Beauty and Perfection have the same definition.

[Jaded Sage]

What do we think about that fact? "Nothing can be added, subtracted, or altered without diminishing the overall value."

[Harbal]

What do we think about that fact? "Nothing can be added, subtracted, or altered without diminishing the overall value."

Why can't something that is beautiful become even more beautiful?

[Jaded Sage]

What do we think about that fact? "Nothing can be added, subtracted, or altered without diminishing the overall value."

Why can't something that is beautiful become even more beautiful?

Good point. I would argue that either our understanding or perception of beauty increases, or that it participates more thoroughly in beauty or perfection (we usually think of the later as a final state, but it doesn't have to be).

[Harbal]

What if something was perceived as beautiful by one person but ugly by another? Would you still give it the same definition as perfection?

[Jaded Sage]

What if something was perceived as beautiful by one person but ugly by another? Would you still give it the same definition as perfection?

Many people say beauty is a matter of opinion, but I say it is a matter of fact. Something is either beautiful or it is not, and often people mistake attractiveness for beauty, but they are not the same. In the situation you describe, it would likely play out that one of them is right, and the other is wrong (or they both might be wrong). Not beauty, but attractiveness is in the eye of the beholder.

But these possible situations really only happen regarding things on the lower end of the spectrum of beauty. Few people ever have any disagreement or even any doubt about the things that participate in beauty the most, that is, the most beautiful things.

[whitebread]

It's an interesting perspective to consider. The idea that beauty and perfection share the same definition implies a close connection between the two concepts. If we define perfection as the highest standard of excellence or flawlessness, then it's reasonable to argue that something perceived as beautiful aligns with that standard.

However, it's also worth acknowledging that beauty can be subjective, varying from person to person and influenced by cultural, societal, and personal factors. What one person finds beautiful, another might not.

As for the statement that nothing can be added, subtracted, or altered without diminishing the overall value, it raises questions about the nature of perfection and beauty. Can perfection truly exist without room for change or evolution? And does altering something necessarily diminish its value, or can it enhance it in some cases?

Ultimately, the relationship between beauty and perfection is complex and multifaceted, inviting diverse perspectives and interpretations.

[popeye1945]

Beauty has degrees, and perfection has none, Beauty is determined subjectively while perfection does not exist. Nothing is perfect for everything evolves. If something were perfect it would be unchanging and unadaptable to the everchanging larger reality of earth and the cosmos. Our sense of beauty is tied to things like fitness to survive, the further away one is from beauty the less likely one is to survive. The quality of life is determined by the fitness/beauty of the individual to species or kind. Beauty has qualities, perfection is the ultimate quality in the imagination. Perfection is manifested in the imagination as god or gods and bears only a remote reference to actual life.

[LuckyR]

What if something was perceived as beautiful by one person but ugly by another? Would you still give it the same definition as perfection?

Many people say beauty is a matter of opinion, but I say it is a matter of fact. Something is either beautiful or it is not, and often people mistake attractiveness for beauty, but they are not the same. In the situation you describe, it would likely play out that one of them is right, and the other is wrong (or they both might be wrong). Not beauty, but attractiveness is in the eye of the beholder.

But these possible situations really only happen regarding things on the lower end of the spectrum of beauty. Few people ever have any disagreement or even any doubt about the things that participate in beauty the most, that is, the most beautiful things.

Ok. What, to you is the difference between beauty and attractiveness? Are you talking about people?

[Age]

What do we think about that fact?

What, supposed, fact?

"Nothing can be added, subtracted, or altered without diminishing the overall value."

Okay.

Also, what is 'the definition' of 'beauty', and, of 'perfection'?

Furthermore, there might be some or even a great deal of actual Truth in the topic heading here.

But, I will have to wait to see what else is said here.

[Age]

What do we think about that fact? "Nothing can be added, subtracted, or altered without diminishing the overall value."

Why can't something that is beautiful become even more beautiful?

Maybe 'it' could. But, if something that is beautiful could become more beautiful, then, conversely, could some thing that is perfect become more perfect?

I know this sounds counter intuitive, or an impossibility, but if some thing is, already, beautiful, then how could that thing get even 'more beautiful', as well, to the 'eye of the beholder'?

[Age]

It's an interesting perspective to consider. The idea that beauty and perfection share the same definition implies a close connection between the two concepts. If we define perfection as the highest standard of excellence or flawlessness, then it's reasonable to argue that something perceived as beautiful aligns with that standard.

However, it's also worth acknowledging that beauty can be subjective, varying from person to person and influenced by cultural, societal, and personal factors. What one person finds beautiful, another might not.

Can what one finds 'perfect', another not, as well?

Also, are not all things relative, or subject, anyway?

As for the statement that nothing can be added, subtracted, or altered without diminishing the overall value, it raises questions about the nature of perfection and beauty. Can perfection truly exist without room for change or evolution?

Well the Fact that the Universe changes, or evolves, always does not change. And, it could be argued that the Universe, Itself, is in a constant state of perfection.

So, perfection can truly exist without room for change or evolution.

And does altering something necessarily diminish its value, or can it enhance it in some cases?

When I first read, ' without diminishing the 'overall value' ', I took this to just mean, 'without changing the overall value', because the 'added' word was also in that sentence. And, 'to add to' something, did not instantly mean, to me, to 'make lesser'.

Ultimately, the relationship between beauty and perfection is complex and multifaceted, inviting diverse perspectives and interpretations.

Not that poster will ever respond again, but if it provided some actual examples for 'us' to look at a discuss, then we could become much clearer on how the words 'beauty' and 'perfection' could have the same definition, or not.

[Age]

Beauty has degrees, and perfection has none, Beauty is determined subjectively while perfection does not exist.

Why do you, subjectively, claim that 'perfection', itself, does not exist?

Nothing is perfect for everything evolves.

Every thing within the Universe is evolving. But, does the Universe, Itself, evolve?

If yes, then how, exactly?

If something were perfect it would be unchanging and unadaptable to the everchanging larger reality of earth and the cosmos.

I am not sure how the Universe, Itself, is smaller than the so-called 'larger reality of earth and the cosmos'?

Also, the thing, 'Universe', Itself, is not changing in regards to that It is always in a constant state of 'change'.

Our sense of beauty is tied to things like fitness to survive, the further away one is from beauty the less likely one is to survive.

When you say and use the 'our' word here, who and/or what are you referring to, exactly?

And, considering the Fact that no human being is 'to survive', along with absolutely every thing within the Universe, following your logic here, every one of these things here is the furthest away from beauty as can possibly be.

The quality of life is determined by the fitness/beauty of the individual to species or kind.

I know human beings who could be called the most unfit or the most ugly who have a quality of life far exceeding those who are called fit and/or beautiful. But, maybe you are talking about and referring to something else, entirely.

Beauty has qualities, perfection is the ultimate quality in the imagination. Perfection is manifested in the imagination as god or gods and bears only a remote reference to actual life.

What do you find about 'life', itself, that is not perfect?

[popeye1945]

What do we think about that fact? "Nothing can be added, subtracted, or altered without diminishing the overall value."

Why can't something that is beautiful become even more beautiful?

Maybe 'it' could. But, if something that is beautiful could become more beautiful, then, conversely, could some thing that is perfect become more perfect?

I know this sounds counter intuitive, or an impossibility, but if some thing is, already, beautiful, then how could that thing get even 'more beautiful', as well, to the 'eye of the beholder'?

Beauty is generally measured against its species or kind, if one sees something one thinks is beautiful, but has never seen anything like it, then its qualities must represent to the subject things it is accustomed to in objects or species it is familiar with, balance, symmetry, proportion etc. If one is ill one still might be considered beautiful but the health of an object or species involves its looks and functionality, and thus its likelihood of remaining in existence. The further one is away from beauty the further one is away from existence, a monstrosity is unlikely to stay in existence very long its duration is written in its constitution. Things have constitutions without identity, identity is placed upon them by a conscious subject which also determines the object/organism's usefulness, and this involves a sense of beauty as is appropriate to function.

[Harbal]

What do we think about that fact? "Nothing can be added, subtracted, or altered without diminishing the overall value."

Why can't something that is beautiful become even more beautiful?

Maybe 'it' could. But, if something that is beautiful could become more beautiful, then, conversely, could some thing that is perfect become more perfect?

I think perfection is an absolute state, so no, I don't suppose there are varying degrees of it.

I know this sounds counter intuitive, or an impossibility, but if some thing is, already, beautiful, then how could that thing get even 'more beautiful', as well, to the 'eye of the beholder'?

Well what's to prevent it from getting more beautiful?

[Age]

Why can't something that is beautiful become even more beautiful?

Maybe 'it' could. But, if something that is beautiful could become more beautiful, then, conversely, could some thing that is perfect become more perfect?

I think perfection is an absolute state, so no, I don't suppose there are varying degrees of it.

I know this sounds counter intuitive, or an impossibility, but if some thing is, already, beautiful, then how could that thing get even 'more beautiful', as well, to the 'eye of the beholder'?

Well what's to prevent it from getting more beautiful?

I do not know.

I was just asking you that if some thing is already beautiful, then how, to you, could that thing get more beautiful.

If you provide some example/s, and then explained how they could get more beautiful, to you, then I would have a better chance of being able to better learn and understand things here.

For, at the moment, I cannot think of how some thing already beautiful could get 'more beautiful'. But this does not mean there are millions of examples that I have not yet thought of, nor a million different explanations that I have not considered, imagined, nor thought of yet, either.

Previously, I was thinking of an example of some things that were beautiful and how they could get 'more beautiful', which was true, but then I realized that it was something else occurring instead.

So, if you have an example of some thing that is already beautiful and explain how that thing could get 'more beautiful', then it would be very much appreciated. It would come in very useful for me if you could.