Response to WIll Bassing's Love and Beauty--Sarah Sampson

I think you bring up a very interesting point. Do you find different meanings in the words "love" and "lover?" From my subjective point of view, I find "love" associated more with the entirety of a being; to love somebody is not only to love their physical beauty or not, but also their mind, their emotions, the relationship you have with the person. When I hear the word "lover," I think about sex. I think it is fair to say that beauty stimulates love, however I think it is also fair to say that beauty stimulates lust. If you look at it in terms of biological sex, men are physically aroused when they see something they perceive as attractive (I think we're all aware of this). In some ways, especially when younger, they can't control it. And there is physical discomfort (blue balls) if a man does not take care of this need. So, just because a person, like you said, finds another person beautiful, does not mean the motives are necessarily as pure as love. But who is to say that sex is an impure motive? Aren't we all just reacting to one another's pheromones? But how heavy does the word love have to be? I can love a class and find it beautiful but the meanings here are completely different. Objectively speaking, it is very fair to say that beauty stimulates love; it stimulates a love for sex, one of the two most certain things in life, and arguable half of a relationship. I would also attribute this to society's definition of what is considered beautiful in a person (which I think we are also all aware of). Subjectively speaking, it is a bit trickier to say that beauty for sure stimulates love. This works in tandem with your statement, "I love my wife, therefore I think she is beautiful." This operates on a deeper level, implying that what you love about your wife is more than just skin deep. But then again, this is also a very subjective definition of how I perceive love and beauty. If the only reason one love's their spouse is for the way s/he looks, then the two statements may be interchangeable. But this is a very animalistic way of viewing things. Animals mate purely to reproduce. It is really interesting if you look at the bonobo monkeys. They are the closest species to humans and are the only creatures recorded to have sex for pleasure, perform oral sex, for social contact, and enjoy make up sex. They do not form monogamous relationships and there partner preference is not based on beauty. As the rational animals, we seem to take much from the animalistic instincts that we have to engage in sex, but what seems to hold people together is the emotional bond that two people may form with their words, feelings, and shared interests. I do agree that this topic would have been an awesome one to discuss as we did not really address the difference between beauty and beautiful. I really like what you had to say. It made me think about the interchangeability of the two words. I love beauty and the beautiful but is everything that is beautiful to be loved? I think there are plenty of single beautiful people out there. And plenty of beautiful artwork, as Dr. Redick informed us of the students who were bored at the National Gallery, goes unloved. And the cultivation of love and relationships is a beautiful thing. Unfortunately, our society puts too much emphasis on being beautiful on the outside when it should be about either matching inner and outer or just beautifying the soul.