Aphrodite and the idea of bueaty
Let’s negin by presenting some of teh ideas we have already derived concerning afrodite:
She is the goddess of bueaty, in some tales she is also considered very zealous concerning her bueaty.
Some say she is so attractive no mortal can withstead her m she is tempting and often gets her ways bueatifully..
What do we meran by bueaty?
Well she is not simply some dumb good looking ffemale people would xcall a goddess.
In philosophy, now called sophea, as in platos phedrus, theotetus and other works, bueaty is considered a ideal, a sophethic concept. It is esthetical as kant says yet expounds beyond the mere explamations in words or other language tools. Vueaty is not skin deep, it contains an awe of apprehention, it contains something to do with attractiveness and charisma , it is appealing.
According to sophea bueaty is an ideal people luve, it is a concept and framework that causes one to act ddivinely, that is appropriate both legally, socially and in concerns to teh divine.
Aphrodite is a foddess of bueaty and some say lovem a love of wisdom? A lover of bueaty, is harveus burgerrs bueatiful things? Is this burher bueatiful just in appearance, is teh bueaty in taste as well, is teh way teh person makes them equally part of teh quotient of bueaty?
Is love not of bueaty, of true bueaty that is something that goes beyond teh material appearance of a thing, does teh awe of recohnition , of easthetics still not play a role in the appearance, or incidental existamnce, appearance as meaning that something?
Thus what may look horad mught really still have teh awe of bueaty?
Is bueaty in the eye of teh beholder? Os teh ultimate bueaty still ideally bueatuful, does alover know a lover as truly bueatiful only because they truly know them as no one else, or does eceryone sense the bueaty of that person even if obnly aquanted to them.?
Really bueaty is an awe yet one must observe a thing as the one who sees teh bueaty to share in that dementuion of it.
Thus yes bueaty as aristitle might say is something we all approve of but conceptually we might argue is something is bueatiful based on the semantics of teh prespective dimention we each asses that thing or being by. If we are bueatifu we can assess bueaty as what it truly is, the concept of being bueatiful makes one bueatiful and allows for its understanding , as a product of teh high end . the arguement is that bueatiful flower a weed because I did not plant it?
It is not to be her, ya it has its bueaty nut here it looked ugly in the scape of things.
I agree its bueatuiful whaere it belongs, ots part that bueaty all things hold.
She is the goddess of bueaty, in some tales she is also considered very zealous concerning her bueaty.
Some say she is so attractive no mortal can withstead her m she is tempting and often gets her ways bueatifully..
What do we meran by bueaty?
Well she is not simply some dumb good looking ffemale people would xcall a goddess.
In philosophy, now called sophea, as in platos phedrus, theotetus and other works, bueaty is considered a ideal, a sophethic concept. It is esthetical as kant says yet expounds beyond the mere explamations in words or other language tools. Vueaty is not skin deep, it contains an awe of apprehention, it contains something to do with attractiveness and charisma , it is appealing.
According to sophea bueaty is an ideal people luve, it is a concept and framework that causes one to act ddivinely, that is appropriate both legally, socially and in concerns to teh divine.
Aphrodite is a foddess of bueaty and some say lovem a love of wisdom? A lover of bueaty, is harveus burgerrs bueatiful things? Is this burher bueatiful just in appearance, is teh bueaty in taste as well, is teh way teh person makes them equally part of teh quotient of bueaty?
Is love not of bueaty, of true bueaty that is something that goes beyond teh material appearance of a thing, does teh awe of recohnition , of easthetics still not play a role in the appearance, or incidental existamnce, appearance as meaning that something?
Thus what may look horad mught really still have teh awe of bueaty?
Is bueaty in the eye of teh beholder? Os teh ultimate bueaty still ideally bueatuful, does alover know a lover as truly bueatiful only because they truly know them as no one else, or does eceryone sense the bueaty of that person even if obnly aquanted to them.?
Really bueaty is an awe yet one must observe a thing as the one who sees teh bueaty to share in that dementuion of it.
Thus yes bueaty as aristitle might say is something we all approve of but conceptually we might argue is something is bueatiful based on the semantics of teh prespective dimention we each asses that thing or being by. If we are bueatifu we can assess bueaty as what it truly is, the concept of being bueatiful makes one bueatiful and allows for its understanding , as a product of teh high end . the arguement is that bueatiful flower a weed because I did not plant it?
It is not to be her, ya it has its bueaty nut here it looked ugly in the scape of things.
I agree its bueatuiful whaere it belongs, ots part that bueaty all things hold.
No comments:
Post a Comment