Beauty

    Ever prevalent is the concept known as beauty. It is a focus of thought and of creative discovery, a driving force in innovation and an essence of life. Although it is so pervasive, its definition varies exceedingly through our copious sphere. Is it the superficial aesthetics of some entity? Or is it an intrinsic property that is part of a thing’s essence? I suspect you claim both are correct, and with that assumption I promptly, but politely, state that you are mistaken. Another question to pose would be, “what, then, possesses beauty?” Does man? What about a man? Or a woman? Does nature? Plants? Do all these possess beauty? Or none of them? Maybe some? Of course, the answers vary through the populace, and even with many philosophers. They harbor numerous misconceptions of beauty and its existence, which I would like to rectify and also wish to further elaborate on this most wondrous topic, that is of course, if you are not so obstinate as to deny my views entrance in to your cognition.
    Sparkling blue eyes much like azure waters, wavy golden locks that rival the most precious of ores in brilliance, a face so cherubic and free of imperfection that even the highest seraph cannot compete, a supple body so splendid that the slightest glance would induce absolute euphoria, and a bust of a size that boasts humility as well as femininity.  Wouldst this be what you suggest to be beauty? Indeed this specimen would be aesthetically pleasing to any male, or female with that particular preference for that matter, but does that actually entail beauty?  No, all it means is that the subject enjoys the entity known as attractiveness. This entity, not to be confused with beauty, appeals solely to the chemical drive to procreate, which draws the attention of those with the said chemical disposition toward the subject. However, the effectiveness of this trait varies based upon the disposition of the one being attracted, hence the proverb “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”, which is, in fact, quite misleading since the phenomenon does not include beauty at all. Also, the trait of attractiveness is possessed by a sole few within a population, it is not universal, and it does not apply to everyone. Contrarily, beauty is constant within a population. When an organism possesses beauty, it can easily be found within every member of its species. So, to answer the first question, beauty is an innate characteristic of an object’s essence.
    Now then, what has beauty? Well, if beauty is an intrinsic feature that fully encompasses a thing’s fundamental nature then it must be prevalent in the whole population of its type; with this statement one can easily discern what possesses beauty through the use of logic. Let us start general with nature and slowly increase specificity. Of course, before we show whether or not nature is beautiful we must first define it. In this case we will define nature as all things, living and nonliving, that occur naturally, i.e. from natural processes. Now, to prove nature to be beautiful, but how would one go about doing this? Maybe it can be accomplished if we attempt to find an example of something natural that is not beautiful. If we succeed in this attempt then the previous statement, “nature is beautiful,” would undoubtedly be a fallacy, but if we fail it would be a verity. Let us begin:

    Plants are beautiful, are they not? Well, their magnificent structures and various colorations are what make them truly remarkable sights. But do all plants possess such qualities and therefore beauty? Indeed they do for what plant is there that one would call unattractive.
    Microscopic organisms (let us place these kingdoms together to conserve space and time) are beautiful, correct? Well, you most probably say “no,” but I beseech you, “please be more objective.” Ignore the fact that these beings can cause disease; instead focus on the fact that they were most certainly the first organisms to exist, and that in itself is beautiful. Also, though they are invisible to the unaided eye, they have extremely remarkable structures varying through their many species, spanning from basic build to methods of locomotion, which holds true for all these organisms. Yes, these are beautiful.
    Well, if microscopic organisms are beautiful, than fungi surely are as well, or am I mistaken? How could I be? These devilishly intriguing decomposers have the most abstract structures of any living beings. They liven up the somber ambiance in a forest with felled trees and their myriad of reproductive structures is truly remarkable. And all of them possess these traits in some form or another. So yes, they are beautiful, and no, I’m not mistaken.
    Now, the domain we adore most (for no other reason than the fact that it is the one in which we occur), the animal kingdom.  They are beautiful, correct? They are all quite aesthetically pleasing, and they are rather varied and interesting. But what of the ugly animals such as the platypus, which is by far the oddest of oddities? The platypus too is beautiful for it may seem strange but it is its novel appearance that makes it so. You see, odd does not make ugly. It seems as though we are forgetting something however. Ah yes, how could one forget the “quintessential” animal, man? Man is indisputably beautiful. But wait, how can that be when we find some of our species ugly? When we cannot find similar aspects of every individual to adore? Beauty cannot be found in all man. Beauty cannot be found at all in man. There is nothing intrinsically beautiful throughout mankind, hence mankind is not beautiful.
    It would appear that we have proven nature to lack beauty, but what if we proved humans to be unnatural? A simple reason can be given to prove this. All organism populations follow a logistic curve (not perfectly, but closely enough), but humans do not. Now, that would be all fine and good if it were accomplished by natural means but that is not the case. Through the use of technology humans have raped the land to insure their continued existence, which makes that existence unnatural. And the use of technology to reap as much as possible from the land has gone on for millennia (all technology is unnatural, including irrigation and weapons). Therefore the existence of today’s humans is due to their progenitors’ use of technology. They are solely extant because of technology, and therefore unnatural, which removes them from nature. With humans no longer being part of it, nature now qualifies as beautiful, while the unnatural, because it consists of humans, is not.

And there you have it, nature is beautiful, the unnatural is not. This, however, does not make all unnatural things lacking in beauty for the state of the whole does not characterize all its parts.
   With nature now defined as beautiful one can be certain that all natural items are beautiful as well, but with the unnatural deficient in beauty it is uncertain which of its parts, if any, contain beauty. This can be discovered by the same means used to show that nature has beauty, which I leave up to you folks to accomplish on your own.