I know what Michael and Mando are saying. At the same time from the view of a more objective philosophical method, we would not want to forget that people are part of nature. So I would say that nature does not differentiate between beautiful and ugly when human element is not present. Boris Shoshensky
---------- Original Message ---------- From: armando baeza <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Cc: armando baeza <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Beauty is considered to be the culmination or perfection of specific q ualities Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 08:17:47 -0700 Nature,by nature, does not differentiate between beauty or ugly,people do. mando On Jun 20, 2009, at 5:59 AM, Chris Miller wrote: > "Beauty is a property of things perceived by humans, who can judge and > evaluate abstractly. And since beauty is considered to be a > culmination or > perfection of specific qualities or characteristics, there is also > ugly, the > deficiency of those qualities. But these qualities are socially > valued. > Remember: there are no ugly things "in Nature." (taken from > Michael's new > blog) > > > Not by me (is beauty considered to be a culmination or perfection > of specific > qualities or characteristics) -- because I can't identify them so > that I > might say "this one has a little of it, and that one has a little > more, while > that one must be ugly because it doesn't have any" > > Can anyone else here identify any such specific qualities or > characteristics? > > ____________________________________________________________ > Online Stock Trading - Straightforward pricing. Powerful tools. > Click here! > http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/ > BLSrjnxQzToFLQWEuvQKwpAmRmFra1 > M4g8SRvzblPgE1Dzgkl3PFphNQPok/
