There is definitely a close relationship between looks and the theory of love, although you might not see it by looking at the major aesthetics publications. If looks has too much to do with love insofar as the object of love is often reported to be so because beautiful, then there can be some fruitful connections between your two theories perhaps.
In truth, the first great Western focus on love, Plato’s Symposium, is the first great Western focus on beauty also. I have posted on this previously, but will now have a somewhat different angle. Here I am going to argue (let’s just say it is a working hypothesis) that Plato is essentially right about love and beauty if, and I suppose this is a big if, we make one crucial modification to the theory. Beauty itself. First, that is simply inconsistent, since before grasping Beauty itself just, on the penultimate rung of the ladder, the philosopher is viewing the vast sea of beauty, in a sense viewing beauty in all plain things.
This achievement can’t be consistent with dumping the beauties and the types of love he or she appreciated prior to ascending the ladder! So my proposal is to displace the ladder of love with a circle of love, a group that must be cycled to gain a full appreciation of love, but in which there is nobody privileged position.
Diotima’s theory. The cycle theory shall be paralleled with a group of beauty as the thing of love. That’s, whatever is said about the type of love can be transferred over to the nature of beauty itself and vice versa. But suppose that the love of the one other, both in body and soul, is soft and gentle?
- 1 – Yas Marina Circuit
- Use of natural natural oils
- Kidney beans
- Next, rinse the face with the infusion
- Revealing Intellectual Ability
If so, then there would be you don’t need to reject it. Alternatively, one might want to give credit to both violent and gentle occasions in the cycle of love: I won’t have anything to state about that here. Will there be a lovely mind independent of its manifestations in the torso even?
Diotima telephone calls on Socrates to comprehend by paying the closest attention. The finish of the process is perceiving “a nature of wondrous beauty” which is seen as the best end or reason for the entire project. Yes, but the nature of wondrous beauty includes all of the things previously loved and thought to be beautiful.
The cycle view can have a place for this as a “moment”: an idealist second, one which can enhance the whole experience by informing it with something ideal insofar as it partakes of immortality in this way. Plato himself, in the Republic, speaks of the philosopher getting into back to the cave.
Heraclitus has said that the road up and the path down are the same, a similar point. The changes I propose is to be completed here. The great poets have seen this always, yet Diotima somehow misses it (Nietzsche was somewhat right about Socrates’ incapacity to understand the Dionysian here).
There can be an inconsistency where the lack of relation depends upon a deep relation, where our understanding of enchantment with beauty itself and absolute depends upon our connection with, although eventually followed by rejection of, intimate enchantment. So all of this talk to be blocked with “the pollutions of mortality” is a mistake, as Dewey and Nietzsche could have noticed.
Can you discuss how you take away the clay masks by using them? I have some of the calcium mineral bentonite clay that I’ve used for a cover up but I have already been afraid to clean it down the kitchen sink since it is clay. It might be fine Maybe, but I used to be just nervous to.