View Full Version : Beautiful

April 15th, 2006, 07:40 PM
Why are the most beautiful things always the saddest? Or is that just me?

April 15th, 2006, 07:46 PM
Got any examples?

I think my children are beautiful, but they don't make me sad...
I think flowers are beautiful, but they don't make me sad...

April 15th, 2006, 07:47 PM
Why are the most beautiful things always the saddest? Or is that just me?

This seems more suited to philosophy than pop culture.

We must define beauty. A flower is an object commonly considered beautiful. Usually because it has a bright and appealing appearance. However, the truly beautiful things often seem sad initially. Jesus agonizing on the cross is a sad image, but it is not ugly.

He is dying for the cause of God, from the perspective of those at the time. From a more informed perspective two days later, after his resurrection, it is in retrospect a beautiful image, because it is revealed that he was sacrificing himself not only for ideals, but for each and every one of us fellow human beings.

Mr. Hyde
April 15th, 2006, 08:06 PM
This seems more suited to philosophy than pop culture.
Depends on whether or not this is focused on pop culture things. Brokeback Mountain was sad, but beautiful.

Not everything beautiful IS sad. A Beautiful Mind was beautiful, hell, beautiful is RIGHT THERE in the name of it. How can that NOT be beautiful? And it wasn't sad. It had a happy ending.

April 15th, 2006, 09:19 PM
Are you talking about love Turt? If so, yes, it can be sad at times...especially when you love someone and you can't have or be with him/her. It sometimes is so sad that it hurts.

But I think it's how each of us look at things. If we look at them as sad, then they'll appear that way. I can look at a flower and think about my mom's funeral or I can look at a flower and think of Spring time when everything is blossoming and coming to life again.

I think it's all in the way you look at beautiful things, eh?

April 17th, 2006, 11:26 AM
I find that although beauty is not directly linked to sadness, the most gut-wrenchingly beautiful things, that go beyond phyiscal perfection and truly stir the soul, are tainted with a sadness I cannot explain. Moonlight sonata, fur elise, cyrsathimum, mad world, alone down there, musically, and a night-time city scape, starry night, and the Tianumiun square tank-man picture visually. They all evoke a certian feeling. I suck at this kind of thing, so I cannot explain further. It is the antithesis to the feeling one gets at the end of a good heavy-metal riff if that helps anyone (Vermillion in particular). Oh well.

April 17th, 2006, 01:22 PM
I know what you mean about the Moonlight Sonata, actually. Whenever I hear that piece of music it does stir a sadness inside of me, but that was probably the intent of the music itself, to convey some sadness (although I guess it's supposedly a love song). Music is unbelievably powerful in how it can stir your emotions. I find Copeland's Appalachian Spring absolutely mesmerizing, but it's not sad. Each piece has its own feel. :)

April 17th, 2006, 03:11 PM
If this were in the Philosophy forum I'd tell you what I think.

Sad movies make me cry. Beautiful movies make me happy. You lost me.

April 17th, 2006, 03:18 PM
Butch up, emo kid. Seriously.

Some things that are tragic are also beautiful. Pain can me stirring. But not everything that is beautiful or stirring is tragic or painful.

Moonlight sonata and fur elise, shoor. What about Beethoven's 9th symphony? Or Handel's Messiah? Or Bach's Jesu Bleibet Meine Freude? Or Bach's Prelude to Suite I for the cello? Or everything ever written by Mozart? Geez, that guy couldn't BE more chipper. And what about Vivaldi? The spring movement of his "four seasons" is quite beautiful.

April 17th, 2006, 06:33 PM
Things that stir the soul aren't sad if you truly live in the moment. I can relate to what you are saying, Turtle. I even labeled it. I call it, "loving with sad." Rather than, "loving with love."

Let me give you an example. My youngest daughter is 4 years old. Especially when she was about 3, I would look at her, and I'd be filled with such love for her, and it was a heartwrenching love. And I thought, "Wait a sec...love is not supposed to feel painful." And so I searched it out a little. I was feeling sad because I realized that she isn't a "baby" anymore and I was *missing* her baby-like quality. So, I was really emoting two feelings, not just one. One was feeling love for her. The other was connecting that love to the past filling me with a missing.

If you are looking at beauty in the world and feeling a deep sadness, you need examine why that is. Is it because you are living in the past. Living in the future? Comparing it to all the negative things in the world? Wishing it could stay? All of those things mean you aren't living in the moment.

I find that if you stay in the moment and appreciate an awesome colorful sunset for all that it is in the moment, the sunset becomes eternal because you have filled that moment with love. Sappy, I know. But sappy beats sad any day.

April 17th, 2006, 07:20 PM
Let William Shakespeare say it for me:

When I have seen by times fell hand defaced
The rich proud cost of outworn buried age;
When some lofty towers I see down-razed,
And brass eternal slave to mortal rage:

When I have seen the hungry ocean gain
Advantage on the kingdom of the shore,
And the firm soil win of the watery main
Increasing store with loss and loss with store

When I have seen such interchange of state,
Or state, itself confounded to decay;
Ruin hath taught me thus to ruminate,
That time will come and take my love away

This thought is a death which cannot choose
But weep to have, that which it fears to lose

April 18th, 2006, 01:29 AM
I should make fewer pointless threads.....

and true Pervirtous, the bard is creepily everywhere

.......finally, Emo? Tis harsh, but a worthy comment. Mr. New Zealand Town stapler. But every so often, it's fun to embrace the emo. Come on, it's their. Just a little bit. Come to the tight-pants and whiny-ness side.
:lol: seriously though, this thread is me wondering aloud on a forum. So useless. :blush:

April 18th, 2006, 03:04 AM
Why are the most beautiful things always the saddest? Or is that just me?
Are you saying you're beautiful?

April 18th, 2006, 05:46 AM
If this were in the Philosophy forum I'd tell you what I think.

Sad movies make me cry. Beautiful movies make me happy. You lost me.I see the thread was moved to Philosophical withount any fanfare. I could at least have gotten some credit for making the suggestion!

Turtle - this seems to be your problem: I find that although beauty is not directly linked to sadness, the most gut-wrenchingly beautiful things, that go beyond phyiscal perfection and truly stir the soul, are tainted with a sadness I cannot explain. - your problem is a form of manic depression with schizo overtones (I think Clive called it Emo first). I suggest heavy medication for a while - let me know if it helps.

April 18th, 2006, 06:09 AM
I am SOOOO not sad....hahahaha

April 19th, 2006, 09:20 PM
Snoop....just shush. Shush. Calm down. And on your way out, sing "You are beautiful" to Tinkerbell. Everyone happy?

Now, onto my OTHER issue of the evening.....:craz:

April 19th, 2006, 10:52 PM

'The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed.' ~Albert Einstein ~

'Beauty is an experience, nothing else. It is not a fixed pattern or an arrangement of features. It is something felt, a glow or a communicated sense of fineness.' ~ D. H. Lawrence~

'Beauty may be transitory, beauty may be lasting, but above all, beauty is a personal quality that can touch the basest and the most noble of emotions.' ~ Fruity ~

Sadness is often for some quality of beauty percieved and/or induged, now unrequited or lost.

Beauty is implicit in Maslow's 'Heirarchy of Needs', it is an emotional 'sauce' that flavours many of our experiences:

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.

Beauty Appeals to Emotion. When a rhetorician (speaker/author) employs literary devices and other techniques that emphasize the aesthetic dimension of a text, he or she using pathos to appeal to their audience's emotions as well. All other elements being equal, readers will accept the more aesthetically pleasing text. People respond to texts that delight, thrill, seduce, and amaze them. Beauty is often defined in terms of fecundity, which ties readers back to some of the most basic stages of Maslow's hierarchy--although readers may feel at first glance as though beauty transcends humanity, materialism, and corporality altogether. When reading a text, try to see how much the author's overall structure, dominate metaphors, sentence style, combining of clauses and word choice affect your reception of the message. Sometimes symmetry and balance rests at the definition of beauty. Balance relates to health and well being and not just pure logic.

Beauty and Emotion Cannot Be Extracted from Any Text. Rhetoricians understand that all texts combine ethos, logos and pathos. In other words, it's impossible to strip a message free of its appeals. All messages appeal to readers' basic desires. Even though some people see pathos as frosting on a cake, true rhetoricians know that they cannot strip a message from all its appeals and leave "just the cake" behind. A rhetorician would never create a text without this catalyst: human need. There is no purely objective, purely factual, purely logical text in the world. Every scrap of paper, every radio transmission, every uttered speech has a human-created reason for existing, and each of these "texts" strives to meet a human need.

For example, grocery lists (seemingly boring and objective) are made to help get people fed, sometimes as a group, meeting the need to belong as well as the physiological need to eat. Science reports are often generated to help people's needs for safety (improved health). Telephone directories are created in order to help people connect (sense of belonging) or help people engage in commerce (food, shelter, safety). Very seemingly straightforward texts such as philosophical essays, political platforms, and even assembly instructions often employ metaphors in order to convey their ideas. For example, Plato's Phaedrus uses the metaphor of intercourse to describe the legacy of philosophy; Clinton used the metaphor of covenant in the speech he gave at the Democratic Convention for his second bid as president; assembly instructions will use images such as "A frame," "butterfly," and "pair," "twin," or "mate" to describe the parts to be assembled.

Even though ethos, logos, pathos, and context are all interwoven and necessary to a rhetorical analysis of a text, the most "rhetorical" element is probably pathos, since rhetoricians define themselves apart from philosophers and other who create and analyze texts primarily by their hyper-awareness of their audience.