is possible.
Are you stating th at all qualities must be objective, or else not exist?
That seems just a tad absurd to me. Wouldn't that mean that either we all find the same colors pleasant, or we find no colors pleasant? That either objects have the same value to all people, or they have no value at all?
Am I misunderstanding?

("Because people are superficial, insecure and social.")

Wouldn't that contradict what beauty is?

How so?

What is true beauty?
the form of beauty.
(you need to be a 50 year old greek philosopher-king to see it though ;))

[/plato]

So in conclusion, basically true beauty is a concept that no one really understands, it is neither exisitant or nonexisitant. So what is the use placing words to things that have no meaning whatsoever?

Beauty and Morality are two different things. you're comparing Apples and Pineapples.
Let me say this again: it's because of this quality that it doesn't.

Consider this paralell to morality. We all believe that there is a wrong - I believe that it is wrong to kill millions of people, Hitler thought that it was good. If I don't say "my morality is THE morality", then we have a situation were killing millions and not killing millions is of the same morality, and, even more, claiming that morality still is important.shallow, really. because it's wrong to kill thousands of people, but what you are not looking at is the reason why. the Allies killed thousands to prevent 10 times that number from being oppressed. Hitler killed thousands to save his people and preserve his bloodline (remember, Morality is also personal as well as society baised.) so in Hitler's mind, he too was Morally right. and that is why a war was fought.
Because, you see, ther is an inherent quality in being - being has to have meaning, in the sense that to be is to be objective, removed from interpretations. Otherwise, anything I could imagine would be true, just because it is possible.and this has to do with what beauty is... how exactly?

everyone finds different things beautiful. that is why there are so many artists around. each artist has their own style of painting and their own sence of beauty. that is why some like Monet's works, while others like Van Goh's. to have so many myrad definitions of beauty does not remove meaning from one's sense of being but in fact defines it. it's human nature to put everything into little cubbyholes, but it's nature that defies such structuring.

and it's true, with the term beauty, anything you imagine to be beautiful is beautiful to you.

Being able to express negative thoughts, such as superficial, is that not an ugly statement?

So in conclusion, basically true beauty is a concept that no one really understands, it is neither exisitant or nonexisitant. So what is the use placing words to things that have no meaning whatsoever?

I don't know. What's the use of naming a number with a hundred zeros?

Are you stating th at all qualities must be objective, or else not exist?
That seems just a tad absurd to me. Wouldn't that mean that either we all find the same colors pleasant, or we find no colors pleasant? That either objects have the same value to all people, or they have no value at all?
Am I misunderstanding?
Look. A notion of beauty does exist by all definitions - the question was "what it was". And this is where it gets do a different level: you wouldn't say that beauty exists even if nobody agrees on what it is, right? Because then, to say that it does would be of no consequence.
It's ok (from a logical point of view) to take a stand on it, and claim that what you see as beauty is real beauty. If you say that whomever is right when defining beauty (this would include people who buy singing plastic fish), and beauty still exists, would be nonsensical.
After all, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" is tragic as an existential observation, almost a recognition of impending oblivion, of eternal solitude (in the sense of: "we will never be able to communicate fully"). And yes, it may be true. But again: if it is, beauty is non-existant. See my point?

Being able to express negative thoughts, such as superficial, is that not an ugly statement?

Being able to express negative thoughts does not mean that a person is unable to express positive thoughts. The fact that something that is considered ugly exists, does not prove that beauty exists. Quite the opposite actually. If you can consider something ugly, there must be something 'beautiful' that you are comparing it to. Otherwise everything would just be average, and have neither negative or positive connotations.

So in conclusion, basically true beauty is a concept that no one really understands, it is neither exisitant or nonexisitant.
Beauty is a concept that almost everyone understands, and to deny it is foolish.

"1. The quality that gives pleasure to the mind or senses and is associated with such properties as harmony of form or color, excellence of artistry, truthfulness, and originality."
-the dictionary

Things give you aesthetic pleasure, right? Then beauty exists.
So what is the use placing words to things that have no meaning whatsoever?
The meaning remains the same. What is percieved as fitting that meaning is what changes.

So in conclusion, basically true beauty is a concept that no one really understands, it is neither exisitant or nonexisitant. So what is the use placing words to things that have no meaning whatsoever?True beauty (to me) exsists, but only to me and to others who share the same preference to beauty.
just like what is beauty to you is real to you.

we define it because that is human nature, to place things in nice little cubbyholes. while it does create some sense of order, it can lead to trouble. such as defining a person by their skin color or beliefs, or by their lifestye choices. but in other cases, it can help find cures for diseases that have a similar genome, or the finding of new species.

Beauty is real, as real as something soft, or hard, food that is delicious or not. things that smell good or bad. it all depends on one's perspective.

To a starving man, boiled Liver can be like Ambrosa and warm coke, the Wine of the Gods, but to one who isn't starving... well I hope you get the idea.

Being able to express negative thoughts, such as superficial, is that not an ugly statement?
Some people may find that beautiful. I would find that ugly, but it is apparent that many people are drawn in by superficial things. So no, it is not necessarily an ugly thing to all people.

But what is TRUE BEAUTY if BEAUTY is over run by the UGLY!?
You have a depressingly jaundiced view of life for one so young. :(

True beauty is having the ability to laugh at yourself, to find humor in tragedy, to keep a peaceful heart while others are fearful or angry, to see the beauty in other people and in nature, to find something lovely in the smallest of things, to seek wisdom and truth, and to remain hopeful and happy despite adverse circumstances.

Beauty and Morality are two different things. you're comparing Apples and Pineapples.
shallow, really. because it's wrong to kill thousands of people, but what you are not looking at is the reason why. the Allies killed thousands to prevent 10 times that number from being oppressed. Hitler killed thousands to save his people and preserve his bloodline (remember, Morality is also personal as well as society baised.) so in Hitler's mind, he too was Morally right. and that is why a war was fought.
and this has to do with what beauty is... how exactly?
LOOK. YOU GOT ME SOOOO WRONG!
You are the one advocating relativism. My point was that morality has to be an objective thing, otherwise it is irrelevant if it does indeed exist.
In this sense, morality and beauty would have to be the same thing: ONE THAT HAS A CLAIM TO BE ABSOLUTE - no matter how many interpretations it may have, in the sense that ONE OF THE INTERPRETATIONS HAS TO HAVE THE CLAIM TO BE RIGHT - and one that is nothing is not absolute. I'm not being rigid, but even if you look at Van Gogh, let's say, you'll see that in order to to him justice you have to respect his claim that he (and some he cited as mentors) had found an access to OBJECTIVE BEAUTY. I'm not saying he was right, I'm just saying that all art has such claims, OTHERWISE IT WOULDN'T BE.

(sorry for all the caps: they are easier to find than highlights)

If you want to go post modernist you could say beauty doesn't truly exist as it is a human construct.

the form of beauty.
(you need to be a 50 year old greek philosopher-king to see it though ;))

[/plato]well, I'm a 30-something GEEK philosopher and I understood that.

Very well done. ;)

There is no beauty. There is no truth. There is no justice. The world is simply a place of hypocrisy, greed, and ugliness. We can only attempt to see beauty through our warped, tainted vision—both inner and superficial. I have never found true beauty, because there is no-one whose soul is truly beautiful enough to merit it. There is no one so touched by the forces that be. True beauty does not exist, and we can only see a small portion of beauty in our own lives. We will never know any different.
~Excerpted from my reflections at some point or another. I think this one is from September, 2005. I plan to use it in my story of the outcasts at some point.

Cough...pretensious...cough ;)

LOOK. YOU GOT ME SOOOO WRONG!
You are the one advocating relativism. My point was that morality has to be an objective thing, otherwise it is irrelevant if it does indeed exist.
In this sense, morality and beauty would have to be the same thing: ONE THAT HAS A CLAIM TO BE ABSOLUTE - no matter how many interpretations it may have, in the sense that ONE OF THE INTERPRETATIONS HAS TO HAVE THE CLAIM TO BE RIGHT - and one that is nothing is not absolute. I'm not being rigid, but even if you look at Van Gogh, let's say, you'll see that in order to to him justice you have to respect his claim that he (and some he cited as mentors) had found an access to OBJECTIVE BEAUTY. I'm not saying he was right, I'm just saying that all art has such claims, OTHERWISE IT WOULDN'T BE.

(sorry for all the caps: they are easier to find than highlights)

Actually, morality, even if it is subjective, often has the ability of allowing people to live together somewhat harmoniously as long as they have similar moral views.

Don't know what use beauty has... but hey. Whatever. Beautiful is basically just a word people invented to be able to say 'I like how that looks/is'.

well, I'm a 30-something GEEK philosopher and I understood that.

Very well done. ;)
jolly good, you're almost there at 30 - you get to see most of the form of true beauty... but when you get to 50 you get to see it nekkid ;)

and thanks, i was hoping someone would get it :D

Actually, morality, even if it is subjective, often has the ability of allowing people to live together somewhat harmoniously as long as they have similar moral views.

Don't know what use beauty has... but hey. Whatever. Beautiful is basically just a word people invented to be able to say 'I like how that looks/is'.
Read my posts again.

"Beauty" is a positive attribute given to an object by a person who appreciates it in contrast to other objects.

"True Beauty" is the positive attribute every object/idea is given by a person, once the person has developed the ability to see the beauty in all things (i.e. war, hate, love, apples, oranges, kneecaps, etc.), thereby obsoleting the term "beautiful" as a descriptor. (Since beauty is relative to every object/idea.) "They're..all..perfect."

Basically, everything is appreciated (felt to be beautiful) by a person who sees "True Beauty."

Of course, since there is no set definition to "True Beauty", call it by whatever lame definition you want. If you back it up with a solid essay, you'll get an A. That is the point of school, isn't it.. :rolleyes:

Read my posts again.

...I stand by what I said. Any reason why I shouldn't?

Look. You got me sooo wrong!
You are the one advocating relativism. My point was that morality has to be an objective thing, otherwise it is irrelevant if it does indeed exist.and morality is a relative thing. If you were to find a $100 on the ground, what would your moral say is right. Would you keep it? Try to find the owner? or Leave it since it's not yours?

In this sense, morality and beauty would have to be the same thing: ONE THAT HAS A CLAIM TO BE ABSOLUTE - no matter how many interpretations it may have, in the sense that ONE OF THE INTERPRETATIONS HAS TO HAVE THE CLAIM TO BE RIGHT - and one that is nothing is not absolute. I'm not being rigid, but even if you look at Van Gogh, let's say, you'll see that in order to do him justice you have to respect his claim that he (and some he cited as mentors) had found an access to OBJECTIVE BEAUTY. I'm not saying he was right, I'm just saying that all art has such claims, OTHERWISE IT WOULDN'T BE. and to you that which holds the title and claim of beauty will have that title and claim... to you. so when Van Gogh, and Piccasso, and Monet, and others who use varying types of techniques, varying subjets as well as styles all have the claim of beauty, then you are saying that all of them found Objective Beauty even tho the results are quite different.

thus proving that beauty is in the eye of the person viewing/experiencing the beauty and there really is no one singular definition of Beauty.

(sorry for all the caps: they are easier to find than highlights)Use the B at the top, just below the font ;) Caps makes you appear angry.

and morality is a relative thing. If you were to find a $100 on the ground, what would your moral say is right. Would you keep it? Try to find the owner? or Leave it since it's not yours?
Whatever I would do, would be in the name of a moral. One out of many. What do you want me to say? Talk of morality is always talk of this morality: [insert name]. Seriously, we cannot escape this ambiguity, but it is no inherent tragedy.
Enough about morality. The reason I used it is because I had to find a paralell to illustrate the subjective/objective nature of beauty, without being defined by "beautiful" and "ugly".
Although, in Plato's view, "beauty was right/right was beauty", and so there is a connection to morality that is stronger than may seem - and with a downside: it may imply that wrong is actually only the displeasing, the un-esthetical.

and to you that which holds the title and claim of beauty will have that title and claim... to you. so when Van Gogh, and Piccasso, and Monet, and others who use varying types of techniques, varying subjets as well as styles all have the claim of beauty, then you are saying that all of them found Objective Beauty even tho the results are quite different.

thus proving that beauty is in the eye of the person viewing/experiencing the beauty and there really is no one singular definition of Beauty.
What I said was that each of the masters thought on the lines of "what I do is beauty" or "what I do is the closest we will ever get to beauty". You are in fact not proving much: there is someone out there, I suppose, who finds beauty in the most repugnant thing you could ever think of. Let's move beyond singing plastic fish and ballerina dolls, or even squashed frogs - let's talk horribly mutilated women or spectacular suicides. If this too is beauty, than everything is beauty - then nothing is beauty (since it is opposed by nothing).
In its definition it is opposed to something (i.e.: ugliness) - if it gets to include it, it ceases to exist. The rejection of contraries.

Well, Science says beauty is symmetry, but then again what does Science know?

Beauty is a life well lived. Beauty is a sunset slowly eminating across the lower horizon. Beauty is all around us, but nearly always missed. If you look at any thing that is of truly grand design, you can easily find it as beautiful.

Human beings can be beautiful, and truth be told I think that everyone is beautiful in one way or another. Doesn't matter what size/shape/color a person is, at least someone will find beauty in the way they hold themselves/their poise/ or something along those lines. There is genius in the way each of us were designed. It takes true character to see through the supposed 'ugliness' because each person was given what they have, and for that they should be happy and make the most of their lives. And by doing so that just glowers beauty. The simplest of things can be the loveliest. Like for instance a flower petal or the moon at full apex.

It is what we do with said beauty that is what will come of value.

Well, Science says beauty is symmetry, but then again what does Science know?

Science is too pre-occupied with supersymmetry and golden means and crap.

True beauty is the light in a girl's face and the look in her eyes after she snipes the bjezes out of you (well, it was me actually) in Battlefront. God bless Lan parties.

Beauty=Aerou, Tink, Titty Le, etc.

heh. been surfing the babe thread, huh?

Beauty is a life well lived. Beauty is a sunset slowly eminating across the lower horizon. Beauty is all around us, but nearly always missed. If you look at any thing that is of truly grand design, you can easily find it as beautiful.

Human beings can be beautiful, and truth be told I think that everyone is beautiful in one way or another. Doesn't matter what size/shape/color a person is, at least someone will find beauty in the way they hold themselves/their poise/ or something along those lines. There is genius in the way each of us were designed. It takes true character to see through the supposed 'ugliness' because each person was given what they have, and for that they should be happy and make the most of their lives. And by doing so that just glowers beauty. The simplest of things can be the loveliest. Like for instance a flower petal or the moon at full apex.

It is what we do with said beauty that is what will come of value.
Well said! [ applauds ] :)

Beauty is a life well lived. Beauty is a sunset slowly eminating across the lower horizon. Beauty is all around us, but nearly always missed. If you look at any thing that is of truly grand design, you can easily find it as beautiful.

Human beings can be beautiful, and truth be told I think that everyone is beautiful in one way or another. Doesn't matter what size/shape/color a person is, at least someone will find beauty in the way they hold themselves/their poise/ or something along those lines. There is genius in the way each of us were designed. It takes true character to see through the supposed 'ugliness' because each person was given what they have, and for that they should be happy and make the most of their lives. And by doing so that just glowers beauty. The simplest of things can be the loveliest. Like for instance a flower petal or the moon at full apex.

It is what we do with said beauty that is what will come of value.
I disagree, but I'm not prepared to argue.

Eloquently written, btw.