essay on outer beauty

Inner Beauty Vs Outer Beauty: 4 Truths You Need To Hear

Disclosure: this page may contain affiliate links to select partners. We receive a commission should you choose to make a purchase after clicking on them. Read our affiliate disclosure.

smiling middle-aged woman depicting inner beauty vs outer beauty

Why do you love the people close to you? Not just the members of the family you were born or adopted into, but those you have chosen to have in your life?

Is it because of how they look ? Or do you love them for who they are ?

There’s a huge difference between outer beauty and inner beauty, and both of them have their place. In our youth-obsessed culture, external attractiveness is often put at the forefront of desirability in others. Yet when it comes to describing the people we adore most, we often talk about how much we love their personality traits, rather than their bodies.

Let’s take a look at some truths about inner beauty vs outer beauty, how they manifest, and why the former seems to be far more appreciated over time.

1. Outer beauty is subjective, inner beauty can be seen by everyone.

If you ask 100 people what they find physically beautiful in others, you’ll get a lot of different responses.

To illustrate this, Huffington Post ran a series in which people from many different countries were given photos of a man and a woman, and were asked to photoshop them to represent what they considered to be “ideal beauty.”

The responses for both the man and the woman were quite different depending on the region. As you can imagine, individual preferences are all over the place as well.

What one person might find physically attractive might be a huge turn-off to another, and vice versa. This is great in the sense that you’ll be less likely to compete with your friends for lovers if your tastes in physical beauty vary. It also means that according to the law of averages, no matter what a person looks like, there’s someone out there who will find them attractive.

When it comes to inner beauty, however, that’s quite a different story.

Take Princess Diana, for example. Yes, many people considered her to be a physically beautiful woman. Others did not. The one thing everyone could agree upon was that she had an incredibly kind, giving heart, and she was always willing to help those who needed her. That made her radiant beyond measure.

2. Outer beauty is largely beyond our control, inner beauty can be cultivated.

If you have enough money, you can achieve some level of outer beauty. One look at the average celebrity will prove that much. Plastic surgery can transform just about anyone’s features into shapes that the majority will find attractive.

Even if a person can’t afford a ton of cosmetic surgery, they can adjust their appearance with makeup, hair dye, exercise, and wardrobe adjustments.

But neither a personal trainer nor a scalpel can alter someone’s personality enough to turn them into a person that everyone will admire and adore.

In contrast, you don’t need a cent to cultivate inner beauty. The most basic practice of being aware of how you treat people and striving to improve upon that will help your inner beauty grow.

You can read and educate yourself in all manner of different subjects for free via libraries, online videos, as well as some online journals and academic resources. Developing your mind often develops your heart at the same time because all knowledge is interwoven with people and creatures and things that deserve care.

Learn different languages, study various world religions, get acquainted with various aspects of humanity’s history, both the dark and light bits. Want to be a bastion of inner peace, generosity of spirit, and loving kindness? Immerse yourself in spiritual studies, and start a meditation practice.

Getting involved in charitable works or nonprofit organizations is another great way to get that inner beauty stoked and glowing. Everyone has a skill that they can share to help others in need.

A giving heart and sincere care for others are two unparalleled traits when it comes to inner beauty. Even better, they can be cultivated at any time, with any skill set and able-bodiedness.

3. Outer beauty creates initial attraction, inner beauty generates long-lasting affection.

If you’re at a festival and your eyes follow a drop-dead gorgeous creature who walks by, it’s unlikely that you’re suddenly lusting over their personality. There’s nothing wrong with that: we are sexual beings, and can have instant attraction and chemistry to people we find physically attractive.

How often, however, have you gawped and fluttered after someone, only to be put off once you got to know them a little bit?

Some are far better looking on the outside than they are on the inside. They may be cruel, or racist, or judgmental, or embody any other number of less-than-wonderful traits. That’s disappointing, but also means that your pairing will likely be brief, rather than long-term.

In contrast, how many times have you gotten to know someone and fallen in love with their heart, mind, and spirit? These people may be just as attractive externally as they are internally. Or, they might be average-looking on the onset, but get more and more beautiful to you as you get to know them.

When you talk about the people you love, do you focus more on their physical traits or who they are inside? Sure, we may talk about how much we adore our lovers’ posteriors, eyes, lips, etc. But when we discuss the aspects about them that we love the most, we tend to talk about their sense of humor, intellect, kindness, etc.

4. Outer beauty changes over time, inner beauty is eternal.

Some people say that beauty fades over time, but most people prefer to think that it merely changes into a different form.

There’s a different beauty to be found in a regal, mature woman than the kind she had when she was a teenager. Similarly, a man in his middle to later years can be even more striking than he was in his twenties.

The kindness and gentleness in a person’s eyes doesn’t shine any less brightly because there are deep laugh lines etched nearby. A smile isn’t less reassuring or encouraging because it’s surrounded by a grey beard.

Many people who are very attached to their physical attractiveness get anxious and depressed when they start to see signs of aging in themselves. In contrast, those who don’t place as huge an emphasis on their physical beauty tend to be more comfortable with the natural aging process.

They know that their worth isn’t dependent upon how many people ogle their six pack or their cleavage. These people will draw others to them wherever they go because of the light that they exude. Whether they’re 18 or 81, they’ll still be welcomed and adored by throngs of people who recognize just how wonderful they are.

And when they pass on from this life, people will have far sweeter things to say about them than “they were pretty to look at.”

Beautiful Traits That People Love Most

When asked what traits they most look for in a spouse or life partner, the vast majority of people name things that have absolutely nothing to do with outer beauty.

They’re traits that they admire, want to experience on a constant basis, and feel are ideal in the people they want to keep in their lives.

Some of the top responses that make the average list are the following:

A good sense of humor
Trustworthiness
A supportive nature
Willingness to play and have fun
Understanding

As you can see, these are traits that anyone can embody. Furthermore, they’re aspects that we can love and admire in people other than our romantic partners.

When we think of the reasons why we love and admire our friends, parents, grandparents, and children, chances are many of these traits will make that list. Generally, people love their family members and close friends regardless of how they look. They could be put through threshing machines and we’d still love them because we adore them for who they are and how they make us feel.

Audrey Hepburn had something great to say about inner beauty vs outer beauty:

“The beauty of a woman is not in the clothes she wears, the figure that she carries or the way she combs her hair. The beauty of a woman is seen in her eyes, because that is the doorway to her heart, the place where love resides. True beauty in a woman is reflected in her soul. It’s the caring that she lovingly gives, the passion that she shows, and the beauty of a woman only grows with passing years.”

Although the quote above specifically mentions women, it can work for people of any gender.

When we place more emphasis on inner beauty than outer beauty, we can learn to appreciate other people (and ourselves) on several different levels. We can look past any physical traits to see who these people really are.

Be aware that when you start to focus more on inner beauty than outer, you may get a bit choked up about past experiences. When we start to do more spiritual work and soul searching, we may realize how often we may have immediately dismissed others from our lives because we’ve been judgmental about their appearance.

A great example of that is this interview with actor Dustin Hoffman. In the mid 1980s, he was cast in a movie called “Tootsie,” in which he played an actor who dresses as a woman in order to get an acting role. His experience, which involved him living life as an average-looking woman rather than a beautiful one, humbled him.

“I went home and started crying, talking to my wife. And I said I have to make this picture, and she said, ‘Why?’ And I said, because I think I am an interesting woman when I look at myself on screen. And I know that if I met myself at a party, I would never talk to that character because she doesn’t fulfill physically the demands that we’re brought up to think women have to have in order for us to ask them out. There are too many interesting women I have not had the experience to know in this life because I have been brainwashed.”

If you’ve experienced something like this firsthand, having judged others by how they look, that’s okay. Please be gentle and forgiving with yourself about it. We all learn and grow through our missteps, and sometimes those missteps can be painful ones.

Similarly, if you’ve been on the receiving end of other people’s superficial judgment and unkindness, know that there is absolutely nothing wrong with you. Those people were coming from places of their own programming. Even though they may have been hurtful toward you, ultimately they’re doing themselves a great disservice in not allowing themselves to see past initial appearances.

All of us can appreciate both inner beauty and outer beauty, and hopefully find our own magical balance between the two. We can recognize that physical beauty comes in many different forms, and that people don’t lose beauty when and if our shells change over time.

We love one another dearly for who we are, not how we look.

Just like favorite books we’ve read time and time again, the stories contained inside and the emotions they evoke matter far more than the different covers that may encase them temporarily.

About The Author

Catherine Winter is an herbalist, INTJ empath, narcissistic abuse survivor, and PTSD warrior currently based in Quebec's Laurentian mountains. In an informal role as confidant and guide, Catherine has helped countless people work through difficult times in their lives and relationships, including divorce, ageing and death journeys, grief, abuse, and trauma recovery, as they navigate their individual paths towards healing and personal peace.

Inner Or Outer Beauty Essay: What Is More Important?

During the history of mankind the image of beautiful person (man and woman) was constantly changing. Even 50 years ago people had other view on what appearance person should have to be considered beautiful. So many poets and writers glorified the human beauty. However, people usually talk about external or outer beauty. But what about internal beauty? We decided to write not just essay on beauty, but to make it inner beauty essay. So, read and enjoy.

Inner beauty of a human or external: what is more important?

Inner beauty of a human or external: what to choose?

We used to think that human beauty hides in the eyes. However, something that one considers beautiful other person may consider ugly. You can look for the beauty inside in the way how a person presents the beauty aura. It is not important how much beautiful a person is, it is important how much naturally he carries the aura of beauty. The beauty is in the kindness that is a part of the aura, in peaceful nature, in a certain confidence and inner calmness. Faces with the absolute accuracy of the features, beautiful appearance can be egoistic, haughty, fussy or arrogant; they often want to show their superiority over others. Such a superficial beauty will not last forever. People grow old and external features fade away.

Time changes us as physically as internally, we do not have the same appearance during our lifetime. At the same time inner beauty will last forever. Superficial beauty can not make deep impression, and those who aim to get beautiful face and perfect body with the help of Botox injections and other wonders of surgery will hardly get wide recognition and respect.

However, most people will prefer to talk to a person who has attractive appearance, because we all are attracted by something beautiful. Later, when you understand that a person is not what you expect, that you take his / hers appearance for the essence, you may be very disappointed. Having looked deeper, you will discover an empty shell instead of beauty. You will understand how much important it is to have beauty inside and how much seldom you can meet people who have inner and external beauty at the same time.

The inner beauty of a person

Internal human beauty is presented naturally and unpretentious. Probably, it may have not ideal look, but it seems to be coming from a man when he / she smiles, from the manner of speech and treat others with kindness and tenderness. You understand how much beautiful this person is, and definitely you will prefer inner beauty to external. A person with beautiful soul shines brighter than beautiful face with emptiness inside. In such a way, inner beauty of a person is much more important than superficial external beauty, and also we can keep it for the whole life.

What about appearance?

Nevertheless, the researches show that people who have attractive appearance get work more often, especially if the interviewer also considers them attractive. The same researches prove that pupils like more teachers with attractive appearance, and think that they are more intelligent and more professional than others. It is well known that children react positively to attractive faces. Is it possible to disagree with that?

It turns out that if we want “political correctness”, we will repeat again and again that beauty is inside us. But! The world is cruel and if you want harsh and “naked” truth, than you should know that modern society often perceives beauty as something external only, as accuracy of features and respectable appearance.

So let’s be honest and realistic

Billions and billions of dollars spent each year on means that should make our appearance better. Much more than money spent on books, theatres and museums, for example. It means that “beauty” of the real world is outside, not inside. Think about it: those who suffer from extreme obesity seem attractive to you? Do you think they have rich spiritual world? Of course, we can not judge without knowing them closer, but one thing is obvious: their appearance pushes you away. Why? Because people, especially women, are very critical about appearance of each other. Besides, people who do not like their body usually have lack of self-respect.

Beauty of physical look does not mean that someone is better than others. The conception of ideal beauty is built on the age-old competition and desire to create visual attractiveness as a means of competition. The reason for this is in biology.

Of course, physical beauty is important, but fortunately it is not the only thing that a person can give to the world. For the most powerful people, who take decisions, physical features are less essential than such trait as charisma, intelligence, confidence and sense of purpose, which are also elements of inner beauty . Perfect skin and face features are not life-determining things for them. But let’s face the truth, each politician, for example, tends to look attractive and is ready to spend large sums of money on the image-makers and stylists, and they also recourse to plastic surgery.

It is difficult to be honest and say “yes”, outer beauty plays great role because it is not available for everyone. Not everyone was blessed by good genetics, but this is life and we all have to play according to its rules. Sure, outer beauty is a great gift, but what is important is how person decides to use the physical features, can he or she become successful using appearance.

There are people who say that “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”. It sounds great. But everyone knows that the beauty issue concerns women more. Women’s self-esteem is completely connected to their appearance and attractiveness. Unfortunately, women judge more strictly the attractiveness than men. This is not fair, but this is life.

So, beauty is a harmonious whole that brings moral and aesthetic pleasure. Inner beauty of a person is visible from the outside and it makes the person look beautiful. The most important thing is the harmony of body and soul, the inner beauty of a person should be combined with external beauty. Learn how to combine them in yourself and you will be really happy man.

The unity of inner and outer beauty of a man

Our notions of the ideal of beauty are embodied in outer beauty. External beauty is not only anthropological perfection of all the body elements, it is not only the health. It is inner spirituality: rich world of the thoughts and feelings, moral dignity, respect for others and self-respect and so on. The higher moral development and the overall level of human spiritual culture is, the brighter rich spiritual world reflects in external features. In simple words, inner beauty is reflected in the appearance.

There is nothing ashamed in the fact that person wants to be beautiful, to look nice. Outer beauty has its inner moral sources. When a person is engaged with something he likes to do, he looks more attractive, it seems that he has inner light that males him beautiful. Favorite work makes a person beautiful, transforms facial features, and makes them thin and expressive.

If inner spiritual wealth forms human beauty, then inactivity and immoral activities destroy the beauty.

Immoral activities disfigure. A person who has the habit to lie, dissemble, rant avoids looking into the eyes of others, it is hard to see a thought inside his eyes, he hides it. Jealousy, selfishness, suspicion, fear that “people will not appreciate me” – all these feelings gradually coarsen facial features, make them sullen, unsociable. Be yourself, cherish your dignity, because this is the source of the real human beauty.

The ideal of human beauty is the moral ideal at the same time. The unity of physical, moral, aesthetic perfection is the harmony that people seek for.

There are so many essays on beauty already written, but I hope in this beauty essay we managed to transfer the main idea that beauty has two sides, external and internal, and these two elements should not exist separately. There always should be unity of inner and outer beauty.

If you like this essay, visit Puressay.com . There you will find many interesting essays on various topics, and also if you face difficulties in essay writing , our supportive team is always there to help you.

Calculate Your Price

Free Samples
Popular topics

Use your limited chance to get a special 22% OFF!

Apply the code "stayhome" while placing your order and enjoy the outstanding results!

Welcome, Login to your account.

Recover your password.

A password will be e-mailed to you.

Outer beauty VS Inner beauty: The 3 essential differences

“Your outer beauty will capture the eyes, your inner beauty will capture the heart.” Steven Aitchison

When looking for a romantic partner, or a life-long friend what do you value more – a beautiful body or a beautiful mind? If you follow I Heart Intelligence , chances are you chose the latter.

Sadly, in today’s world, physical appearance is put on a pedestal, while having a warm heart and a soul filled with love means little to nothing. When did we lose interest in taking care of our mindfulness? When did having a pretty face became more valuable than having a good heart?

If you too are wondering, take a look at the following three main differences between outer and inner beauty :

1. inner beauty is seen by many, while outer beauty is subjective. .

There are 7 billion people in this world, with 7 billion different opinions about outer beauty. If you are a traveler by heart, then you know how contrasting beauty perceptions are around the globe. What you may find physically attractive can be an absolute eyesore to someone else and vice versa. And this is truly magical because it implies that regardless of a person’s physical features, there is always going to be someone out there who finds them appealing.

On the other hand, inner beauty is a treasure that can be seen by everyone, no matter what you look like. If you are authentic and you a heart of gold, others will see and appreciate you despite their personal views about beauty.

2. Outer beauty drives initial attraction, but inner beauty is what makes it last.

The truth is that outer beauty immensely helps when it comes to making good first impressions. Whether we like it or not, we live in a world where most people do judge the book by its cover. However, many individuals usually don’t bother reading the book.

On the other hand, you have probably been in situations where you judged someone based on their appearance only, and once they opened their mouth, you regretted even starting a conversation with them. This certainly doesn’t mean that attractive people are not intelligent. But, unfortunately, there are many occasions in which outer beauty doesn’t match inner beauty.

However, if you take the time to read the book, you may find out that the gorgeous cover has only a fraction of the actual beauty within. Once you get to know someone’s genuine personality and discover how mesmerizing their mind is, you instantly want to continue bonding with them. This proves that physical appearance means nothing when you have a good soul.

3. Cultivating inner beauty leads to growth, while altering outer beauty may lead to losing your identity.

Nowadays there are many ways you can manipulate the way you look. Plastic surgery and other appearance-altering cosmetic procedures are becoming more and more accessible and affordable. This is absolutely incredible for people who really need body modifications to improve their mental health or to fix other serious physical problems they might be dealing with.

Sadly, with social media being a massive part of our lives, far too many people are struggling with self-image issues not because there is something wrong with them, but because they are convinced they need to look a certain way to be accepted by society. So they delve into the world of plastic surgery and they slowly lose their identities in order to fit in.

In reality, what we should be encouraging is not altering our bodies, but remodeling our mindset. We should become more aware of the way we treat others and ourselves. We should be inspired to learn more languages, so we can dive into different cultures and expand our limits. Instead of spending money on looking like someone else, spend time on becoming the best version of yourself. Because outer beauty fades, but the beauty within is timeless.

What are the most beautiful traits in a person?

As noted by A Conscious Rethink, when asked about what traits they look for in a potential long-term partner, most people name things that have nothing to do with physical appearance. Some of the features we seek the most are Kindness, Loyalty, Patience, Integrity, Empathy, A good sense of humor, and A supportive nature.

All of these traits can be found in anyone, regardless of the outer beauty they possess. More importantly, these are personality characteristics we seek in those we see as our potential life partners, meaning that we value them more than we value a pretty face.

The iconic Italian actress Sophia Loren, one of the most stunning women the world knows, once said:

“Beauty is how you feel inside, and it reflects in your eyes. It is not something physical.”

Do you believe inner beauty is more valuable than outer beauty, or do the two go hand in hand? Let us know in the comment section!

Follow Us @iheartintelligence

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Accept Read More

everything you need. nothing you expect.

The Eternal Debate: Inner Beauty vs. Outer Beauty

Outer beauty pleases the eye. Inner beauty captivates the heart.” – Mandy Hale

In a world obsessed with appearances, the age-old debate continues to simmer beneath the surface: Is inner beauty truly superior to outer beauty? While the allure of a striking exterior is undeniable, let’s embark on a cerebral journey to dissect this intriguing topic and uncover the hidden gems that lie within. Buckle up, as we delve deep into the realms of human perception, self-worth, and what it means to be truly beautiful.

The Superficial Mirage: Outer Beauty

Outer beauty is like a captivating mirage in the desert of our lives. It can entrance, mesmerize, and draw people in like a moth to a flame. But beneath the shimmering surface, we often find that it’s but a fleeting illusion.

The Fleeting Nature of Looks: Outer beauty is ephemeral, subject to the passage of time, changing trends, and the unrelenting march of age. What’s considered beautiful today might be passé tomorrow.
The Peril of Superficial Judgments: Our society tends to judge a book by its cover, often at the expense of the richness of the content within. Superficial judgments can lead to missed opportunities for connection and understanding.
The Pressure to Conform: Pursuit of external beauty often leads to a relentless quest for perfection, fostering body image issues and insecurity. The unrealistic beauty standards propagated by media exacerbates this problem.

The Hidden Treasures: Inner Beauty

Inner beauty, on the other hand, is like a rare gem hidden deep within the Earth. It’s a treasure that reveals itself over time, as we get to know a person on a deeper level.

The Enduring Quality of Character: Inner beauty emanates from qualities such as kindness, compassion, empathy, and intelligence. These traits have a timeless appeal that only deepens with age.
The Magnetic Power of Personality: A person’s character, wit, and charm can draw people in and create lasting connections. A magnetic personality can make someone irresistibly attractive.
The Authentic Self: Inner beauty is authentic; it doesn’t require masks or pretenses. Being true to oneself and having the courage to be vulnerable are marks of inner beauty.

A Harmonious Symbiosis: The Interplay of Inner and Outer Beauty

While inner and outer beauty are often pitted against each other, the truth is that they coexist in a delicate dance.

Complementary Forces: Inner and outer beauty can complement each other. A person’s inner confidence can enhance their outer allure, while outer beauty can provide a confidence boost that allows innate beauty to shine.
The Power of Self-Care: Taking care of one’s physical health can be an expression of self-love and respect. This self-care can contribute to an overall sense of well-being, which in turn enhances inner beauty.
The Role of Perception: Beauty is, to a large extent, in the eye of the beholder. Our perceptions are influenced by culture, upbringing, and personal experiences. What one person finds beautiful may differ from another’s perspective.

Cultivating Inner Beauty: A Lifelong Journey

Embrace Self-Discovery: Discover your passions, values, and what truly makes you come alive. Cultivating inner beauty starts with knowing and accepting yourself.
Practice Empathy: Empathy is a cornerstone of inner beauty. Seek to understand others, listen actively, and show kindness. It’s a win-win: you become more beautiful to others, and the world becomes a kinder place.
Nurture Relationships: Meaningful connections with others are a testament to your inner beauty. Invest time and effort in building and maintaining these relationships.

Balancing Act: Finding Your Unique Beauty Equation

Ultimately, the age-old debate between inner and outer beauty isn’t a battle to be won but a balance to be struck. The ideal lies in embracing both facets of beauty, recognizing that they are interconnected and can enhance one another.

Confidence Matters: Outer beauty can boost your confidence, but it’s inner beauty that sustains it. The more you cultivate inner beauty, the more you’ll radiate confidence.
The Power of Authenticity: Authenticity is beautiful. When you embrace your true self, you become more attractive both inside and out.
The Ever-Evolving Journey: Your perception of beauty may evolve as you age and gain wisdom. Embrace this evolution, and let it shape your unique understanding of beauty.

The Beautiful Truth

In the age-old tug of war between inner and outer beauty, we find that the two are not adversaries but intimate companions. They coexist in a complex, beautiful dance that varies from person to person. True beauty, we discover, transcends the surface and finds its essence in the depths of the human spirit. Whether you’re admiring a breathtaking sunset, the smile lines etched by a lifetime of laughter, or the kindness that radiates from within, beauty, in all its forms, is indeed in the eye of the beholder.

What is Beauty: Inner and Physical

Categories: Beauty Physical Appearance

About this sample

Words: 1078 |

Updated: 23 November, 2023

Words: 1078 | Page: 1 | 6 min read

Works Cited

Aristotle. (1999). Poetics. In R. McKeon (Ed.), The Basic Works of Aristotle (pp. 1453-1492). Modern Library.
Bordo, S. (1993). Unbearable Weight: Feminism, Western Culture, and the Body. University of California Press.
Eagan, D. J. (2017). The Social Psychology of Facial Appearance. Springer.
Etcoff, N. (2000). Survival of the Prettiest: The Science of Beauty. Anchor Books.
Kant, I. (2009). Critique of Judgment. Oxford University Press.
Nussbaum, M. C. (1995). Objectification. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 24(4), 249-291.
Platon. (2005). The Symposium. In S. R. Slings (Ed.), Plato Complete Works (pp. 461-512). Hackett Publishing Company.
Scruton, R. (2009). Beauty: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press.
Sontag, S. (1978). The Double Standard of Aging. Saturday Review, 5-7.
Wolf, N. (1991). The Beauty Myth: How Images of Beauty Are Used against Women. Harper Perennial.

Video Version

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Verified writer

Expert in: Life Sociology

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

3 pages / 1372 words

3 pages / 1414 words

1 pages / 620 words

2 pages / 830 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

What is Beauty: Inner and Physical Essay

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Achieng, Jackline. “Cultural Beauty Practices From Around The World That You’ve Probably Never Heard Of.” Culture Trip, 7 May 2018, [...]

Have you ever dreamed of a career where you can help others look and feel their best while indulging your passion for skincare and beauty? If so, then a career as an esthetician might be the perfect fit for you. An esthetician [...]

Louise Nevelson's Sky Cathedral is a mesmerizing work of art that invites viewers to step into a world of mystery and imagination. This monumental sculpture, created in 1958, stands as a testament to Nevelson's artistic vision [...]

Beauty has been a topic of debate for centuries, with philosophers, artists, and scientists all weighing in on whether it is objective or subjective. Some argue that beauty is purely in the eye of the beholder, while others [...]

We have the concept of "beauty" before a long time ago. However, after all these years, we still have not given out “the one true definition” of the word "beauty". In fact, “beauty” has varied throughout time, various cultures [...]

Did you know that the global cosmetic market was valued at $532 billion in 2017? And there is no sign of slowing down in fact, it is estimated to reach a global market value of $805 billion by 2023. Beauty companies strive hard [...]

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

Instructions Followed To The Letter
Deadlines Met At Every Stage
Unique And Plagiarism Free

The Truth About Beauty

It would be so nice if inner beauty triumphed over outer appearance. but men are designed to care about packaging. it's time to accept the not-so-pretty facts about looks..

By Amy Alkon published November 1, 2010 - last reviewed on June 9, 2016

There are certain practical realities of existence that most of us accept. If you want to catch a bear, you don't load the trap with a copy of Catch-22 —not unless you rub it with a considerable quantity of raw hamburger. If you want to snag a fish, you can't just slap the water with your hand and yell, "Jump on my hook, already!" Yet, if you're a woman who wants to land a man, there's this notion that you should be able to go around looking like Ernest Borgnine: If you're "beautiful on the inside," that's all that should count. Right. And I should have a flying car and a mansion in Bel Air with servants and a moat.

Welcome to Uglytopia—the world reimagined as a place where it's the content of a woman's character, not her pushup bra, that puts her on the cover of Maxim . It just doesn't seem fair to us that some people come into life with certain advantages—whether it's a movie star chin or a multimillion-dollar shipbuilding inheritance. Maybe we need affirmative action for ugly people; make George Clooney rotate in some homely women between all his gorgeous girlfriends. While we wish things were different, we'd best accept the ugly reality: No man will turn his head to ogle a woman because she looks like the type to buy a turkey sandwich for a homeless man or read to the blind.

There is a vast body of evidence indicating that men and women are biologically and psychologically different, and that what heterosexual men and women want in partners directly corresponds to these differences. The features men evolved to go for in women—youth, clear skin, a symmetrical face and body, feminine facial features, an hourglass figure—are those indicating that a woman would be a healthy, fertile candidate to pass on a man's genes .

These preferences span borders, cultures, and generations, meaning yes, there really are universal standards of beauty. And while Western women do struggle to be slim, the truth is, women in all cultures eat (or don't) to appeal to "the male gaze." The body size that's idealized in a particular culture appears to correspond to the availability of food. In cultures like ours, where you can't go five miles without passing a 7-Eleven and food is sold by the pallet-load at warehouse grocery stores, thin women are in. In cultures where food is scarce (like in Sahara-adjacent hoods), blubber is beautiful, and women appeal to men by stuffing themselves until they're slim like Jabba the Hut.

Men's looks matter to heterosexual women only somewhat. Most women prefer men who are taller than they are, with symmetrical features (a sign that a potential partner is healthy and parasite-free). But, women across cultures are intent on finding male partners with high status, power, and access to resources—which means a really short guy can add maybe a foot to his height with a private jet. And, just like women who aren't very attractive, men who make very little money or are chronically out of work tend to have a really hard time finding partners. There is some male grumbling about this. Yet, while feminist journalists deforest North America publishing articles urging women to bow out of the beauty arms race and "Learn to love that woman in the mirror!", nobody gets into the ridiculous position of advising men to "Learn to love that unemployed guy sprawled on the couch!"

Now, before you brand me a traitor to my gender , let me say that I'm all for women having the vote, and I think a woman with a mustache should make the same money as a man with a mustache. But you don't help that woman by advising her, "No need to wax that lip fringe or work off that beer belly!" (Because the road to female empowerment is...looking just like a hairy old man?)

But take The Beauty Myth author Naomi Wolf: She contends that standards of beauty are a plot to keep women politically, economically, and sexually subjugated to men—apparently by keeping them too busy curling their eyelashes to have time for political action and too weak from dieting to stand up for what they want in bed. Wolf and her feminist sob sisters bleat about the horror of women being pushed to conform to "Western standards of beauty"—as if eyebrow plucking and getting highlights are the real hardships compared to the walk in the park of footbinding and clitoridectomy. Most insultingly, Wolf paints women who look after their looks as the dim, passive dupes of Madison Ave nue and magazine editors. Apparently, women need only open a page of Vogue and they're under its spell—they sleepwalk to Sephora to load up on anti-wrinkle potions, then go on harsh diets, eating only carrots fertilized with butterfly poo.

It turns out that the real beauty myth is the damaging one Wolf and other feminists are perpetuating—the absurd notion that it serves women to thumb their noses at standards of beauty. Of course, looks aren't all that matter (as I'm lectured by female readers of my newspaper column when I point out that male lust seems to have a weight limit). But looks matter a great deal. The more attractive the woman is, the wider her pool of romantic partners and range of opportunities in her work and day-to-day life. We all know this, and numerous studies confirm it—it's just heresy to say so.

We consider it admirable when people strive to better themselves intellectually; we don't say, "Hey, you weren't born a genius, so why ever bother reading a book?" Why should we treat physical appearance any differently? For example, research shows that men prefer women with full lips, smaller chins, and large eyes—indicators of higher levels of estrogen . Some lucky women have big eyes; others just seem to, thanks to the clever application of eyeshadow. As the classic commercial says, "Maybe she's born with it. Maybe it's Maybelline." (If it increases her options, who cares which it is?)

Unfortunately, because Americans are so conflicted and dishonest about the power of beauty, we approach it like novices. At one end of the spectrum are the "Love me as I am!" types, like the woman who asked me why she was having such a terrible time meeting men...while dressed in a way that advertised not "I want a boyfriend" but "I'm just the girl to clean out your sewer line!" At the other extreme are women who go around resembling porn -ready painted dolls. Note to the menopausal painted doll: Troweled on makeup doesn't make you look younger; it makes you look like an aging drag queen.

Likewise, being 50 and trying to look 25 through plastic surgery usually succeeds in making a woman look 45 and fembot-scary—an object of pity instead of an object of desire. Plastic surgery you can easily spot is usually a sign—either of really bad work or of somebody who's gone way over the top with it, probably because she's trying to fill some void in her life with silicone, Juvederm, and implanted butt cutlets. There are women who just want to fix that one nagging imperfection. For others, plastic surgery is like potato chips, as in, "Betcha can't eat just one." A woman comes in for a lunchtime lip job—an injection of Restylane or another plumping filler—and ends up getting both sets of lips done. Yes, I'm talking about labioplasty. (Are your vagina lips pouty?)

Once women start seeing wrinkles and crow's feet, the desperation to look like they were born yesterday often makes them act like it, too. Women want to believe there's such a thing as "hope in a jar"—and there is: hope from the CEO selling the jars that you and millions of others will buy him a new yacht and a chateau in the south of France. There actually is hope to be found in a plastic bottle—of sunblock, the kind that protects against both UVA and UVB rays (the skin-aging ones). But the Beauty Brains, a group of blogging cosmetic scientists, write, "The sad truth is that creams that claim to be anti-aging are not much more effective than standard moisturizing lotions."

French women, too, buy into the idea that there's some fountain of youth at the Clarins counter. But, perhaps because feminism never seeped into mainstream culture in France like it did here, they generally have a healthier and more realistic relationship with beauty, accepting it as the conduit to love, sex, relationships, and increased opportunities. They take pleasure in cultivating their appearance, and in accentuating their physical differences from men. They don't give up on looking after their looks as they age, nor do they tart themselves up like sexy schoolgirls at 50. They simply take pride in their appearance and try to look like sensual, older women.

To understand what it takes to be beautiful, we need to be very clear about what being beautiful means—being sexually appealing to men. And then, instead of snarling that male sexuality is evil, we need to accept that it's just different—far more visually-driven than female sexuality. To focus our efforts, we can turn to an increasing number of studies by evolutionary psychologists on what most men seem to want. For example, the University of Texas' Devendra Singh discovered that men, across cultures, are drawn to a woman with an hourglass figure. Men like to see a wom an's waist—even on the larger ladies—so burn those muumuus, which only reveal your girlish figure in a Category 5 hurricane, and if you don't have much of a waist, do your best to give yourself one with the cut of your clothes or a belt.

Too many women try to get away with a bait-and-switch approach to appearance upkeep. If you spend three hours a day in the gym while you're dating a guy, don't think that you can walk down the aisle and say "I do...and, guess what...now I don't anymore!" A woman needs to come up with a workable routine for maintaining her looks throughout her lifetime and avoid rationalizing slacking off— while she's seeking a man and after she has one. Yeah, you might have to put five or ten extra minutes into prettying up just to hang around the house. And, sure, you might be more "comfortable" in big sloppy sweats, but how "comfortable" will you be if he leaves you for a woman who cares enough to look hot for him?

Like French women, we, too, need to understand that a healthy approach to beauty is neither pretending it's unnecessary or unimportant nor making it important beyond all else. By being honest about it, we help women make informed decisions about how much effort to put into their appearance—or accept the opportunity costs of going ungroomed. The truth is, like knowledge, beauty is power. So, ladies, read lots of books, develop your mind and your character, exercise the rights the heroes of the women's movement fought for us to have, and strive to become somebody who makes a difference in the world. And, pssst...while you're doing all of that, don't forget to wear lipgloss.

Find a Therapist
Find a Treatment Center
Find a Psychiatrist
Find a Support Group
Find Teletherapy
United States
Brooklyn, NY
Chicago, IL
Houston, TX
Los Angeles, CA
New York, NY
Portland, OR
San Diego, CA
San Francisco, CA
Seattle, WA
Washington, DC
Asperger's
Bipolar Disorder
Chronic Pain
Eating Disorders
Passive Aggression
Personality
Goal Setting
Positive Psychology
Stopping Smoking
Low Sexual Desire
Relationships
Child Development
Therapy Center NEW
Diagnosis Dictionary
Types of Therapy

Understanding what emotional intelligence looks like and the steps needed to improve it could light a path to a more emotionally adept world.

Coronavirus Disease 2019
Affective Forecasting
Neuroscience

Select Page

Inner Beauty vs Outer Beauty

Posted by INSBRIGHT | Blog |

Inner Beauty vs. Outer Beauty, which one is more important? is an ongoing debate. To me, both are important in life. However, if you want to choose only one between these two, I will stick with the inner beauty. Outer beauty is nothing but the beauty of skin, and the inner beauty is the purity of soul.Once Kate Angell, the author of Richmond Rogues said, “Outer beauty attracts, but inner beauty captivates.” If you ask me, why inner beauty is more important than outer beauty, my simple answer is outer beauty may fade out but inner beauty last as long as you are alive.

Table of Contents

Bible Verses On Inner Beauty

What does the Bible say about Inner and outer beauty? Bible is in favor of inner beauty. If you read the Bible Versus given below, It will be clear to you-

1 Timothy 4:8

Physical exercise has some value, but spiritual exercise is much more important, for it promises a reward in both this life and the next.

1 Peter 3:3-4

Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as elaborate hairstyles and the wearing of gold jewelry or fine clothes. Rather, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight.

2 Corinthians 4:16

So we do not lose heart. Though our outer self is wasting away, our inner self his being renewed day by day.

Samuel 16:7

But the LORD said to Samuel, “Do not look on his appearance or on the height of his stature, because I have rejected him. For the LORD sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the LORD looks on the heart.

Psalms 45:11

and the king will desire your beauty. Since he is your lord, bow to him.

Ezekiel 28:17

Your heart was proud because of your beauty; you corrupted your wisdom for the sake of your splendor. I cast you to the ground; I exposed you before kings, to feast their eyes on you.

Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.

1 Samuel 16:7

But the Lord said to Samuel, “Do not look on his appearance or on the height of his stature, because I have rejected him. For the Lord sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart.”

Inner Beauty vs. Outer Beauty:

Here is my explanation why inner beauty is more important than outer beauty-

What is Outer Beauty:

Outer beauty, which I prefer to call external beauty; is a physical beauty that plays an important part in attracting people towards you. As it is external, it’s what everybody sees, even from far.

What is Inner Beauty:

Inner beauty or internal beauty is beauty in us that people from afar do not see. Those close to we appreciate it and it’s what makes people long to be with us. It’s soulful.

Secret of Happy Life:

As we live in this world, many people spend most their time looking in the mirror, Tuning and fine tuning their faces and their looks until they think they look splendid and acceptable. People spend lots of money just to look good. I have nothing against this. Actually, I like people who take great care of themselves and their looks.

Even with great looks, some people are still lonely; they find themselves with no friends. Their friendships don’t last that long. They wonder if they are cursed or not; maybe an old little evil witch has cast a spell on them.

Some people don’t have great looks, but millions of people adore them. They live fulfilling lives and are happy, and this is what every human being seeks. It makes some people wonder why inner beauty is more important than outer beauty.

It Defines Who You Are:

Inner beauty is by far important than outer beauty because it extends beyond the inside. Inner beauty defines who you are, outer beauty, defines what you look like and who is attracted to it.

Inner beauty goes beyond the looks. It’s what radiates from you. It’s about the message you convey to people. It’s about what you think and feels about yourself. It is not limited to the eye only; it’s what gives that emotional and intellectual connection to the outside world.

Inner beauty is associated with having a great personality and character. True beauty starts from inside. It begins by appreciating who you are. Even those who with great outer beauty, if they have no inner beauty, then their beauty goes to waste. Beauty is one’s perspective of themselves portrayed to the outside world. Without any form of inner beauty and believing in yourself, outer beauty has no significance in one’s life.

It brings out the best in you. It makes you confident in yourself and the world around you. It causes you to search and find the best in humanity. You do not only live for yourself, but also for the common good of everybody around you.

Outer beauty is equally important as well; it is not meant to be overlooked. Outer beauty represents the lengths people are prepared to go to look good. It physically brings out the best side of humans.

In general, outer beauty attracts people to ourselves and inner beauty keeps those people coming back to you. Unless if you are a model and get paid to look and stay beautiful, then you have no use for inner beauty. Though outer beauty may get you a nice seat at a poker table or free ride to work, it can’t guarantee you that your second cousin your in-laws will share a turkey with you at dinner table come Thanksgiving holiday.

Secret of Natural Relationship:

Inner beauty keeps your friendships and relationships going. People fall in love with your inner beauty. People generally admire it.

Outer beauty intimates most people. These externally beautiful people are considered to be rude and impolite, which may or may not be true. It is important to note that some are gifted with both inner and outer beauty. They are everybody’s favorite.

When it comes to relationships, people fall in love with physically beautiful people whom they “show” around like trophies, but are not ready to keep them. A few people are secure being with them.

Many people like associating and sharing lives with inner beautiful people because they are friendly and great to be around. Beautiful people don’t only wait to be complimented; they feel it inside. You are not beautiful for other people to envy you, but you should be beautiful to feel great about yourself. Beauty lies inside all of us, whether great or small.

Why is Persistence Important in Leadership?

January 6, 2016

Power of Positive Thinking, Inspiration and Motivation- A Journey Towards Success

February 3, 2016

Is Being Different A Good or A Bad Thing?

January 28, 2016

How Valentine’s Day Started? | Valentine’s Day History and Facts

February 2, 2017

Most Recent Posts

Inspirational Quotes Images | Motivational Pictures with Quotes | Insbright

The Importance Of Inner Beauty Over Outer Beauty

*minimum deadline

Cite this Essay

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below

Barbie Doll

Related Essays

Need writing help?

You can always rely on us no matter what type of paper you need

*No hidden charges

100% Unique Essays

Absolutely Confidential

Money Back Guarantee

By clicking “Send Essay”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement. We will occasionally send you account related emails

You can also get a UNIQUE essay on this or any other topic

Thank you! We’ll contact you as soon as possible.

Essays About Beauty: Top 5 Examples and 10 Prompts

Writing essays about beauty is complicated because of this topic’s breadth. See our examples and prompts to you write your next essay.

Beauty is short for beautiful and refers to the features that make something pleasant to look at. This includes landscapes like mountain ranges and plains, natural phenomena like sunsets and aurora borealis, and art pieces such as paintings and sculptures. However, beauty is commonly attached to an individual’s appearance, fashion, or cosmetics style, which appeals to aesthetical concepts. Because people’s views and ideas about beauty constantly change , there are always new things to know and talk about.

Below are five great essays that define beauty differently. Consider these examples as inspiration to come up with a topic to write about.

1. Essay On Beauty – Promise Of Happiness By Shivi Rawat

2. defining beauty by wilbert houston, 3. long essay on beauty definition by prasanna, 4. creative writing: beauty essay by writer jill, 5. modern idea of beauty by anonymous on papersowl, 1. what is beauty: an argumentative essay, 2. the beauty around us, 3. children and beauty pageants, 4. beauty and social media, 5. beauty products and treatments: pros and cons, 6. men and makeup, 7. beauty and botched cosmetic surgeries, 8. is beauty a necessity, 9. physical and inner beauty, 10. review of books or films about beauty.

“In short, appreciation of beauty is a key factor in the achievement of happiness, adds a zest to living positively and makes the earth a more cheerful place to live in.”

Rawat defines beauty through the words of famous authors, ancient sayings, and historical personalities. He believes that beauty depends on the one who perceives it. What others perceive as beautiful may be different for others. Rawat adds that beauty makes people excited about being alive.

“No one’s definition of beauty is wrong. However, it does exist and can be seen with the eyes and felt with the heart.”

Check out these essays about best friends .

Houston’s essay starts with the author pointing out that some people see beauty and think it’s unattainable and non-existent. Next, he considers how beauty’s definition is ever-changing and versatile. In the next section of his piece, he discusses individuals’ varying opinions on the two forms of beauty: outer and inner.

At the end of the essay, the author admits that beauty has no exact definition, and people don’t see it the same way. However, he argues that one’s feelings matter regarding discerning beauty. Therefore, no matter what definition you believe in, no one has the right to say you’re wrong if you think and feel beautiful.

“The characteristic held by the objects which are termed “beautiful” must give pleasure to the ones perceiving it. Since pleasure and satisfaction are two very subjective concepts, beauty has one of the vaguest definitions.”

Instead of providing different definitions, Prasanna focuses on how the concept of beauty has changed over time. She further delves into other beauty requirements to show how they evolved. In our current day, she explains that many defy beauty standards, and thinking “everyone is beautiful” is now the new norm.

“…beauty has stolen the eye of today’s youth. Gone are the days where a person’s inner beauty accounted for so much more then his/her outer beauty.”

This short essay discusses how people’s perception of beauty today heavily relies on physical appearance rather than inner beauty. However, Jill believes that beauty is all about acceptance. Sadly, this notion is unpopular because nowadays, something or someone’s beauty depends on how many people agree with its pleasant outer appearance. In the end, she urges people to stop looking at the false beauty seen in magazines and take a deeper look at what true beauty is.

“The modern idea of beauty is taking a sole purpose in everyday life. Achieving beautiful is not surgically fixing yourself to be beautiful, and tattoos may have a strong meaning behind them that makes them beautiful.”

Beauty in modern times has two sides: physical appearance and personality. The author also defines beauty by using famous statements like “a woman’s beauty is seen in her eyes because that’s the door to her heart where love resides” by Audrey Hepburn. The author also tackles the issue of how physical appearance can be the reason for bullying, cosmetic surgeries, and tattoos as a way for people to express their feelings.

Looking for more? Check out these essays about fashion .

10 Helpful Prompts To Use in Writing Essays About Beauty

If you’re still struggling to know where to start, here are ten exciting and easy prompts for your essay writing:

While defining beauty is not easy, it’s a common essay topic. First, share what you think beauty means. Then, explore and gather ideas and facts about the subject and convince your readers by providing evidence to support your argument.

If you’re unfamiliar with this essay type, see our guide on how to write an argumentative essay .

Beauty doesn’t have to be grand. For this prompt, center your essay on small beautiful things everyone can relate to. They can be tangible such as birds singing or flowers lining the street. They can also be the beauty of life itself. Finally, add why you think these things manifest beauty.

Little girls and boys participating in beauty pageants or modeling contests aren’t unusual. But should it be common? Is it beneficial for a child to participate in these competitions and be exposed to cosmetic products or procedures at a young age? Use this prompt to share your opinion about the issue and list the pros and cons of child beauty pageants.

Essays About Beauty: Beauty and social media

Today, social media is the principal dictator of beauty standards. This prompt lets you discuss the unrealistic beauty and body shape promoted by brands and influencers on social networking sites. Next, explain these unrealistic beauty standards and how they are normalized. Finally, include their effects on children and teens.

Countless beauty products and treatments crowd the market today. What products do you use and why? Do you think these products’ marketing is deceitful? Are they selling the idea of beauty no one can attain without surgeries? Choose popular brands and write down their benefits, issues, and adverse effects on users.

Although many countries accept men wearing makeup, some conservative regions such as Asia still see it as taboo. Explain their rationale on why these regions don’t think men should wear makeup. Then, delve into what makeup do for men. Does it work the same way it does for women? Include products that are made specifically for men.

There’s always something we want to improve regarding our physical appearance. One way to achieve such a goal is through surgeries. However, it’s a dangerous procedure with possible lifetime consequences. List known personalities who were pressured to take surgeries because of society’s idea of beauty but whose lives changed because of failed operations. Then, add your thoughts on having procedures yourself to have a “better” physique.

People like beautiful things. This explains why we are easily fascinated by exquisite artworks. But where do these aspirations come from? What is beauty’s role, and how important is it in a person’s life? Answer these questions in your essay for an engaging piece of writing.

Beauty has many definitions but has two major types. Discuss what is outer and inner beauty and give examples. Tell the reader which of these two types people today prefer to achieve and why. Research data and use opinions to back up your points for an interesting essay.

Many literary pieces and movies are about beauty. Pick one that made an impression on you and tell your readers why. One of the most popular books centered around beauty is Dave Hickey’s The Invisible Dragon , first published in 1993. What does the author want to prove and point out in writing this book, and what did you learn? Are the ideas in the book still relevant to today’s beauty standards? Answer these questions in your next essay for an exiting and engaging piece of writing.

Grammar is critical in writing. To ensure your essay is free of grammatical errors, check out our list of best essay checkers .

Maria Caballero is a freelance writer who has been writing since high school. She believes that to be a writer doesn't only refer to excellent syntax and semantics but also knowing how to weave words together to communicate to any reader effectively.

View all posts

Current Issue
Past Issues
Get New Issue Alerts
American Academy of Arts  and Sciences

An argument about beauty

Susan Sontag has been a Fellow of the American Academy since 1993. Best known as a novelist and essayist – her books have been translated into thirty-two languages – she has also written stories and plays, written and directed movies, and worked as a theatre director in the United States and Europe. In 2000 she won the National Book Award for her novel In America , and in 2001 received the Jerusalem Prize for the body of her work. Last year, a new collection of essays, Where the Stress Falls , was published. Her next book, Regarding the Pain of Others , will appear in early 2003, and she is also writing another novel.

Responding at last, in April of 2002, to the scandal created by the revelation of innumerable cover-ups of sexually predatory priests, Pope John Paul II told the American cardinals summoned to the Vatican, “A great work of art may be blemished, but its beauty remains; and this is a truth which any intellectually honest critic will recognize.”

Is it too odd that the Pope likens the Catholic Church to a great – that is, beautiful – work of art? Perhaps not, since the inane comparison allows him to turn abhorrent misdeeds into something like the scratches in the print of a silent film or craquelure covering the surface of an Old Master painting, blemishes that we reflexively screen out or see past. The Pope likes venerable ideas. And beauty, as a term signifying (like health) an indisputable excellence, has been a perennial resource in the issuing of peremptory evaluations.

Permanence, however, is not one of beauty’s more obvious attributes; and the contemplation of beauty, when it is expert, may be wreathed in pathos, the drama on which Shakespeare elaborates in many of the Sonnets. Traditional celebrations of beauty in Japan, like the annual rite of cherry-blossom viewing, are keenly elegiac; the most stirring beauty is the most evanescent. To make beauty in some sense imperishable required a lot of conceptual tinkering and transposing, but the idea was simply too alluring, too potent, to be squandered on the praise of superior embodiments. The aim was to multiply the notion, to allow for kinds of beauty, beauty with adjectives, arranged on a scale of ascending value and incorruptibility, with the metaphorized uses (‘intellectual beauty,’ ‘spiritual beauty’) taking precedence over what ordinary language extols as beautiful – a gladness to the senses.

The less ‘uplifting’ beauty of face and body remains the most commonly visited site of the beautiful. But one would hardly expect the Pope to invoke that sense of beauty while constructing an exculpatory account of several generations’ worth of the clergy’s sexual molestation of children and protection of the molesters. More to the point – his point – is the ‘higher’ beauty of art. However much art may seem to be a matter of surface and reception by the senses, it has generally been accorded an honorary citizenship in the domain of ‘inner’ (as opposed to ‘outer’) beauty. Beauty, it seems, is immutable, at least when incarnated – fixed – in the form of art, because it is in art that beauty as an idea, an eternal idea, is best embodied. Beauty (should you choose to use the word that way) is deep, not superficial; hidden, sometimes, rather than obvious; consoling, not troubling; indestructible, as in art, rather than ephemeral, as in nature. Beauty, the stipulatively uplifting kind, perdures.

The best theory of beauty is its history. Thinking about the history of beauty means focusing on its deployment in the hands of specific communities.

Communities dedicated by their leaders to stemming what is perceived as a noxious tide of innovative views have no interest in modifying the bulwark provided by the use of beauty as unexceptionable commendation and consolation. It is not surprising that John Paul II, and the preserve-and-conserve institution for which he speaks, feels as comfortable with beauty as with the idea of the good.

It also seems inevitable that when, almost a century ago, the most prestigious communities concerned with the fine arts dedicated themselves to drastic projects of innovation, beauty would turn up on the front line of notions to be discredited. Beauty could not but appear a conservative standard to the makers and proclaimers of the new; Gertrude Stein said that to call a work of art beautiful means that it is dead. Beautiful has come to mean ‘merely’ beautiful: there is no more vapid or philistine compliment.

Elsewhere, beauty still reigns, irrepressible. (How could it not?) When that notorious beauty-lover Oscar Wilde announced in The Decay of Lying , “Nobody of any real culture ever talks about the beauty of a sunset. Sunsets are quite old-fashioned,” sunsets reeled under the blow, then recovered. Les beaux-arts, when summoned to a similar call to be up-to-date, did not. The subtraction of beauty as a standard for art hardly signals a decline of the authority of beauty. Rather, it testifies to a decline in the belief that there is something called art.

Even when Beauty was an unquestioned criterion of value in the arts, it was defined laterally, by evoking some other quality that was supposed to be the essence or sine qua non of something that was beautiful. A definition of the beautiful was no more (or less) than a commendation of the beautiful. When, for example, Lessing equated beauty with harmony, he was offering another general idea of what is excellent or desirable.

In the absence of a definition in the strict sense, there was supposed to be an organ or capacity for registering beauty (that is, value) in the arts, called ‘taste,’ and a canon of works discerned by people of taste, seekers after more rarefied gratifications, adepts of connoisseurship. For in the arts – unlike life – beauty was not assumed to be necessarily apparent, evident, obvious.

The problem with taste was that, however much it resulted in periods of large agreement within communities of art lovers, it issued from private, immediate, and revocable responses to art. And the consensus, however firm, was never more than local. To address this defect, Kant – a dedicated universalizer – proposed a distinctive faculty of ‘judgment’ with discernable principles of a general and abiding kind; the tastes legislated by this faculty of judgment, if properly reflected upon, should be the possession of all. But ‘judgment’ did not have its intended effect of shoring up ‘taste’ or making it, in a certain sense, more democratic. For one thing, taste-as-principled- judgment was hard to apply, since it had the most tenuous connection with the actual works of art deemed incontestably great or beautiful, unlike the pliable, empirical criterion of taste. And taste is now a far weaker, more assailable notion than it was in the late eighteenth century. Whose taste? Or, more insolently, who sez?

As the relativistic stance in cultural matters pressed harder on the old assessments, definitions of beauty – descriptions of its essence – became emptier. Beauty could no longer be something as positive as harmony. For Valéry, the nature of beauty is that it cannot be defined; beauty is precisely ‘the ineffable.’

The failure of the notion of beauty reflects the discrediting of the prestige of judgment itself, as something that could conceivably be impartial or objective, not always self-serving or self-referring. It also reflects the discrediting of binary discourses in the arts. Beauty defines itself as the antithesis of the ugly. Obviously, you can’t say something is beautiful if you’re not willing to say something is ugly. But there are more and more taboos about calling something, anything, ugly. (For an explanation, look first not at the rise of so-called political correctness, but at the evolving ideology of consumerism, then at the complicity between these two.) The point is to find what is beautiful in what has not hitherto been regarded as beautiful (or: the beautiful in the ugly).

Similarly, there is more and more resistance to the idea of ‘good taste,’ that is, to the dichotomy good taste/bad taste, except for occasions that allow one to celebrate the defeat of snobbery and the triumph of what was once condescended to as bad taste. Today, good taste seems even more retrograde an idea than beauty. Austere, difficult ‘modernist’ art and literature have come to seem old-fashioned, a conspiracy of snobs. Innovation is relaxation now; today’s E-Z Art gives the green light to all. In the cultural climate favoring the more user-friendly art of recent years, the beautiful seems, if not obvious, then pretentious. Beauty continues to take a battering in what are called, absurdly, our culture wars.

That beauty applied to some things and not to others, that it was a principle of discrimination , was once its strength and appeal. Beauty belonged to the family of notions that establish rank, and accorded well with social order unapologetic about station, class, hierarchy, and the right to exclude.

What had been a virtue of the concept became its liability. Beauty, which once seemed vulnerable because it was too general, loose, porous, was revealed as – on the contrary – excluding too much. Discrimination, once a positive faculty (meaning refined judgment, high standards, fastidiousness), turned negative: it meant prejudice, bigotry, blindness to the virtues of what was not identical with oneself.

The strongest, most successful move against beauty was in the arts: beauty, and the caring about beauty, was restrictive; as the current idiom has it, elitist. Our appreciations, it was felt, could be so much more inclusive if we said that something, instead of being beautiful, was ‘interesting.’

Of course, when people said a work of art was interesting, this did not mean that they necessarily liked it – much less that they thought it beautiful. It usually meant no more than they thought they ought to like it. Or that they liked it, sort of, even though it wasn’t beautiful.

Or they might describe something as interesting to avoid the banality of calling it beautiful. Photography was the art where ‘the interesting’ first triumphed, and early on: the new, photographic way of seeing proposed everything as a potential subject for the camera. The beautiful could not have yielded such a range of subjects; and soon came to seem uncool to boot as a judgment. Of a photograph of a sunset, a beautiful sunset, anyone with minimal standards of verbal sophistication might well prefer to say, “Yes, the photograph is interesting.”

What is interesting? Mostly, what has not previously been thought beautiful (or good). The sick are interesting, as Nietzsche points out. The wicked, too. To name something as interesting implies challenging old orders of praise; such judgments aspire to be found insolent or at least ingenious. Connoisseurs of the interesting – whose antonym is the boring – appreciate clash, not harmony. Liberalism is boring, declares Carl Schmitt in The Concept of the Political , written in 1932 (the following year he joined the Nazi Party). A politics conducted according to liberal principles lacks drama, flavor, conflict, while strong autocratic politics – and war – are interesting.

Long use of ‘the interesting’ as a criterion of value has, inevitably, weakened its transgressive bite. What is left of the old insolence lies mainly in its disdain for the consequences of actions and of judgments. As for the truthfulness of the ascription – that does not even enter the story. One calls something interesting precisely so as not to have to commit to a judgment of beauty (or of goodness). The interesting is now mainly a consumerist concept, bent on enlarging its domain: the more things that become interesting, the more the marketplace grows. The boring – understood as an absence, an emptiness – implies its antidote: the promiscuous, empty affirmations of the interesting. It is a peculiarly inconclusive way of experiencing reality.

In order to enrich this deprived take on our experiences, one would have to acknowledge a full notion of boredom: depression, rage (suppressed despair). Then one could work toward a full notion of the interesting. But that quality of experience – of feeling – one would probably no longer even want to call interesting.

Beauty can illustrate an ideal; a perfection. Or, because of its identification with women (more accurately, with Woman), it can trigger the usual ambivalence that stems from the age-old denigration of the feminine. Much of the discrediting of beauty needs to be understood as a result of the gender inflection. Misogyny, too, might underlie the urge to metaphorize beauty, thereby promoting it out of the realm of the ‘merely’ feminine, the unserious, the specious. For if women are worshiped because they are beautiful, they are condescended to for their preoccupation with making or keeping themselves beautiful. Beauty is theatrical, it is for being looked at and admired; and the word is as likely to suggest the beauty industry (beauty magazines, beauty parlors, beauty products) – the theatre of feminine frivolity – as the beauties of art and of nature. How else to explain the association of beauty – i.e., women – with mindlessness? To be concerned with one’s own beauty is to risk the charge of narcissism and frivolity. Consider all the beauty synonyms, starting with the ‘lovely,’ the merely ‘pretty,’ which cry out for a virile transposition.

“Handsome is as handsome does.” (But not: “Beautiful is as beautiful does.”) Though it applies no less than does ‘beautiful’ to appearance, ‘handsome’ – free of associations with the feminine – seems a more sober, less gushing way of commending. Beauty is not ordinarily associated with gravitas. Thus one might prefer to call the vehicle for delivering searing images of war and atrocity a ‘handsome book,’ as I did in the preface to a recent compilation of photographs by Don McCullin, lest calling it a ‘beautiful book’ (which it was) would seem an affront to its appalling subject.

It’s usually assumed that beauty is, almost tautologically, an ‘aesthetic’ category, which puts it, according to many, on a collision course with the ethical. But beauty, even beauty in the amoral mode, is never naked. And the ascription of beauty is never unmixed with moral values. Far from the aesthetic and the ethical being poles apart, as Kierkegaard and Tolstoy insisted, the aesthetic is itself a quasi-moral project. Arguments about beauty since Plato are stocked with questions about the proper relation to the beautiful (the irresistibly, enthrallingly beautiful), which is thought to flow from the nature of beauty itself.

The perennial tendency to make of beauty itself a binary concept, to split it up into ‘inner’ and ‘outer,’ ‘higher’ and ‘lower’ beauty, is the usual way that judgments of the beautiful are colonized by moral judgments. From a Nietzschean (or Wildean) point of view, this may be improper, but it seems to me unavoidable. And the wisdom that becomes available over a deep, lifelong engagement with the aesthetic cannot, I venture to say, be duplicated by any other kind of seriousness. Indeed, the various definitions of beauty come at least as close to a plausible characterization of virtue, and of a fuller humanity, as the attempts to define goodness as such.

Beauty is part of the history of idealizing, which is itself part of the history of consolation. But beauty may not always console. The beauty of face and figure torments, subjugates; that beauty is imperious. The beauty that is human, and the beauty that is made (art) – both raise the fantasy of possession. Our model of the disinterested comes from the beauty of nature – a nature that is distant, overarching, unpossessable.

From a letter written by a German soldier standing guard in the Russian winter in late December of 1942: “The most beautiful Christmas I had ever seen, made entirely of disinterested emotions and stripped of all tawdry trimmings. I was all alone beneath an enormous starred sky, and I can remember a tear running down my frozen cheek, a tear neither of pain nor of joy but of emotion created by intense experience. . . .” 1

Unlike beauty, often fragile and impermanent, the capacity to be overwhelmed by the beautiful is astonishingly sturdy and survives amidst the harshest distractions. Even war, even the prospect of certain death, cannot expunge it.

The beauty of art is better, ‘higher,’ according to Hegel, than the beauty of nature because it is made by human beings and is the work of the spirit. But the discerning of beauty in nature is also the result of traditions of consciousness, and of culture – in Hegel’s language, of spirit.

The responses to beauty in art and to beauty in nature are interdependent. As Wilde pointed out, art does more than school us on how and what to appreciate in nature. (He was thinking of poetry and painting. Today the standards of beauty in nature are largely set by photography.) What is beautiful reminds us of nature as such – of what lies beyond the human and the made – and thereby stimulates and deepens our sense of the sheer spread and fullness of reality, inanimate as well as pulsing, that surrounds us all.

A happy by-product of this insight, if insight it is: beauty regains its solidity, its inevitability, as a judgment needed to make sense of a large portion of one’s energies, affinities, and admirations; and the usurping notions appear ludicrous.

Imagine saying, “That sunset is interesting.”

1 Quoted in Stephen G. Fritz, Frontsoldaten: The German Soldier in World War II (Lexington, Ky.: University Press of Kentucky, 1995), 130.

On beauty (2002)

Table of Contents
Random Entry
Chronological
Editorial Information
About the SEP
Editorial Board
How to Cite the SEP
Special Characters
Advanced Tools
Support the SEP
PDFs for SEP Friends
Make a Donation
SEPIA for Libraries
Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

Friends PDF Preview
Author and Citation Info
Back to Top

The nature of beauty is one of the most enduring and controversial themes in Western philosophy, and is—with the nature of art—one of the two fundamental issues in the history of philosophical aesthetics. Beauty has traditionally been counted among the ultimate values, with goodness, truth, and justice. It is a primary theme among ancient Greek, Hellenistic, and medieval philosophers, and was central to eighteenth and nineteenth-century thought, as represented in treatments by such thinkers as Shaftesbury, Hutcheson, Hume, Burke, Kant, Schiller, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Hanslick, and Santayana. By the beginning of the twentieth century, beauty was in decline as a subject of philosophical inquiry, and also as a primary goal of the arts. However, there was revived interest in beauty and critique of the concept by the 1980s, particularly within feminist philosophy.

This article will begin with a sketch of the debate over whether beauty is objective or subjective, which is perhaps the single most-prosecuted disagreement in the literature. It will proceed to set out some of the major approaches to or theories of beauty developed within Western philosophical and artistic traditions.

1. Objectivity and Subjectivity

2.1 the classical conception, 2.2 the idealist conception, 2.3 love and longing, 2.4 hedonist conceptions, 2.5 use and uselessness, 3.1 aristocracy and capital, 3.2 the feminist critique, 3.3 colonialism and race, 3.4 beauty and resistance, other internet resources, related entries.

Perhaps the most familiar basic issue in the theory of beauty is whether beauty is subjective—located ‘in the eye of the beholder’—or rather an objective feature of beautiful things. A pure version of either of these positions seems implausible, for reasons we will examine, and many attempts have been made to split the difference or incorporate insights of both subjectivist and objectivist accounts. Ancient and medieval accounts for the most part located beauty outside of anyone’s particular experiences. Nevertheless, that beauty is subjective was also a commonplace from the time of the sophists. By the eighteenth century, Hume could write as follows, expressing one ‘species of philosophy’:

Beauty is no quality in things themselves: It exists merely in the mind which contemplates them; and each mind perceives a different beauty. One person may even perceive deformity, where another is sensible of beauty; and every individual ought to acquiesce in his own sentiment, without pretending to regulate those of others. (Hume 1757, 136)

And Kant launches his discussion of the matter in The Critique of Judgment (the Third Critique) at least as emphatically:

The judgment of taste is therefore not a judgment of cognition, and is consequently not logical but aesthetical, by which we understand that whose determining ground can be no other than subjective . Every reference of representations, even that of sensations, may be objective (and then it signifies the real [element] of an empirical representation), save only the reference to the feeling of pleasure and pain, by which nothing in the object is signified, but through which there is a feeling in the subject as it is affected by the representation. (Kant 1790, section 1)

However, if beauty is entirely subjective—that is, if anything that anyone holds to be or experiences as beautiful is beautiful (as James Kirwan, for example, asserts)—then it seems that the word has no meaning, or that we are not communicating anything when we call something beautiful except perhaps an approving personal attitude. In addition, though different persons can of course differ in particular judgments, it is also obvious that our judgments coincide to a remarkable extent: it would be odd or perverse for any person to deny that a perfect rose or a dramatic sunset was beautiful. And it is possible actually to disagree and argue about whether something is beautiful, or to try to show someone that something is beautiful, or learn from someone else why it is.

On the other hand, it seems senseless to say that beauty has no connection to subjective response or that it is entirely objective. That would seem to entail, for example, that a world with no perceivers could be beautiful or ugly, or perhaps that beauty could be detected by scientific instruments. Even if it could be, beauty would seem to be connected to subjective response, and though we may argue about whether something is beautiful, the idea that one’s experiences of beauty might be disqualified as simply inaccurate or false might arouse puzzlement as well as hostility. We often regard other people’s taste, even when it differs from our own, as provisionally entitled to some respect, as we may not, for example, in cases of moral, political, or factual opinions. All plausible accounts of beauty connect it to a pleasurable or profound or loving response, even if they do not locate beauty purely in the eye of the beholder.

Until the eighteenth century, most philosophical accounts of beauty treated it as an objective quality: they located it in the beautiful object itself or in the qualities of that object. In De Veritate Religione , Augustine asks explicitly whether things are beautiful because they give delight, or whether they give delight because they are beautiful; he emphatically opts for the second (Augustine, 247). Plato’s account in the Symposium and Plotinus’s in the Enneads connect beauty to a response of love and desire, but locate beauty itself in the realm of the Forms, and the beauty of particular objects in their participation in the Form. Indeed, Plotinus’s account in one of its moments makes beauty a matter of what we might term ‘formedness’: having the definite shape characteristic of the kind of thing the object is.

We hold that all the loveliness of this world comes by communion in Ideal-Form. All shapelessness whose kind admits of pattern and form, as long as it remains outside of Reason and Idea, is ugly from that very isolation from the Divine-Thought. And this is the Absolute Ugly: an ugly thing is something that has not been entirely mastered by pattern, that is by Reason, the Matter not yielding at all points and in all respects to Ideal-Form. But where the Ideal-Form has entered, it has grouped and coordinated what from a diversity of parts was to become a unity: it has rallied confusion into co-operation: it has made the sum one harmonious coherence: for the Idea is a unity and what it moulds must come into unity as far as multiplicity may. (Plotinus, 22 [ Ennead I, 6])

In this account, beauty is at least as objective as any other concept, or indeed takes on a certain ontological priority as more real than particular Forms: it is a sort of Form of Forms.

Though Plato and Aristotle disagree on what beauty is, they both regard it as objective in the sense that it is not localized in the response of the beholder. The classical conception ( see below ) treats beauty as a matter of instantiating definite proportions or relations among parts, sometimes expressed in mathematical ratios, for example the ‘golden section.’ The sculpture known as ‘The Canon,’ by Polykleitos (fifth/fourth century BCE), was held up as a model of harmonious proportion to be emulated by students and masters alike: beauty could be reliably achieved by reproducing its objective proportions. Nevertheless, it is conventional in ancient treatments of the topic also to pay tribute to the pleasures of beauty, often described in quite ecstatic terms, as in Plotinus: “This is the spirit that Beauty must ever induce: wonderment and a delicious trouble, longing and love and a trembling that is all delight” (Plotinus 23, [ Ennead I, 3]).

At latest by the eighteenth century, however, and particularly in the British Isles, beauty was associated with pleasure in a somewhat different way: pleasure was held to be not the effect but the origin of beauty. This was influenced, for example, by Locke’s distinction between primary and secondary qualities. Locke and the other empiricists treated color (which is certainly one source or locus of beauty), for example, as a ‘phantasm’ of the mind, as a set of qualities dependent on subjective response, located in the perceiving mind rather than of the world outside the mind. Without perceivers of a certain sort, there would be no colors. One argument for this was the variation in color experiences between people. For example, some people are color-blind, and to a person with jaundice much of the world allegedly takes on a yellow cast. In addition, the same object is perceived as having different colors by the same the person under different conditions: at noon and midnight, for example. Such variations are conspicuous in experiences of beauty as well.

Nevertheless, eighteenth-century philosophers such as Hume and Kant perceived that something important was lost when beauty was treated merely as a subjective state. They saw, for example, that controversies often arise about the beauty of particular things, such as works of art and literature, and that in such controversies, reasons can sometimes be given and will sometimes be found convincing. They saw, as well, that if beauty is completely relative to individual experiencers, it ceases to be a paramount value, or even recognizable as a value at all across persons or societies.

Hume’s “Of the Standard of Taste” and Kant’s Critique Of Judgment attempt to find ways through what has been termed ‘the antinomy of taste.’ Taste is proverbially subjective: de gustibus non est disputandum (about taste there is no disputing). On the other hand, we do frequently dispute about matters of taste, and some persons are held up as exemplars of good taste or of tastelessness. Some people’s tastes appear vulgar or ostentatious, for example. Some people’s taste is too exquisitely refined, while that of others is crude, naive, or non-existent. Taste, that is, appears to be both subjective and objective: that is the antinomy.

Both Hume and Kant, as we have seen, begin by acknowledging that taste or the ability to detect or experience beauty is fundamentally subjective, that there is no standard of taste in the sense that the Canon was held to be, that if people did not experience certain kinds of pleasure, there would be no beauty. Both acknowledge that reasons can count, however, and that some tastes are better than others. In different ways, they both treat judgments of beauty neither precisely as purely subjective nor precisely as objective but, as we might put it, as inter-subjective or as having a social and cultural aspect, or as conceptually entailing an inter-subjective claim to validity.

Hume’s account focuses on the history and condition of the observer as he or she makes the judgment of taste. Our practices with regard to assessing people’s taste entail that judgments of taste that reflect idiosyncratic bias, ignorance, or superficiality are not as good as judgments that reflect wide-ranging acquaintance with various objects of judgment and are unaffected by arbitrary prejudices. Hume moves from considering what makes a thing beautiful to what makes a critic credible. “Strong sense, united to delicate sentiment, improved by practice, perfected by comparison, and cleared of all prejudice, can alone entitle critics to this valuable character; and the joint verdict of such, wherever they are to be found, is the true standard of taste and beauty” (“Of the Standard of Taste” 1757, 144).

Hume argues further that the verdicts of critics who possess those qualities tend to coincide, and approach unanimity in the long run, which accounts, for example, for the enduring veneration of the works of Homer or Milton. So the test of time, as assessed by the verdicts of the best critics, functions as something analogous to an objective standard. Though judgments of taste remain fundamentally subjective, and though certain contemporary works or objects may appear irremediably controversial, the long-run consensus of people who are in a good position to judge functions analogously to an objective standard and renders such standards unnecessary even if they could be identified. Though we cannot directly find a standard of beauty that sets out the qualities that a thing must possess in order to be beautiful, we can describe the qualities of a good critic or a tasteful person. Then the long-run consensus of such persons is the practical standard of taste and the means of justifying judgments about beauty.

Kant similarly concedes that taste is fundamentally subjective, that every judgment of beauty is based on a personal experience, and that such judgments vary from person to person.

By a principle of taste I mean a principle under the condition of which we could subsume the concept of the object, and thus infer, by means of a syllogism, that the object is beautiful. But that is absolutely impossible. For I must immediately feel the pleasure in the representation of the object, and of that I can be persuaded by no grounds of proof whatever. Although, as Hume says, all critics can reason more plausibly than cooks, yet the same fate awaits them. They cannot expect the determining ground of their judgment [to be derived] from the force of the proofs, but only from the reflection of the subject upon its own proper state of pleasure or pain. (Kant 1790, section 34)

But the claim that something is beautiful has more content merely than that it gives me pleasure. Something might please me for reasons entirely eccentric to myself: I might enjoy a bittersweet experience before a portrait of my grandmother, for example, or the architecture of a house might remind me of where I grew up. “No one cares about that,” says Kant (1790, section 7): no one begrudges me such experiences, but they make no claim to guide or correspond to the experiences of others.

By contrast, the judgment that something is beautiful, Kant argues, is a disinterested judgment. It does not respond to my idiosyncrasies, or at any rate if I am aware that it does, I will no longer take myself to be experiencing the beauty per se of the thing in question. Somewhat as in Hume—whose treatment Kant evidently had in mind—one must be unprejudiced to come to a genuine judgment of taste, and Kant gives that idea a very elaborate interpretation: the judgment must be made independently of the normal range of human desires—economic and sexual desires, for instance, which are examples of our ‘interests’ in this sense. If one is walking through a museum and admiring the paintings because they would be extremely expensive were they to come up for auction, for example, or wondering whether one could steal and fence them, one is not having an experience of the beauty of the paintings at all. One must focus on the form of the mental representation of the object for its own sake, as it is in itself. Kant summarizes this as the thought that insofar as one is having an experience of the beauty of something, one is indifferent to its existence. One takes pleasure, rather, in its sheer representation in one’s experience:

Now, when the question is whether something is beautiful, we do not want to know whether anything depends or can depend on the existence of the thing, either for myself or anyone else, but how we judge it by mere observation (intuition or reflection). … We easily see that, in saying it is beautiful , and in showing that I have taste, I am concerned, not with that in which I depend on the existence of the object, but with that which I make out of this representation in myself. Everyone must admit that a judgement about beauty, in which the least interest mingles, is very partial and is not a pure judgement of taste. (Kant 1790, section 2)

One important source of the concept of aesthetic disinterestedness is the Third Earl of Shaftesbury’s dialogue The Moralists , where the argument is framed in terms of a natural landscape: if you are looking at a beautiful valley primarily as a valuable real estate opportunity, you are not seeing it for its own sake, and cannot fully experience its beauty. If you are looking at a lovely woman and considering her as a possible sexual conquest, you are not able to experience her beauty in the fullest or purest sense; you are distracted from the form as represented in your experience. And Shaftesbury, too, localizes beauty to the representational capacity of the mind. (Shaftesbury 1738, 222)

For Kant, some beauties are dependent—relative to the sort of thing the object is—and others are free or absolute. A beautiful ox would be an ugly horse, but abstract textile designs, for example, may be beautiful without a reference group or “concept,” and flowers please whether or not we connect them to their practical purposes or functions in plant reproduction (Kant 1790, section 16). The idea in particular that free beauty is completely separated from practical use and that the experiencer of it is not concerned with the actual existence of the object leads Kant to conclude that absolute or free beauty is found in the form or design of the object, or as Clive Bell (1914) put it, in the arrangement of lines and colors (in the case of painting). By the time Bell writes in the early twentieth century, however, beauty is out of fashion in the arts, and Bell frames his view not in terms of beauty but in terms of a general formalist conception of aesthetic value.

Since in reaching a genuine judgment of taste one is aware that one is not responding to anything idiosyncratic in oneself, Kant asserts (1790, section 8), one will reach the conclusion that anyone similarly situated should have the same experience: that is, one will presume that there ought to be nothing to distinguish one person’s judgment from another’s (though in fact there may be). Built conceptually into the judgment of taste is the assertion that anyone similarly situated ought to have the same experience and reach the same judgment. Thus, built into judgments of taste is a ‘universalization’ somewhat analogous to the universalization that Kant associates with ethical judgments. In ethical judgments, however, the universalization is objective: if the judgment is true, then it is objectively the case that everyone ought to act on the maxim according to which one acts. In the case of aesthetic judgments, however, the judgment remains subjective, but necessarily contains the ‘demand’ that everyone should reach the same judgment. The judgment conceptually entails a claim to inter-subjective validity. This accounts for the fact that we do very often argue about judgments of taste, and that we find tastes that are different than our own defective.

The influence of this series of thoughts on philosophical aesthetics has been immense. One might mention related approaches taken by such figures as Schopenhauer (1818), Hanslick (1891), Bullough (1912), and Croce (1928), for example. A somewhat similar though more adamantly subjectivist line is taken by Santayana, who defines beauty as ‘objectified pleasure.’ The judgment of something that it is beautiful responds to the fact that it induces a certain sort of pleasure; but this pleasure is attributed to the object, as though the object itself were having subjective states.

We have now reached our definition of beauty, which, in the terms of our successive analysis and narrowing of the conception, is value positive, intrinsic, and objectified. Or, in less technical language, Beauty is pleasure regarded as the quality of a thing. … Beauty is a value, that is, it is not a perception of a matter of fact or of a relation: it is an emotion, an affection of our volitional and appreciative nature. An object cannot be beautiful if it can give pleasure to nobody: a beauty to which all men were forever indifferent is a contradiction in terms. … Beauty is therefore a positive value that is intrinsic; it is a pleasure. (Santayana 1896, 50–51)

It is much as though one were attributing malice to a balky object or device. The object causes certain frustrations and is then ascribed an agency or a kind of subjective agenda that would account for its causing those effects. Now though Santayana thought the experience of beauty could be profound or could even be the meaning of life, this account appears to make beauty a sort of mistake: one attributes subjective states (indeed, one’s own) to a thing which in many instances is not capable of having subjective states.

It is worth saying that Santayana’s treatment of the topic in The Sense of Beauty (1896) was the last major account offered in English for some time, possibly because, once beauty has been admitted to be entirely subjective, much less when it is held to rest on a sort of mistake, there seems little more to be said. What stuck from Hume’s and Kant’s treatments was the subjectivity, not the heroic attempts to temper it. If beauty is a subjective pleasure, it would seem to have no higher status than anything that entertains, amuses, or distracts; it seems odd or ridiculous to regard it as being comparable in importance to truth or justice, for example. And the twentieth century also abandoned beauty as the dominant goal of the arts, again in part because its trivialization in theory led artists to believe that they ought to pursue more urgent and more serious projects. More significantly, as we will see below, the political and economic associations of beauty with power tended to discredit the whole concept for much of the twentieth century. This decline is explored eloquently in Arthur Danto’s book The Abuse of Beauty (2003).

However, there was a revival of interest in beauty in something like the classical philosophical sense in both art and philosophy beginning in the 1990s, to some extent centered on the work of art critic Dave Hickey, who declared that “the issue of the 90s will be beauty” (see Hickey 1993), as well as feminist-oriented reconstruals or reappropriations of the concept (see Brand 2000, Irigaray 1993). Several theorists made new attempts to address the antinomy of taste. To some extent, such approaches echo G.E. Moore’s: “To say that a thing is beautiful is to say, not indeed that it is itself good, but that it is a necessary element in something which is: to prove that a thing is truly beautiful is to prove that a whole, to which it bears a particular relation as a part, is truly good” (Moore 1903, 201). One interpretation of this would be that what is fundamentally valuable is the situation in which the object and the person experiencing are both embedded; the value of beauty might include both features of the beautiful object and the pleasures of the experiencer.

Similarly, Crispin Sartwell in his book Six Names of Beauty (2004), attributes beauty neither exclusively to the subject nor to the object, but to the relation between them, and even more widely also to the situation or environment in which they are both embedded. He points out that when we attribute beauty to the night sky, for instance, we do not take ourselves simply to be reporting a state of pleasure in ourselves; we are turned outward toward it; we are celebrating the real world. On the other hand, if there were no perceivers capable of experiencing such things, there would be no beauty. Beauty, rather, emerges in situations in which subject and object are juxtaposed and connected.

Alexander Nehamas, in Only a Promise of Happiness (2007), characterizes beauty as an invitation to further experiences, a way that things invite us in, while also possibly fending us off. The beautiful object invites us to explore and interpret, but it also requires us to explore and interpret: beauty is not to be regarded as an instantaneously apprehensible feature of surface. And Nehamas, like Hume and Kant, though in another register, considers beauty to have an irreducibly social dimension. Beauty is something we share, or something we want to share, and shared experiences of beauty are particularly intense forms of communication. Thus, the experience of beauty is not primarily within the skull of the experiencer, but connects observers and objects such as works of art and literature in communities of appreciation.

Aesthetic judgment, I believe, never commands universal agreement, and neither a beautiful object nor a work of art ever engages a catholic community. Beauty creates smaller societies, no less important or serious because they are partial, and, from the point of view of its members, each one is orthodox—orthodox, however, without thinking of all others as heresies. … What is involved is less a matter of understanding and more a matter of hope, of establishing a community that centers around it—a community, to be sure, whose boundaries are constantly shifting and whose edges are never stable. (Nehamas 2007, 80–81)

2. Philosophical Conceptions of Beauty

Each of the views sketched below has many expressions, some of which may be incompatible with one another. In many or perhaps most of the actual formulations, elements of more than one such account are present. For example, Kant’s treatment of beauty in terms of disinterested pleasure has obvious elements of hedonism, while the ecstatic neo-Platonism of Plotinus includes not only the unity of the object, but also the fact that beauty calls out love or adoration. However, it is also worth remarking how divergent or even incompatible with one another many of these views are: for example, some philosophers associate beauty exclusively with use, others precisely with uselessness.

The art historian Heinrich Wölfflin gives a fundamental description of the classical conception of beauty, as embodied in Italian Renaissance painting and architecture:

The central idea of the Italian Renaissance is that of perfect proportion. In the human figure as in the edifice, this epoch strove to achieve the image of perfection at rest within itself. Every form developed to self-existent being, the whole freely co-ordinated: nothing but independently living parts…. In the system of a classic composition, the single parts, however firmly they may be rooted in the whole, maintain a certain independence. It is not the anarchy of primitive art: the part is conditioned by the whole, and yet does not cease to have its own life. For the spectator, that presupposes an articulation, a progress from part to part, which is a very different operation from perception as a whole. (Wölfflin 1932, 9–10, 15)

The classical conception is that beauty consists of an arrangement of integral parts into a coherent whole, according to proportion, harmony, symmetry, and similar notions. This is a primordial Western conception of beauty, and is embodied in classical and neo-classical architecture, sculpture, literature, and music wherever they appear. Aristotle says in the Poetics that “to be beautiful, a living creature, and every whole made up of parts, must … present a certain order in its arrangement of parts” (Aristotle, volume 2, 2322 [1450b34]). And in the Metaphysics : “The chief forms of beauty are order and symmetry and definiteness, which the mathematical sciences demonstrate in a special degree” (Aristotle, volume 2, 1705 [1078a36]). This view, as Aristotle implies, is sometimes boiled down to a mathematical formula, such as the golden section, but it need not be thought of in such strict terms. The conception is exemplified above all in such texts as Euclid’s Elements and such works of architecture as the Parthenon, and, again, by the Canon of the sculptor Polykleitos (late fifth/early fourth century BCE).

The Canon was not only a statue deigned to display perfect proportion, but a now-lost treatise on beauty. The physician Galen characterizes the text as specifying, for example, the proportions of “the finger to the finger, and of all the fingers to the metacarpus, and the wrist, and of all these to the forearm, and of the forearm to the arm, in fact of everything to everything…. For having taught us in that treatise all the symmetriae of the body, Polyclitus supported his treatise with a work, having made the statue of a man according to his treatise, and having called the statue itself, like the treatise, the Canon ” (quoted in Pollitt 1974, 15). It is important to note that the concept of ‘symmetry’ in classical texts is distinct from and richer than its current use to indicate bilateral mirroring. It also refers precisely to the sorts of harmonious and measurable proportions among the parts characteristic of objects that are beautiful in the classical sense, which carried also a moral weight. For example, in the Sophist (228c-e), Plato describes virtuous souls as symmetrical.

The ancient Roman architect Vitruvius epitomizes the classical conception in central, and extremely influential, formulations, both in its complexities and, appropriately enough, in its underlying unity:

Architecture consists of Order, which in Greek is called taxis , and arrangement, which the Greeks name diathesis , and of Proportion and Symmetry and Decor and Distribution which in the Greeks is called oeconomia . Order is the balanced adjustment of the details of the work separately, and as to the whole, the arrangement of the proportion with a view to a symmetrical result. Proportion implies a graceful semblance: the suitable display of details in their context. This is attained when the details of the work are of a height suitable to their breadth, of a breadth suitable to their length; in a word, when everything has a symmetrical correspondence. Symmetry also is the appropriate harmony arising out of the details of the work itself: the correspondence of each given detail to the form of the design as a whole. As in the human body, from cubit, foot, palm, inch and other small parts come the symmetric quality of eurhythmy. (Vitruvius, 26–27)

Aquinas, in a typically Aristotelian pluralist formulation, says that “There are three requirements for beauty. Firstly, integrity or perfection—for if something is impaired it is ugly. Then there is due proportion or consonance. And also clarity: whence things that are brightly coloured are called beautiful” ( Summa Theologica I, 39, 8).

Francis Hutcheson in the eighteenth century gives what may well be the clearest expression of the view: “What we call Beautiful in Objects, to speak in the Mathematical Style, seems to be in a compound Ratio of Uniformity and Variety; so that where the Uniformity of Bodys is equal, the Beauty is as the Variety; and where the Variety is equal, the Beauty is as the Uniformity” (Hutcheson 1725, 29). Indeed, proponents of the view often speak “in the Mathematical Style.” Hutcheson goes on to adduce mathematical formulae, and specifically the propositions of Euclid, as the most beautiful objects (in another echo of Aristotle), though he also rapturously praises nature, with its massive complexity underlain by universal physical laws as revealed, for example, by Newton. There is beauty, he says, “In the Knowledge of some great Principles, or universal Forces, from which innumerable Effects do flow. Such is Gravitation, in Sir Isaac Newton’s Scheme” (Hutcheson 1725, 38).

A very compelling series of refutations of and counter-examples to the idea that beauty can be a matter of any specific proportions between parts, and hence to the classical conception, is given by Edmund Burke in A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of our Ideas of the Beautiful and the Sublime :

Turning our eyes to the vegetable kingdom, we find nothing there so beautiful as flowers; but flowers are of every sort of shape, and every sort of disposition; they are turned and fashioned into an infinite variety of forms. … The rose is a large flower, yet it grows upon a small shrub; the flower of the apple is very small, and it grows upon a large tree; yet the rose and the apple blossom are both beautiful. … The swan, confessedly a beautiful bird, has a neck longer than the rest of its body, and but a very short tail; is this a beautiful proportion? we must allow that it is. But what shall we say of the peacock, who has comparatively but a short neck, with a tail longer than the neck and the rest of the body taken together? … There are some parts of the human body, that are observed to hold certain proportions to each other; but before it can be proved, that the efficient cause of beauty lies in these, it must be shewn, that wherever these are found exact, the person to whom they belong is beautiful. … For my part, I have at several times very carefully examined many of these proportions, and found them to hold very nearly, or altogether alike in many subjects, which were not only very different from one another, but where one has been very beautiful, and the other very remote from beauty. … You may assign any proportions you please to every part of the of the human body; and I undertake, that a painter shall observe them all, and notwithstanding produce, if he pleases, a very ugly figure. (Burke 1757, 84–89)

There are many ways to interpret Plato’s relation to classical aesthetics. The political system sketched in the Republic characterizes justice in terms of the relation of part and whole. But Plato was also no doubt a dissident in classical culture, and the account of beauty that is expressed specifically in the Symposium —perhaps the key Socratic text for neo-Platonism and for the idealist conception of beauty—expresses an aspiration toward beauty as perfect unity.

In the midst of a drinking party, Socrates recounts the teachings of his instructress, one Diotima, on matters of love. She connects the experience of beauty to the erotic or the desire to reproduce (Plato, 558–59 [ Symposium 206c–207e]). But the desire to reproduce is associated in turn with a desire for the immortal or eternal: “And why all this longing for propagation? Because this is the one deathless and eternal element in our mortality. And since we have agreed that the lover longs for the good to be his own forever, it follows that we are bound to long for immortality as well as for the good—which is to say that Love is a longing for immortality” (Plato, 559, [ Symposium 206e–207a]). What follows is, if not classical, at any rate classic:

The candidate for this initiation cannot, if his efforts are to be rewarded, begin too early to devote himself to the beauties of the body. First of all, if his preceptor instructs him as he should, he will fall in love with the beauty of one individual body, so that his passion may give life to noble discourse. Next he must consider how nearly related the beauty of any one body is to the beauty of any other, and he will see that if he is to devote himself to loveliness of form it will be absurd to deny that the beauty of each and every body is the same. Having reached this point, he must set himself to be the lover of every lovely body, and bring his passion for the one into due proportion by deeming it of little or no importance. Next he must grasp that the beauties of the body are as nothing to the beauties of the soul, so that wherever he meets with spiritual loveliness, even in the husk of an unlovely body, he will find it beautiful enough to fall in love with and cherish—and beautiful enough to quicken in his heart a longing for such discourse as tends toward the building of a noble nature. And from this he will be led to contemplate the beauty of laws and institutions. And when he discovers how every kind of beauty is akin to every other he will conclude that the beauty of the body is not, after all, of so great moment. … And so, when his prescribed devotion to boyish beauties has carried our candidate so far that the universal beauty dawns upon his inward sight, he is almost within reach of the final revelation. … Starting from individual beauties, the quest for universal beauty must find him mounting the heavenly ladder, stepping from rung to rung—that is, from one to two, and from two to every lovely body, and from bodily beauty to the beauty of institutions, from institutions to learning, and from learning in general to the special lore that pertains to nothing but the beautiful itself—until at last he comes to know what beauty is. And if, my dear Socrates, Diotima went on, man’s life is ever worth living, it is when he has attained this vision of the very soul of beauty. (Plato, 561–63 [ Symposium 210a–211d])

Beauty here is conceived—perhaps explicitly in contrast to the classical aesthetics of integral parts and coherent whole—as perfect unity, or indeed as the principle of unity itself.

Plotinus, as we have already seen, comes close to equating beauty with formedness per se: it is the source of unity among disparate things, and it is itself perfect unity. Plotinus specifically attacks what we have called the classical conception of beauty:

Almost everyone declares that the symmetry of parts towards each other and towards a whole, with, besides, a certain charm of colour, constitutes the beauty recognized by the eye, that in visible things, as indeed in all else, universally, the beautiful thing is essentially symmetrical, patterned. But think what this means. Only a compound can be beautiful, never anything devoid of parts; and only a whole; the several parts will have beauty, not in themselves, but only as working together to give a comely total. Yet beauty in an aggregate demands beauty in details; it cannot be constructed out of ugliness; its law must run throughout. All the loveliness of colour and even the light of the sun, being devoid of parts and so not beautiful by symmetry, must be ruled out of the realm of beauty. And how comes gold to be a beautiful thing? And lightning by night, and the stars, why are these so fair? In sounds also the simple must be proscribed, though often in a whole noble composition each several tone is delicious in itself. (Plotinus, 21 [ Ennead I,6])

Plotinus declares that fire is the most beautiful physical thing, “making ever upwards, the subtlest and sprightliest of all bodies, as very near to the unembodied. … Hence the splendour of its light, the splendour that belongs to the Idea” (Plotinus, 22 [ Ennead I,3]). For Plotinus as for Plato, all multiplicity must be immolated finally into unity, and all roads of inquiry and experience lead toward the Good/Beautiful/True/Divine.

This gave rise to a basically mystical vision of the beauty of God that, as Umberto Eco has argued, persisted alongside an anti-aesthetic asceticism throughout the Middle Ages: a delight in profusion that finally merges into a single spiritual unity. In the sixth century, Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite characterized the whole of creation as yearning toward God; the universe is called into being by love of God as beauty (Pseudo-Dionysius, 4.7; see Kirwan 1999, 29). Sensual/aesthetic pleasures could be considered the expressions of the immense, beautiful profusion of God and our ravishment thereby. Eco quotes Suger, Abbot of St Denis in the twelfth century, describing a richly-appointed church:

Thus, when—out of my delight in the beauty of the house of God—the loveliness of the many-colored gems has called me away from external cares, and worthy meditation has induced me to reflect, transferring that which is material to that which is immaterial, on the diversity of the sacred virtues: then it seems to me that I see myself dwelling, as it were, in some strange region of the universe which neither exists entirely in the slime of the earth nor entirely in the purity of Heaven; and that, by the grace of God, I can be transported from this inferior to that higher world in an anagogical manner. (Eco 1959, 14)

This conception has had many expressions in the modern era, including in such figures as Shaftesbury, Schiller, and Hegel, according to whom the aesthetic or the experience of art and beauty is a primary bridge (or to use the Platonic image, stairway or ladder) between the material and the spiritual. For Shaftesbury, there are three levels of beauty: what God makes (nature); what human beings make from nature or what is transformed by human intelligence (art, for example); and finally, the intelligence that makes even these artists (that is, God). Shaftesbury’s character Theocles describes “the third order of beauty,”

which forms not only such as we call mere forms but even the forms which form. For we ourselves are notable architects in matter, and can show lifeless bodies brought into form, and fashioned by our own hands, but that which fashions even minds themselves, contains in itself all the beauties fashioned by those minds, and is consequently the principle, source, and fountain of all beauty. … Whatever appears in our second order of forms, or whatever is derived or produced from thence, all this is eminently, principally, and originally in this last order of supreme and sovereign beauty. … Thus architecture, music, and all which is of human invention, resolves itself into this last order. (Shaftesbury 1738, 228–29)

Schiller’s expression of a similar series of thoughts was fundamentally influential on the conceptions of beauty developed within German Idealism:

The pre-rational concept of Beauty, if such a thing be adduced, can be drawn from no actual case—rather does itself correct and guide our judgement concerning every actual case; it must therefore be sought along the path of abstraction, and it can be inferred simply from the possibility of a nature that is both sensuous and rational; in a word, Beauty must be exhibited as a necessary condition of humanity. Beauty … makes of man a whole, complete in himself. (1795, 59–60, 86)

For Schiller, beauty or play or art (he uses the words, rather cavalierly, almost interchangeably) performs the process of integrating or rendering compatible the natural and the spiritual, or the sensuous and the rational: only in such a state of integration are we—who exist simultaneously on both these levels—free. This is quite similar to Plato’s ‘ladder’: beauty as a way to ascend to the abstract or spiritual. But Schiller—though this is at times unclear—is more concerned with integrating the realms of nature and spirit than with transcending the level of physical reality entirely, a la Plato. It is beauty and art that performs this integration.

In this and in other ways—including in the tripartite dialectical structure of his account—Schiller strikingly anticipates Hegel, who writes as follows.

The philosophical Concept of the beautiful, to indicate its true nature at least in a preliminary way, must contain, reconciled within itself, both the extremes which have been mentioned [the ideal and the empirical] because it unites metaphysical universality with real particularity. (Hegel 1835, 22)

Beauty, we might say, or artistic beauty at any rate, is a route from the sensuous and particular to the Absolute and to freedom, from finitude to the infinite, formulations that—while they are influenced by Schiller—strikingly recall Shaftesbury, Plotinus, and Plato.

Hegel, who associates beauty and art with mind and spirit, holds with Shaftesbury that the beauty of art is higher than the beauty of nature, on the grounds that, as Hegel puts it, “the beauty of art is born of the spirit and born again ” (Hegel 1835, 2). That is, the natural world is born of God, but the beauty of art transforms that material again by the spirit of the artist. This idea reaches is apogee in Benedetto Croce, who very nearly denies that nature can ever be beautiful, or at any rate asserts that the beauty of nature is a reflection of the beauty of art. “The real meaning of ‘natural beauty’ is that certain persons, things, places are, by the effect which they exert upon one, comparable with poetry, painting, sculpture, and the other arts” (Croce 1928, 230).

Edmund Burke, expressing an ancient tradition, writes that, “by beauty I mean, that quality or those qualities in bodies, by which they cause love, or some passion similar to it” (Burke 1757, 83). As we have seen, in almost all treatments of beauty, even the most apparently object or objectively-oriented, there is a moment in which the subjective qualities of the experience of beauty are emphasized: rhapsodically, perhaps, or in terms of pleasure or ataraxia , as in Schopenhauer. For example, we have already seen Plotinus, for whom beauty is certainly not subjective, describe the experience of beauty ecstatically. In the idealist tradition, the human soul, as it were, recognizes in beauty its true origin and destiny. Among the Greeks, the connection of beauty with love is proverbial from early myth, and Aphrodite the goddess of love won the Judgment of Paris by promising Paris the most beautiful woman in the world.

There is an historical connection between idealist accounts of beauty and those that connect it to love and longing, though there would seem to be no entailment either way. We have Sappho’s famous fragment 16: “Some say thronging cavalry, some say foot soldiers, others call a fleet the most beautiful sights the dark world offers, but I say it’s whatever you love best” (Sappho, 16). (Indeed, at Phaedrus 236c, Socrates appears to defer to “the fair Sappho” as having had greater insight than himself on love [Plato, 483].)

Plato’s discussions of beauty in the Symposium and the Phaedrus occur in the context of the theme of erotic love. In the former, love is portrayed as the ‘child’ of poverty and plenty. “Nor is he delicate and lovely as most of us believe, but harsh and arid, barefoot and homeless” (Plato, 556 [Symposium 203b–d]). Love is portrayed as a lack or absence that seeks its own fulfillment in beauty: a picture of mortality as an infinite longing. Love is always in a state of lack and hence of desire: the desire to possess the beautiful. Then if this state of infinite longing could be trained on the truth, we would have a path to wisdom. The basic idea has been recovered many times, for example by the Romantics. It fueled the cult of idealized or courtly love through the Middle Ages, in which the beloved became a symbol of the infinite.

Recent work on the theory of beauty has revived this idea, and turning away from pleasure has turned toward love or longing (which are not necessarily entirely pleasurable experiences) as the experiential correlate of beauty. Both Sartwell and Nehamas use Sappho’s fragment 16 as an epigraph. Sartwell defines beauty as “the object of longing” and characterizes longing as intense and unfulfilled desire. He calls it a fundamental condition of a finite being in time, where we are always in the process of losing whatever we have, and are thus irremediably in a state of longing. And Nehamas writes that “I think of beauty as the emblem of what we lack, the mark of an art that speaks to our desire. … Beautiful things don’t stand aloof, but direct our attention and our desire to everything else we must learn or acquire in order to understand and possess, and they quicken the sense of life, giving it new shape and direction” (Nehamas 2007, 77).

Thinkers of the 18 th century—many of them oriented toward empiricism—accounted for beauty in terms of pleasure. The Italian historian Ludovico Antonio Muratori, for example, in quite a typical formulation, says that “By beautiful we generally understand whatever, when seen, heard, or understood, delights, pleases, and ravishes us by causing within us agreeable sensations” (see Carritt 1931, 60). In Hutcheson it is not clear whether we ought to conceive beauty primarily in terms of classical formal elements or in terms of the viewer’s pleasurable response. He begins the Inquiry Into the Original of Our Ideas of Beauty and Virtue with a discussion of pleasure. And he appears to assert that objects which instantiate his ‘compound ratio of uniformity and variety’ are peculiarly or necessarily capable of producing pleasure:

The only Pleasure of sense, which our Philosophers seem to consider, is that which accompanys the simple Ideas of Sensation; But there are vastly greater Pleasures in those complex Ideas of objects, which obtain the Names of Beautiful, Regular, Harmonious. Thus every one acknowledges he is more delighted with a fine Face, a just Picture, than with the View of any one Colour, were it as strong and lively as possible; and more pleased with a Prospect of the Sun arising among settled Clouds, and colouring their Edges, with a starry Hemisphere, a fine Landskip, a regular Building, than with a clear blue Sky, a smooth Sea, or a large open Plain, not diversify’d by Woods, Hills, Waters, Buildings: And yet even these latter Appearances are not quite simple. So in Musick, the Pleasure of fine Composition is incomparably greater than that of any one Note, how sweet, full, or swelling soever. (Hutcheson 1725, 22)

When Hutcheson then goes on to describe ‘original or absolute beauty,’ he does it, as we have seen, in terms of the qualities of the beautiful thing (a “compound ratio” of uniformity and variety), and yet throughout, he insists that beauty is centered in the human experience of pleasure. But of course the idea of pleasure could come apart from Hutcheson’s particular aesthetic preferences, which are poised precisely opposite Plotinus’s, for example. That we find pleasure in a symmetrical rather than an asymmetrical building (if we do) is contingent. But that beauty is connected to pleasure appears, according to Hutcheson, to be necessary, and the pleasure which is the locus of beauty itself has ideas rather than things as its objects.

Hume writes in a similar vein in the Treatise of Human Nature :

Beauty is such an order and construction of parts as, either by the primary constitution of our nature, by custom, or by caprice, is fitted to give a pleasure and satisfaction to the soul. … Pleasure and pain, therefore, are not only necessary attendants of beauty and deformity, but constitute their very essence. (Hume 1740, 299)

Though this appears ambiguous as between locating the beauty in the pleasure or in the impression or idea that causes it, Hume is soon talking about the ‘sentiment of beauty,’ where sentiment is, roughly, a pleasurable or painful response to impressions or ideas, though the experience of beauty is a matter of cultivated or delicate pleasures. Indeed, by the time of Kant’s Third Critique and after that for perhaps two centuries, the direct connection of beauty to pleasure is taken as a commonplace, to the point where thinkers are frequently identifying beauty as a certain sort of pleasure. Santayana, for example, as we have seen, while still gesturing in the direction of the object or experience that causes pleasure, emphatically identifies beauty as a certain sort of pleasure.

One result of this approach to beauty—or perhaps an extreme expression of this orientation—is the assertion of the positivists that words such as ‘beauty’ are meaningless or without cognitive content, or are mere expressions of subjective approval. Hume and Kant were no sooner declaring beauty to be a matter of sentiment or pleasure and therefore to be subjective than they were trying to ameliorate the sting, largely by emphasizing critical consensus. But once this fundamental admission is made, any consensus seems contingent. Another way to formulate this is that it appears to certain thinkers after Hume and Kant that there can be no reasons to prefer the consensus to a counter-consensus assessment. A.J. Ayer writes:

Such aesthetic words as ‘beautiful’ and ‘hideous’ are employed … not to make statements of fact, but simply to express certain feelings and evoke a certain response. It follows…that there is no sense attributing objective validity to aesthetic judgments, and no possibility of arguing about questions of value in aesthetics. (Ayer 1952, 113)

All meaningful claims either concern the meaning of terms or are empirical, in which case they are meaningful because observations could confirm or disconfirm them. ‘That song is beautiful’ has neither status, and hence has no empirical or conceptual content. It merely expresses a positive attitude of a particular viewer; it is an expression of pleasure, like a satisfied sigh. The question of beauty is not a genuine question, and we can safely leave it behind or alone. Most twentieth-century philosophers did just that.

Philosophers in the Kantian tradition identify the experience of beauty with disinterested pleasure, psychical distance, and the like, and contrast the aesthetic with the practical. “ Taste is the faculty of judging an object or mode of representing it by an entirely disinterested satisfaction or dissatisfaction. The object of such satisfaction is called beautiful ” (Kant 1790, 45). Edward Bullough distinguishes the beautiful from the merely agreeable on the grounds that the former requires a distance from practical concerns: “Distance is produced in the first instance by putting the phenomenon, so to speak, out of gear with our practical, actual self; by allowing it to stand outside the context of our personal needs and ends” (Bullough 1912, 244).

On the other hand, many philosophers have gone in the opposite direction and have identified beauty with suitedness to use. ‘Beauty’ is perhaps one of the few terms that could plausibly sustain such entirely opposed interpretations.

According to Diogenes Laertius, the ancient hedonist Aristippus of Cyrene took a rather direct approach.

Is not then, also, a beautiful woman useful in proportion as she is beautiful; and a boy and a youth useful in proportion to their beauty? Well then, a handsome boy and a handsome youth must be useful exactly in proportion as they are handsome. Now the use of beauty is, to be embraced. If then a man embraces a woman just as it is useful that he should, he does not do wrong; nor, again, will he be doing wrong in employing beauty for the purposes for which it is useful. (Diogenes Laertius, 94)

In some ways, Aristippus is portrayed parodically: as the very worst of the sophists, though supposedly a follower of Socrates. And yet the idea of beauty as suitedness to use finds expression in a number of thinkers. Xenophon’s Memorabilia puts the view in the mouth of Socrates, with Aristippus as interlocutor:

Socrates : In short everything which we use is considered both good and beautiful from the same point of view, namely its use. Aristippus : Why then, is a dung-basket a beautiful thing? Socrates : Of course it is, and a golden shield is ugly, if the one be beautifully fitted to its purpose and the other ill. (Xenophon, Book III, viii)

Berkeley expresses a similar view in his dialogue Alciphron , though he begins with the hedonist conception: “Every one knows that beauty is what pleases” (Berkeley 1732, 174; see Carritt 1931, 75). But it pleases for reasons of usefulness. Thus, as Xenophon suggests, on this view, things are beautiful only in relation to the uses for which they are intended or to which they are properly applied. The proper proportions of an object depend on what kind of object it is and, again, a beautiful car might make an ugly tractor. “The parts, therefore, in true proportions, must be so related, and adjusted to one another, as they may best conspire to the use and operation of the whole” (Berkeley 1732, 174–75; see Carritt 1931, 76). One result of this is that, though beauty remains tied to pleasure, it is not an immediate sensible experience. It essentially requires intellection and practical activity: one has to know the use of a thing and assess its suitedness to that use.

This treatment of beauty is often used, for example, to criticize the distinction between fine art and craft, and it avoids sheer philistinism by enriching the concept of ‘use,’ so that it might encompass not only performing a practical task, but performing it especially well or with an especial satisfaction. Ananda Coomaraswamy, the Ceylonese-British scholar of Indian and European medieval arts, adds that a beautiful work of art or craft expresses as well as serves its purpose.

A cathedral is not as such more beautiful than an airplane, … a hymn than a mathematical equation. … A well-made sword is not less beautiful than a well-made scalpel, though one is used to slay, the other to heal. Works of art are only good or bad, beautiful or ugly in themselves, to the extent that they are or are not well and truly made, that is, do or do not express, or do or do not serve their purpose. (Coomaraswamy 1977, 75)

Roger Scruton, in his book Beauty (2009) returns to a modified Kantianism with regard to both beauty and sublimity, enriched by many and varied examples. “We call something beautiful,” writes Scruton, “when we gain pleasure from contemplating it as an individual object, for its own sake, and in its presented form ” (Scruton 2009, 26). Despite the Kantian framework, Scruton, like Sartwell and Nehamas, throws the subjective/objective distinction into question. He compares experiencing a beautiful thing to a kiss. To kiss someone that one loves is not merely to place one body part on another, “but to touch the other person in his very self. Hence the kiss is compromising – it is a move from one self toward another, and a summoning of the other into the surface of his being” (Scruton 2009, 48). This, Scruton says, is a profound pleasure.

3. The Politics of Beauty

Kissing sounds nice, but some kisses are coerced, some pleasures obtained at a cost to other people. The political associations of beauty over the last few centuries have been remarkably various and remarkably problematic, particularly in connection with race and gender, but in other aspects as well. This perhaps helps account for the neglect of the issue in early-to-mid twentieth-century philosophy as well as its growth late in the century as an issue in social justice movements, and subsequently in social-justice oriented philosophy.

The French revolutionaries of 1789 associated beauty with the French aristocracy and with the Rococo style of the French royal family, as in the paintings of Fragonard: hedonist expressions of wealth and decadence, every inch filled with decorative motifs. Beauty itself became subject to a moral and political critique, or even to direct destruction, with political motivations (see Levey 1985). And by the early 20th century, beauty was particularly associated with capitalism (ironically enough, considering the ugliness of the poverty and environmental destruction it often induced). At times even great art appeared to be dedicated mainly to furnishing the homes of rich people, with the effect of concealing the suffering they were inflicting. In response, many anti-capitalists, including many Marxists, appeared to repudiate beauty entirely. And in the aesthetic politics of Nazism, reflected for example in the films of Leni Riefenstahl, the association of beauty and right wing politics was sealed to devastating effect (see Spotts 2003).

Early on in his authorship, Karl Marx could hint that the experience of beauty distinguishes human beings from all other animals. An animal “produces only under the dominion of immediate physical need, whilst man produces even when he is free from physical need and only truly produces in freedom therefrom. Man therefore also forms objects in accordance with the laws of beauty” (Marx 1844, 76). But later Marx appeared to conceive beauty as “superstructure” or “ideology” disguising the material conditions of production. Perhaps, however, he also anticipated the emergence of new beauties, available to all both as makers and appreciators, in socialism.

Capitalism, of course, uses beauty – at times with complete self-consciousness – to manipulate people into buying things. Many Marxists believed that the arts must be turned from providing fripperies to the privileged or advertising that helps make them wealthier to showing the dark realities of capitalism (as in the American Ashcan school, for example), and articulating an inspiring Communist future. Stalinist socialist realism consciously repudiates the aestheticized beauties of post-impressionist and abstract painting, for example. It has urgent social tasks to perform (see Bown and Lanfranconi 2012). But the critique tended at times to generalize to all sorts of beauty: as luxury, as seduction, as disguise and oppression. The artist Max Ernst (1891–1976), having survived the First World War, wrote this about the radical artists of the early century: “To us, Dada was above all a moral reaction. Our rage aimed at total subversion. A horrible futile war had robbed us of five years of our existence. We had experienced the collapse into ridicule and shame of everything represented to us as just, true, and beautiful. My works of that period were not meant to attract, but to make people scream” (quoted in Danto 2003, 49).

Theodor Adorno, in his book Aesthetic Theory , wrote that one symptom of oppression is that oppressed groups and cultures are regarded as uncouth, dirty, ragged; in short, that poverty is ugly. It is art’s obligation, he wrote, to show this ugliness, imposed on people by an unjust system, clearly and without flinching, rather to distract people by beauty from the brutal realities of capitalism. “Art must take up the cause of what is proscribed as ugly, though no longer to integrate or mitigate it or reconcile it with its own existence,” Adorno wrote. “Rather, in the ugly, art must denounce the world that creates and reproduces the ugly in its own image” (Adorno 1970, 48–9).

The political entanglements of beauty tend to throw into question various of the traditional theories. For example, the purity and transcendence associated with the essence of beauty in the realm of the Forms seems irrelevant, as beauty shows its centrality to politics and commerce, to concrete dimensions of oppression. The austere formalism of the classical conception, for example, seems neither here nor there when the building process is brutally exploitative.

As we have seen, the association of beauty with the erotic is proverbial from Sappho and is emphasized relentlessly by figures such as Burke and Nehamas. But the erotic is not a neutral or universal site, and we need to ask whose sexuality is in play in the history of beauty, with what effects. This history, particularly in the West and as many feminist theorists and historians have emphasized, is associated with the objectification and exploitation of women. Feminists beginning in the 19th century gave fundamental critiques of the use of beauty as a set of norms to control women’s bodies or to constrain their self-presentation and even their self-image in profound and disabling ways (see Wollstonecraft 1792, Grimké 1837).

In patriarchal society, as Catherine MacKinnon puts it, the content of sexuality “is the gaze that constructs women as objects for male pleasure. I draw on pornography for its form and content,” she continues, describing her treatment of the subject, “for the gaze that eroticizes the despised, the demeaned, the accessible, the there-to-be-used, the servile, the child-like, the passive, and the animal. That is the content of sexuality that defines gender female in this culture, and visual thingification is its method” (MacKinnon 1987, 53–4). Laura Mulvey, in “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema,” reaches one variety of radical critique and conclusion: “It is said that analyzing pleasure, or beauty, destroys it. That is the intention of this article” (Mulvey 1975, 60).

Mulvey’s psychoanalytic treatment was focused on the scopophilia (a Freudian term denoting neurotic sexual pleasure configured around looking) of Hollywood films, in which men appeared as protagonists, and women as decorative or sexual objects for the pleasure of the male characters and male audience-members. She locates beauty “at the heart of our oppression.” And she appears to have a hedonist conception of it: beauty engenders pleasure. But some pleasures, like some kisses, are sadistic or exploitative at the individual and at the societal level. Art historians such as Linda Nochlin (1988) and Griselda Pollock (1987) brought such insights to bear on the history of painting, for example, where the scopophilia is all too evident in famous nudes such as Titian’s Venus of Urbino or Velazquez’s Rokeby Venus , which a feminist slashed with knife in 1914 because “she didn’t like the way men gawked at it”.

Feminists such as Naomi Wolf in her book The Beauty Myth , generalized such insights into a critique of the ways women are represented throughout Western popular culture: in advertising, for example, or music videos. Such practices have the effect of constraining women to certain acceptable ways of presenting themselves publicly, which in turn greatly constrains how seriously they are taken, or how much of themselves they can express in public space. As have many other commentators, Wolf connects the representation of the “beautiful” female body, in Western high art but especially in popular culture, to eating disorders and many other self-destructive behaviors, and indicates that a real overturning of gender hierarchy will require deeply re-construing the concept of beauty.

The demand on women to create a beautiful self-presentation by male standards, Wolf argues, fundamentally compromises women’s action and self-understanding, and makes fully human relationships between men and women difficult or impossible. In this Wolf follows, among others, the French thinker Luce Irigaray, who wrote that “Female beauty is always considered as finery ultimately designed to attract the other into the self. It is almost never perceived as a manifestation of, an appearance of, a phenomenon expressive of interiority – whether of love, of thought, of flesh. We look at ourselves in the mirror to please someone , rarely to interrogate the state of our body or our spirit, rarely for ourselves and in search of our becoming” (quoted in Robinson 2000, 230).

“Sex is held hostage by beauty,” Wolf remarks, “and its ransom terms are engraved in girls’ minds early and deeply with instruments more beautiful that those which advertisers or pornographers know how to use: literature, poetry, painting, and film” (Wolf 1991f, 157).

Early in the 20th century, black nationalist leader Marcus Garvey (1887–1940) described European or white standards of beauty as a deep dimension of oppression, quite similarly to the way Naomi Wolf describes beauty standards for women. These standards are relentlessly reinforced in authoritative images, but they are incompatible with black skin, black bodies, and also traditional African ways of understanding human beauty. White standards of beauty, Garvey argued, devalue black bodies. The truly oppressive aspects of such norms can be seen in the way they induce self-alienation, as Wolf argues with regard to sexualized images of women. “Some of us in America, the West Indies, and Africa believe that the nearer we approach the white man in color, the greater our social standing and privilege,” he wrote (Garvey 1925 [1986], 56). He condemns skin bleaching and hair straightening as ways that black people are taught to devalue themselves by white standards of beauty. And he connects such standards to ‘colorism’ or prejudice in the African-American community toward darker-skinned black people.

Such observations suggest some of the strengths of cultural relativism as opposed to subjectivism or universalism: standards of beauty appear in this picture not to be idiosyncratic to individuals, nor to be universal among all people, but to be tied to group identities and to oppression and resistance.

In his autobiography, Malcolm X (1925–1965), whose parents were activists in the Garvey movement, describes ‘conking’ or straightening his hair with lye products as a young man. “This was my first really big step toward self-degradation,” he writes, “when I endured all of that pain, literally burning my flesh to have it look like a white man’s hair. I had joined that multitude of Negro men and women in America who are brainwashed into believing that black people are ‘inferior’ – and white people ‘superior’ – that they will even violate and mutilate their God-created bodies to try to look ‘pretty’ by white standards” (X 1964, 56–7). For both Marcus Garvey and Malcolm X, a key moment in the transformation of racial oppression would be the affirmation of standards of black beauty that are not parasitic on white standards, and hence not directly involved in racial oppression. This was systematically developed after Malcolm’s death in the “natural” hairstyles and African fabrics in the Black Power movement. Certainly, people have many motivations for straightening or coloring their hair, for example. But the critical examination of the racial content of beauty norms was a key moment in black liberation movements, many of which, around 1970, coalesced around the slogan Black is beautiful . These are critiques of specific standards of beauty; they are also tributes to beauty’s power.

Imposing standards of beauty on non-Western cultures, and, in particular, misappropriating standards of beauty and beautiful objects from them, formed one of the most complex strategies of colonialism. Edward Said famously termed this dynamic “orientalism.” Novelists such as Nerval and Kipling and painters such as Delacroix and Picasso, he argued, used motifs drawn from Asian and African cultures, treating them as “exotic” insertions into Western arts. Such writers and artists might even have understood themselves to be celebrating the cultures they depicted in pictures of Arabian warriors or African masks. But they used this imagery precisely in relation to Western art history. They distorted what they appropriated.

“Being a White Man, in short,” writes Said, “was a very concrete manner of being-in-the-world, a way of taking hold of reality, language, and thought. It made a specific style possible” (Said 1978, 227). This style might be encapsulated in the outfits of colonial governors, and their mansions. But it was also typified by an appropriative “appreciation” of “savage” arts and “exotic” beauties, which were of course not savage or exotic in their own context. Even in cases where the beauty of such objects was celebrated, the appreciation was mixed with condescension and misapprehension, and also associated with stripping colonial possessions of their most beautiful objects (as Europeans understood beauty)—shipping them back to the British Museum, for example. Now some beautiful objects, looted in colonialism, are being returned to their points of origin (see Matthes 2017), but many others remain in dispute.

However, if beauty has been an element in various forms of oppression, it has also been an element in various forms of resistance, as the slogan “Black is beautiful” suggests. The most compelling responses to oppressive standards and uses of beauty have given rise to what might be termed counter-beauties . When fighting discrimination against people with disabilities, for example, one may decry the oppressive norms that regard disabled bodies as ugly and leave it at that. Or one might try to discover what new standards of beauty and subversive pleasures might arise in the attempt to regard disabled bodies as beautiful (Siebers 2005). For that matter, one might uncover the ways that non-normative bodies and subversive pleasures actually do fulfill various traditional criteria of beauty. Indeed, for some decades there has been a disability arts movement, often associated with artists such as Christine Sun Kim and Riva Lehrer, which tries to do just that (see Siebers 2005).

The exploration of beauty, in some ways flipping it over into an instrument of feminist resistance, or showing directly how women’s beauty could be experienced outside of patriarchy, has been a theme of much art by women of the 20th and 21st centuries. Georgia O’Keeffe’s flowers and Judy Chicago’s “Dinner Party” place settings undertake to absorb and reverse the objectifying gaze. The exploration of the meaning of the female body in the work of performance artists such as Hannah Wilke, Karen Finley, and Orlan, tries both to explore the objectification of the female body and to affirm women’s experience in its concrete realities from the inside: to make of it emphatically a subject rather than an object (see Striff 1997).

“Beauty seems in need of rehabilitation today as an impulse that can be as liberating as it has been deemed enslaving,” wrote philosopher Peg Zeglin Brand in 2000. “Confident young women today pack their closets with mini-skirts and sensible suits. Young female artists toy with feminine stereotypes in ways that make their feminist elders uncomfortable. They recognize that … beauty can be a double-edged sword – as capable of destabilizing rigid conventions and restrictive behavioral models as it is of reinforcing them” (Brand 2000, xv). Indeed, vernacular norms of beauty as expressed in media and advertising have shifted in virtue of the feminist and anti-racist attacks on dominant body norms, as the concept’s long journey continues.

Adorno, Theodor, 1970 [1997], Aesthetic Theory , Robert Hullot-Kentor (trans.), Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Aquinas, Thomas, Summa Theologica , Fathers of the English Dominican Province (trans.), London: Christian Classics, 1981 [13 th century text].
Augustine, Earlier Writings , J.H. Burleigh, ed., New York: WJK Publishing, 1953 [4 th /5 th century AD text].
Aristotle, The Complete Works of Aristotle , in two volumes, Jonathan Barnes, ed., Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984 [4 th century BCE text].
Ayer, A.J., 1952, Language, Truth, and Logic , New York: Dover.
Bell, Clive, 1914, Art , London: Chatto & Windus.
Berkeley, Bishop George, 1732, Alciphron: or, The Minute Philosopher , London: Tonson and Co.
Bown, Matthew and Matteo Lanfranconi, 2012, Socialist Realisms: Great Soviet Painting, 1920–1970 , New York: Skira Press.
Brand, Peg Zeglin (ed.), 2000, Beauty Matters , Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Bullough, Edward, 1912, “‘Psychical Distance’ as a Factor in Art and as an Aesthetic Principle,” British Journal of Psychology , 5. Widely anthologized, e.g., in Cahn, Steven and Meskin, Aaron, 2008. Aesthetics: A Comprehensive Anthology , Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 243–60.
Burke, Edmund, 1757, A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful , Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990.
Carritt, E.F., 1931, Philosophies of Beauty , London: Oxford University Press.
Coomaraswamy, Ananda, 1977, Traditional Art and Symbolism (Selected Papers, volume 1), Princeton: Bollingen.
Croce, Benedetto, 1929, “Aesthetics,” in Encyclopedia Britannica . See “Benedetto Croce on aesthetics,” Encyclopedia Britannica , 14 Aug. 2014, [ read it on www.britannica.com] .
Danto, Arthur, 2003, The Abuse of Beauty , Chicago: Open Court.
Diogenes Laertius, The Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers , C.D. Yonge (trans.), New York: George Bell & Sons, 1895 [3 rd century CE text].
Eco, Umberto, 1959, Art and Beauty in the Middle Ages , Hugh Bredin (trans.), New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986.
Garvey, Marcus, 1925 [1986], The Life and Opinions of Marcus Garvey (Volume 1), Amy Jacques Garvey (ed.), New York: Majority Press.
Grimké, Sarah, 1837, Letters on the Equality of the Sexes and the Condition of Women , Boston: Isaac Knapp [ scan of 1838 printing available online] .
Hanslick, Eduard, 1891, The Beautiful in Music , Gustav Cohen (trans.), London: Novello and Company.
Hegel, G.W.F., 1835, Hegel’s Aesthetics: Lectures on Fine Art , in two volumes, T.M. Knox (trans.), Oxford: Clarendon, 1975.
Hickey, Dave, 2012 [1993], The Invisible Dragon: Essays on Beauty , University of Chicago Press.
Hume, David, 1757, “Of the Standard of Taste,” Essays Moral and Political , London: George Routledge and Sons, 1894.
–––, 1740, A Treatise of Human Nature , Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988.
Hutcheson, Francis, 1725, An Inquiry into the Original of our Ideas of Beauty and Virtue , Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2004.
Irigaray, Luce, 1993. “Divine Women,” in Sexes and Genealogies , Gillian C. Gill (trans.), New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 55–73.
Kant, Immanuel, 1790, Critique of Judgement , J.H. Bernard (trans.), New York: Macmillan, 1951.
Kirwan, James, 1999. Beauty , Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Levey, Michael, 1985, Rococo to Revolution , London: Thames and Hudson.
MacKinnon, Catherine, 1987, “Desire and Power,” in C. MacKinnon, Feminism Unmodified: Discourses on Life and Law , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 46–62.
Marx, Karl, 1844 [1978], “Estranged Labour,” in The Marx-Engels Reader , 2nd edition, Robert E. Tucker (ed.), New York: Norton, 1978, pp. 70–81.
Matthes, Erich Hatala, 2017, “Repatriation and the Radical Redistribution of Art,” Ergo: an Open Access Journal of Philosophy , 4(32). doi:10.3998/ergo.12405314.0004.032
Moore, G.E., 1903, Principia Ethica , Mineola, NY: Dover, 2004.
Mothersill, Mary, 1984, Beauty Restored , Oxford: Clarendon.
Mulvey, Laura, 1975, “Visual Pleasure in Narrative Cinema,” Screen , 16(3): 6–18; reprinted in Feminist Film Theory , Sue Thornham (ed.), Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1999, pp. 58–69.
Nehamas, Alexander, 2007, Only a Promise of Happiness: The Place of Beauty in a World of Art , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Nochlin, Linda, 1988, Women, Art, and Power, and Other Essays , New York: HarperCollins.
Plato, Collected Dialogues , Edith Hamilton and Huntington Cairns (eds.), Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1961 [4 th century BCE text].
Plotinus, The Six Enneads , Stephen McKenna and B.S. Page (trans.), Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica Publishing, 1952 [3 rd century CE text].
Pollitt, J.J., 1974, The Ancient View of Greek Art , New Haven: Yale University Press.
Pollock, Griselda, 1987, Vision and Difference: Feminism, Femininity and Histories of Art , New York: Methuen.
Pseudo-Dionysius, Works of Dionysius the Areopagite , John Parker (trans.), London: James Parker and Co., 1897 [originally 5 th or 6 th century CE].
Robinson, Hilary, 2000, “Whose Beauty?” in P.Z. Brand (ed.) 2000: 224–51.
Said, Edward, 1978, Orientalism , New York: Random House.
Santayana, George, 1896, The Sense of Beauty , New York: Scribner’s.
Sappho, The Poetry of Sappho , Jim Powell (trans.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007 [7 th or 6 th century BCE text].
Sartwell, Crispin, 2004, Six Names of Beauty , New York: Routledge
Schiller, Friedrich, 1795, On the Aesthetic Education of Man , New York: Dover, 2004.
Schopenhauer, Arthur, 1818, The World as Will and Idea , E.F.J. Payne (trans.), New York: Dover, 1966.
Scruton, Roger, 2009, Beauty , Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.
Shaftesbury, Third Earl of, 1738, “The Moralists, a Philosophical Rhapsody,” Characteristicks of Men, Manners, Opinions, Times , Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2001.
Siebers, Tobin, 2005, “Disability Aesthetics,” PMLA (Journal of the Modern Languages Association), 120(2): 542–46
Spotts, Frederic, 2003, Hitler and the Power of Aesthetics , New York: Abrams.
Striff, Erin, 1997, “Bodies of Evidence: Feminist Performance Art,” Critical Survey , 9(1): 1–18.
Vitruvius, On Architecture , Frank Granger (trans.), Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1970 [originally 1 st century BCE].
Wolf, Naomi, 1991 [2002], The Beauty Myth , New York: HarperCollins.
Wollstonecraft, Mary, 1792. A Vindication of the Rights of Women , Boston: Thomas & Andrews.
Wölfflin, Heinrich, 1932, Principles of Art History , M.D. Hottinger (trans.), New York: Dover, 1950.
X, Malcolm, 1964 [1992], The Autobiography of Malcolm X (as told to Alex Haley), New York: Ballantine.
Xenophon, Memorabilia [4 th century BCE text], E. C. Marchant (trans.), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1923.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

[Please contact the author with suggestions.]

Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

Info about mirror sites

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

2024 Sexiest Men Of the Moment
Of The Essence
Celebrity News
If Not For My Girls
The State Of R&B
Time Of Essence
SSENSE X ESSENCE
2023 Best In Black Fashion Awards
2023 Fashion House
Fashion News
Accessories
2024 Best In Beauty Awards
Girls United: Beautiful Possibilities
Relationships
Bridal Bliss
Lifestyle News
Health & Wellness
ESSENCE Eats
Food & Drink
Money & Career
Latest News
Black Futures
Paint The Polls Black
Essence Holiday Gift Guide 2023
2024 Black Women In Hollywood
2024 ESSENCE Hollywood House
2024 ESSENCE Film Festival
2024 ESSENCE Festival Of Culture
2023 Wellness House
2023 Black Women In Hollywood
Girls United

WHERE BLACK CULTURE, COMMUNITY AND CONSCIOUSNESS MEET

Sign up for essence newsletters the keep the black women at the forefront of conversation., why i refuse to get work done as a black man in the age of botox and fillers.

Why I Refuse To Get Work Done As a Black Man In The Age Of Botox and Fillers

“Black don’t crack”– a quote that we’ve all grown up hearing. As a proud Black man who embraces my culture and roots, I idolize this statement whenever I’m having a conversation with my friends. But on the other side of that coin, is the pressure to uphold a forever youthful appearance, even if it isn’t natural.

These days, to stay inspired beauty-wise, I find myself admiring Black celebrities who celebrate their natural skin. However, I have noticed that there is a significant increase in the number of A-listers who are undergoing cosmetic surgery. When I look back at celebrities from previous years, I wonder what motivated or inspired them to undergo these procedures now. Was it to conform to beauty standards or to maintain a youthful appearance?

In today’s day and age, I have noticed that people around my age, or even younger, are getting cosmetic work done. There are many instances where individuals, out of seemingly nowhere, would share that they have had botox, filler, or lip flips to enhance or change their features. I am astonished and curious as to why people my age often resort to cosmetic work. However, I have to remind myself that we live in a time where people are embracing cosmetic procedures, and they are free to do whatever makes them feel good. But it makes me wonder, where do we draw the line between feeling good in our skin and the pressure to uphold certain beauty standards?

The cosmetic industry has seen a significant increase in the number of people opting for procedures such as nose jobs, face lifts, liposuction, breast reduction, fillers, and the like, all aimed at improving their appearance. According to the American Society of Plastic Surgeons , in 2020, over 1.78 million Black individuals received cosmetic work. Due to our extra melanin, Black people often face issues like sagging skin , hyperpigmentation, dark spots, and sunken eyes, which can make them look older. As a result, many of us are turning to cosmetic procedures to address and hopefully get rid of these skincare concerns.

Seeing all of this definitely takes me back to a time in my life when I wanted to get cosmetic work done to remove my big full lips. Unfortunately, I was ostracized and ridiculed for having them. I thought I had to look a certain way to be liked and accepted by others. I thought that I needed to hide my features. Social media has made an impact on the popularity of cosmetic procedures and I, along with many people, began to internalize and create society’s beauty standards.

However, as time passed, I noticed a surge in the number of people from my high school getting fillers on their lips or face. A reminder that trends and beauty standards come and go. In the end, I’m glad I didn’t change what ultimately became praised later. My relationship with beauty shifted and I had to remember, my features make me unique.

As a Black person, we can all relate to feeling overlooked and fetishized for everything. We, as Black men, for example, are told we have to have big muscles, washboard abs, bone structure, a moisturized body, snatched waist, and clear skin. And if you’re gay, you have to make sure everything is put together before you head out of the house. Otherwise, you’ll be “read to filth” by other gay men.

These standards still have me wondering what it would be like to get work done. Would pressures dissolve? How will my face or body react? What will my friends or family say to me when I tell them I got work done? Would they support me? Or would they roast me like Joan, Maya, and Lynn did Toni for getting Botox in that one episode of Girlfriends?

Thoughts such as these pass through my mind. But, even still, I’ve opted for investing in my internal health instead of how I look. I’ve come to the conclusion because this is an expensive enough investment as is, without adding the cost of cosmetic procedures into the mix. For example, I once had to get a dental implant to replace a missing tooth in 2022, which cost me about $7,000 out of pocket. Additionally, I used Smile Direct Club to close the gap between my two front teeth. Although it was a somewhat cosmetic procedure, these experiences taught me that I need to prioritize my health.

At the end of the day, your health is a reflection of you and shines on the outside anyway. All I can do is drink my water, take my vitamins, boost my collagen intake, and mind my business to live a long life. Because what’s a cosmetic procedure done if my quality of life is poor? Or, God forbid, that I don’t live as long to enjoy it due to not taking good care of myself. And some of us can’t afford both.

Moreover, people fearing getting older concerns me. To me, with age comes wisdom, self-confidence, and a new self-awareness. That is what the grown folks’ generation would tell me, anyway.

COMPANY INFORMATION Our Company Customer Service Essence Ventures Change Your Address Contact Us Job Opportunities Internships Media Kit SUBSCRIBE Newsletters Give a Gift of ESSENCE Magazine Tablet Edition FOLLOW US MORE ON ESSENCE Home Love Celebrity Beauty Hair Fashion ESSENCE festival ESSENCE.com is part of ESSENCE Communications, Inc.

By clicking Sign In, you agree to our Terms and Conditions and that you have read our Privacy Policy .

We won't post to any of your accounts

Your password must include:

Min 8 characters
Min 1 lowercase character
Min 1 uppercase character
Min 1 number

The Latest Asian Beauty Trend Is A Wellness-Boosting Jelly Snack

With swimsuit season around the corner, a jelly snack popular across Asia promises to promote both inner and outer beauty with a daily dose of collagen and vitamin C, plus plenty of fiber and zero sugar.

EVERYDAZE is the world’s top konjac jelly brand, and its Essential C’s Konjac Jelly is a healthy substitute for sugary, high-calorie snacks.

Konjac, an Asian root, may be familiar to those in the U.S. for its use in natural exfoliating sponges, but it has numerous health benefits, aiding in weight management, improving cholesterol and promoting digestive health. It’s also packed with protein and fiber, while being low in calories.

The EVERYDAZE Essential C’s Konjac Jelly is a fruit-forward, multifunctional snack with just 10 calories per serving. High in fiber and protein, the brand’s konjac jelly can help keep you full and energized between meals.

Each serving is infused with collagen, which helps improve skin elasticity and provides support for joints muscles, and vitamin C, which helps optimize the immune system and promotes bright and healthy skin. Together, collagen and vitamin C form a “power duo” that synergize to enhance each other’s performance, according to the brand.

The snacks, which have a thick, fulfilling texture, are also vegan, keto-friendly, fat-free and gluten-free.

You have successfully subscribed.

Subscribe to newsletters

By signing up, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy and to receive emails from Us Weekly

Only $12! — These Designer-Dupe Aviators Are on Major Sale

Deal of the Day

Check our latest news in Google News

Check our latest news in Apple News

Created with busy schedules in mind, Essential C’s Konjac Jelly features travel-friendly packaging for on-the-go snacking. They come in eight flavors: Lychee, Korean Pear, Green Grape, Peach, Mango, Watermelon, Apple and Cola.

TMX contributed to this story.

You Don’t Just See a Total Solar Eclipse. You Feel It Completely.

Illustration of a person in a desert sitting next to a truck, with the total solar eclipse in the sky reflected in the windshield.

By Ryan Milligan

Dr. Milligan is a senior lecturer in astrophysics at Queen’s University in Belfast, Northern Ireland.

Almost one year ago, in the middle of the night, I drove from my hometown, Belfast, Northern Ireland, to Dublin to catch an early morning flight to Munich. From there I caught another plane to Bangkok, another to Singapore and yet another to Perth in Western Australia. There, I rented a camper van and began a drive of more than 750 miles north to the town of Exmouth on a remote peninsula on the northwest coast of the continent.

This was the only reasonably accessible location on the planet with decent weather prospects from which to view the total solar eclipse on April 20, 2023. The entire event lasted 62 seconds. It was the 10th total solar eclipse I’d traveled to witness.

Even as a professional solar physicist, I find it difficult to convey why eclipse chasers like me go to such extraordinary lengths to witness such a fleeting phenomenon, again and again. I was extra determined to make the pilgrimage last year after I was thwarted by clouds in Chile in December 2020, and I couldn’t afford the eye-watering cost of traveling to Antarctica in 2021. I needed to whet my appetite before embarking on another expedition to see the totality of the April 8 eclipse in Mazatlán, Mexico.

It may sound absurd, but there is no other celestial event that anyone I know would devote so much time and effort to seeing. If you wish to see the northern lights, you can hop on a plane to Iceland or Norway and have a fairly decent chance of seeing them in the winter months. If you are on the nightside of the planet during a lunar eclipse and the skies are clear, you just need to go outside and look up to see it happening. But unless you are fortunate enough to live within or close to the path of totality, witnessing a total solar eclipse will probably require meticulous planning and marshaling time and money to get you to an optimal location and a bit of luck to make sure the weather forecasts you’ve pored over hold true.

Believe me, it is worth the effort.

A total solar eclipse is not something that you see — it’s something that you experience. You can feel the temperature around you begin to drop by as much as 15 degrees over the five to 10 minutes that lead up to the eclipse. The birds and other animals go silent. The light becomes eerie and morphs into a dusky, muted twilight, and you begin to see stark, misplaced shadows abound. A column of darkness in the sky hurtles toward you at over 1,000 miles per hour as the moon’s shadow falls neatly over the sun, turning day into temporary night — nothing like the calming sunset we take for granted every day. Sometimes, a few stars or planets begin to appear faintly in the sky as your eyes get used to the new darkness.

The hairs stand up on the back of your neck and the adrenaline kicks in as your brain tries to make sense of what is going on. But it cannot. It has no other point of reference to compare these sensations to. A total eclipse elicits a unique, visceral, primeval feeling that cannot be evoked by a photograph or a video or a newspaper article, and that can be experienced only within the path of totality when the moon completely obscures the disk of the sun.

And then of course there is the crowning glory: the sun’s corona, the pearly white outer atmosphere of our nearest star that we can otherwise see only using a fleet of dedicated solar-observing spacecraft. It has an ethereal beauty that is challenging to articulate.

For those brief few moments when the corona appears bright in the sky, all the effort made to experience the totality becomes worth it. You want to soak up every second of it and process every feeling, because it is over all too soon. Once the moon’s shadow has passed you feel both exhilarated and deflated because the next opportunity to experience this sensation again could be years away and on the other side of the world. And it is something that you will crave.

There is also, of course, the professional motivation for me to gaze upon the subject of my research with my own eyes. Most other astrophysicists only get to look at exploding stars or distant comets through gargantuan telescopes, where they appear as mere pixels on a computer screen or a squiggle on a graph. It’s easy to get detached from the beauty of astronomy when your job becomes more focused on securing grant funding, teaching, administrative duties and bureaucracy. Eclipse chasing reminds me why I chose this field of work in the first place and reignites my passion — and I want to inspire my students with that same passion.

Each eclipse is different. The shape and structure of the solar corona varies over the course of each solar cycle. The longer the duration of the eclipse, the darker one’s surroundings are likely to seem. And sandwiched between the sun’s “surface” and the corona is the crimson red chromosphere, the layer of the sun’s atmosphere that I have been researching for almost 20 years to understand its relationship to solar flares. In Australia the briefness of totality meant that this region was exceptionally bright and distinguished, and one could even spot some solar prominences (clouds of hydrogen gas suspended above the chromosphere) with the naked eye. That may also be the case on Monday.

People mistakenly think that a partial eclipse is good enough. It is not. When outside the path of totality, the visibility of even 1 percent of the sun’s disk is enough to outshine the entire corona. The buzz around this year’s eclipse through North America has reached a fever pitch not seen since the “Great American Eclipse” of 2017. The duration of totality will be almost twice as long — almost four and a half minutes. (Whether the weather will cooperate is still an open question .)

This is far from the first time I’ve tried to cajole people into experiencing the totality in full. In 2017, I persuaded several of my friends in the United States to join me in Nebraska to enjoy the spectacle without forcing them to traipse halfway across the globe. They later told me that they at first thought I may have been somewhat exaggerating the experience because of my professional bias, but when the eclipse was over, I knew that they finally got it. Their faces were overcome with emotion and they struggled to articulate how they were feeling. Because it wasn’t just about what they had seen — it was about what they had experienced.

Ryan Milligan is a solar physicist at Queen’s University in Belfast, Northern Ireland. He has held research fellowships at NASA and the Science and Technology Facilities Council in Britain and was affiliated with NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center for over a decade.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , WhatsApp , X and Threads .

IMAGES

011 Outer Beauty Essay Example Inner By Hiro2satu ~ Thatsnotus
011 Outer Beauty Essay Example Inner By Hiro2satu ~ Thatsnotus
Inner Beauty Vs Outer Beauty Essay
(PDF) An Essay on Beauty
Physical Beauty vs Inner Beauty of an Individual
646 Words Essay for Students on Beauties of Nature

VIDEO

Outer beauty OR Inner beauty _ PART 2
Mysteria
Beyond Reflections Unveiling The Beauty Within Ugly Child Turned Into A Beautiful Woman
Statue of Liberty: From ground to torch: 305 feet 1 inch

COMMENTS

Inner Beauty Vs Outer Beauty: 4 Truths You Need To Hear
Let's take a look at some truths about inner beauty vs outer beauty, how they manifest, and why the former seems to be far more appreciated over time. 1. Outer beauty is subjective, inner beauty can be seen by everyone. If you ask 100 people what they find physically beautiful in others, you'll get a lot of different responses.
Inner Or Outer Beauty Essay: What Is More Important?
Inner beauty of a person is visible from the outside and it makes the person look beautiful. The most important thing is the harmony of body and soul, the inner beauty of a person should be combined with external beauty. Learn how to combine them in yourself and you will be really happy man. The unity of inner and outer beauty of a man.
Inner Beauty Vs Outer Beauty Essay
Inner Beauty Vs Outer Beauty Essay: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and what is beauty to one person might not be beauty to another. Some people are more attuned to beauty than others, and some people have a higher tolerance for it than others. This essay discusses the complex nature of beauty and how we should focus on inner rather than ...
Outer beauty VS Inner beauty: The 3 essential differences
If you too are wondering, take a look at the following three main differences between outer and inner beauty : 1. Inner beauty is seen by many, while outer beauty is subjective. There are 7 billion people in this world, with 7 billion different opinions about outer beauty. If you are a traveler by heart, then you know how contrasting beauty ...
The Eternal Debate: Inner Beauty vs. Outer Beauty
Explore the timeless debate of inner beauty vs. outer beauty in our insightful blog. Discover how qualities like confidence, authenticity, and empathy intersect with physical appearance. Dive deep into the importance of self-discovery, self-care, and nurturing meaningful relationships. Learn how to strike a harmonious balance between these two facets of beauty.
What is Beauty: Inner and Physical
Inner beauty is long-lasting while physical beauty fades away. Inner beauty gives you peace and serenity, unlike physical beauty where you are on a constant pressure to stay beautiful. Beauty is what distinguishes everyone from each other. If the outer beauty attracts eyes, the beauty of morality attracts the heart.
The Truth About Beauty
The Truth About Beauty. It would be so nice if inner beauty triumphed over outer appearance. But men are designed to care about packaging. It's time to accept the not-so-pretty facts about looks ...
Inner Beauty vs Outer Beauty
Outer beauty is nothing but the beauty of skin, and the inner beauty is the purity of soul.Once Kate Angell, the author of Richmond Rogues said, "Outer beauty attracts, but inner beauty captivates.". If you ask me, why inner beauty is more important than outer beauty, my simple answer is outer beauty may fade out but inner beauty last as ...
Inner Beauty vs Outer Beauty
Inner beauty helps you appreciate outer beauty. If you love, appreciate and feel good about yourself, you would feel more confident about facing and interacting with other beautiful people in the ...
The Importance Of Inner Beauty Over Outer Beauty
The Importance Of Inner Beauty Over Outer Beauty. Human beings identify items or other human beings as beautiful if they possess traits that they commend, would like to possess, or features they find remarkable. Substance is beautiful if it is special in a favorable way; if it is interesting to look at; something someone may enjoy; and ...
Essays About Beauty: Top 5 Examples And 10 Prompts
Creative Writing: Beauty Essay By Writer Jill "…beauty has stolen the eye of today's youth. Gone are the days where a person's inner beauty accounted for so much more then his/her outer beauty." This short essay discusses how people's perception of beauty today heavily relies on physical appearance rather than inner beauty.
Full article: Inner and outer beauty: exploring female beauty in
Chinese context of beauty. The concept of inner and outer beauty in China can be traced back to ancient Chinese philosophy. Man (Citation 2000) found that the concept of female beauty within the ancient Chinese philosophical tradition of Daoism emphasizes female body and sexual attractiveness (characteristics fitting within the concept of outer beauty), whereas the female beauty within the ...
Inner Beauty Vs Outer Beauty
736 Words3 Pages. In recent years, beauty has been classified into two main concepts, inner and outer beauty. Outer beauty refers to the good quality of physical appearance while inner beauty refers to the personal traits or talents which are not straightforward to observe from the appearance. And there are lots of discussion arguing which is ...
Cyrano de Bergerac: Themes
Cyrano de Bergerac can be read as an allegory of inner and outer beauty. Cyrano, representing inner beauty, passively battles Christian, who represents outer beauty, for Roxane's love. Roxane becomes the arbiter of the relative values of these characters and, by extension, of the values of inner and outer beauty.
An argument about beauty
Last year, a new collection of essays, Where the Stress Falls, was published. ... (as opposed to 'outer') beauty. Beauty, it seems, is immutable, at least when incarnated - fixed - in the form of art, because it is in art that beauty as an idea, an eternal idea, is best embodied. Beauty (should you choose to use the word that way) is ...
The Contrast Between Inner And Outer Beauty
The contrast of inner and outer beauty is seen throughout the book. "Those who find ugly meanings in beautiful things are corrupt without being charming. This is a fault. ... From simple essay plans, through to full dissertations, you can guarantee we have a service perfectly matched to your needs.
Essay On Beauty And Outer Beauty
More about Essay On Beauty And Outer Beauty. Body Ritual Among The Nacirema Summary 743 Words | 3 Pages; Women Are Paid More Rhetorical Analysis Essay 983 Words | 4 Pages; Beauty In C. S. Lewis Till We Have Faces 1137 Words | 5 Pages; Softball Player Persuasive Essay 772 Words | 4 Pages; Two Or Three Things I Know For Sure Sparknotes 1457 Words ...
Beauty
The nature of beauty is one of the most enduring and controversial themes in Western philosophy, and is—with the nature of art—one of the two fundamental issues in the history of philosophical aesthetics. Beauty has traditionally been counted among the ultimate values, with goodness, truth, and justice. It is a primary theme among ancient ...
Beauty: The Two Main Concepts Of Inner And Inner Beauty
In recent years, beauty has been classified into two main concepts, inner and outer beauty. Outer beauty refers to the good quality of physical appearance while inner beauty refers to the personal traits or talents which are not easy to observe from the appearance. And there are lots of discussion arguing which is more important to a human being.
A Comparison Between Inner and Outer Beauty
Inner VS Outer Beauty The definition of beauty is: a combination of qualities that pleases the aesthetic senses, especially the sight (google definitions). Beauty is determined by the mind. Therefore, beauty cannot be proven by a fact or a low since it is completely based on how and what a...
Innerbeauty vs Outer beauty
Essay Sample: It is natural that God made some people naturally beautiful than others in face, color, body and in physical appearance but this is only the outer beauty StudyMoose App 24/7 writing help on your phone
Inner vs. Outer Beauty
Kamilah Coleman 12.12.2009 Satire Essay Rough Draft Inner vs. Outer Beauty What is beauty? Well, beauty is defined as the qualities in a person or thing that gives pleasure to the senses.
Essay On Inner Beauty
Essay On Inner Beauty. 885 Words4 Pages. Inner and Outer Beauty As Confucius once stated, "Everything has beauty, but not everyone sees it". We can find beauty in everything, in the eyes of the person we love, in the ways that nature works its magic or in the magnificence of a landscape. Although, when it comes to people, we are always ...
Why I Refuse To Get Work Done As a Black Man In The Age Of ...
My relationship with beauty shifted and I had to remember, my features make me unique. As a Black person, we can all relate to feeling overlooked and fetishized for everything. We, as Black men ...
The Latest Asian Beauty Trend Is A Wellness-Boosting Jelly Snack
With swimsuit season around the corner, a jelly snack popular across Asia promises to promote both inner and outer beauty with a daily dose of collagen and vitamin C, plus plenty of fiber and zero ...
Opinion
Guest Essay. You Don't Just See a Total Solar Eclipse. ... the pearly white outer atmosphere of our nearest star that we can otherwise see only using a fleet of dedicated solar-observing ...

Inner Beauty Vs Outer Beauty: 4 Truths You Need To Hear

1. Outer beauty is subjective, inner beauty can be seen by everyone.

2. Outer beauty is largely beyond our control, inner beauty can be cultivated.

3. Outer beauty creates initial attraction, inner beauty generates long-lasting affection.

4. Outer beauty changes over time, inner beauty is eternal.

Beautiful Traits That People Love Most

About The Author

Inner Or Outer Beauty Essay: What Is More Important?

Calculate Your Price

Recent posts

Use your limited chance to get a special 22% OFF!

Outer beauty VS Inner beauty: The 3 essential differences

If you too are wondering, take a look at the following three main differences between outer and inner beauty :

2. Outer beauty drives initial attraction, but inner beauty is what makes it last.

3. Cultivating inner beauty leads to growth, while altering outer beauty may lead to losing your identity.

What are the most beautiful traits in a person?

Follow Us @iheartintelligence

The Eternal Debate: Inner Beauty vs. Outer Beauty

The Superficial Mirage: Outer Beauty

The Hidden Treasures: Inner Beauty

A Harmonious Symbiosis: The Interplay of Inner and Outer Beauty

Cultivating Inner Beauty: A Lifelong Journey

Balancing Act: Finding Your Unique Beauty Equation

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

What is Beauty: Inner and Physical

Works Cited

Video Version

Cite this Essay

Related Essays

Still can’t find what you need?

Related Topics

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

The Truth About Beauty

Inner Beauty vs Outer Beauty

Bible Verses On Inner Beauty

Inner Beauty vs. Outer Beauty:

What is Outer Beauty:

What is Inner Beauty:

Secret of Happy Life:

It Defines Who You Are:

Secret of Natural Relationship:

Related Posts

Why is Persistence Important in Leadership?

Power of Positive Thinking, Inspiration and Motivation- A Journey Towards Success

Is Being Different A Good or A Bad Thing?

How Valentine’s Day Started? | Valentine’s Day History and Facts

Most Recent Posts

Most Popular Posts

The Importance Of Inner Beauty Over Outer Beauty

Cite this Essay

Related Essays

Essays About Beauty: Top 5 Examples and 10 Prompts

1. Essay On Beauty – Promise Of Happiness By Shivi Rawat

10 Helpful Prompts To Use in Writing Essays About Beauty

An argument about beauty

On beauty (2002)

Bibliography

1. Objectivity and Subjectivity

2. Philosophical Conceptions of Beauty

3. The Politics of Beauty

Support SEP

WHERE BLACK CULTURE, COMMUNITY AND CONSCIOUSNESS MEET

The Latest Asian Beauty Trend Is A Wellness-Boosting Jelly Snack

Subscribe to newsletters

Deal of the Day

More Stories

You Don’t Just See a Total Solar Eclipse. You Feel It Completely.

IMAGES

VIDEO

COMMENTS