What is beauty? "This is a philosophy that has been passed down through the ages, but it has not been satisfactorily explained until today. Many, many scholars have tried their best to solve it. In my opinion, this problem is an eternal problem, and its difficulty should be absolutely equal to "drawing an angle bisector with a ruler" in mathematical problems. But there is a difference between the two. At least, many people have been able to explain "what is beauty", but for those math problems, it doesn't matter if they are half solved or have a clue. Perhaps this is the difference between philosophy and other sciences. Everyone thinks that he has discovered the truth, and everyone thinks that he is right, but when he hears other people's opinions, he will waver and fall into a state of paradox. Its understanding can be varied, unlike natural science. Otherwise, there wouldn't be so much materialism, idealism and metaphysics. When discussing "beauty", it seems simple to answer the question "what is beauty" from a very objective angle. First of all, look up the dictionary and get the following explanations: beauty: ① 1, beauty adj. 2, beauty v. 3, beauty n. 4, pride. From the perspective of words, it is obvious that asking "what is beauty" is simply playing us, because there is no answer at all. It can be seen that the meaning of "beauty" is varied, including adjectives, verbs, nouns and so on. If you ask its adjective meaning, then you should describe it with other adjectives. If you ask its noun meaning, then you should specify it in kind. But if you just ask "what is beauty" without any explanation, you can't explain what it wants to ask. But at the same time, if we enter "beauty" in any translation tool, such as Kingsoft, and then look up its meaning, a very strange phenomenon will appear. The English word found out is beauty, 100% noun. So I naturally think of the time when Plato, the great ancient Greek philosopher and aesthetician who put forward "what is beauty", lived and what was the meaning of "beauty" he understood at that time? Is it as broad and profound as Chinese or clearly distinguishes nouns, adjectives and verbs like European language families? According to the tradition of European language families, their understanding of "beauty" should only be part of speech, that is, adjectives, nouns or verbs. Because beauty and beauty are very different after all! ! ! But unfortunately, no matter how I put Plato on the search website, the result is almost the same, because there are so many beauties and beauties in an article that I can't tell them apart at all. With the above question, I found it: water it with any other attribute. Only beauty exists independently of everything else. So I came to the conclusion that beauty exists, but we can't define it or compare it, because nothing can compare with it. We can't define beauty, we can't define beauty, and we can't use this beauty to determine the beauty of other things. But problems have arisen, contradictions have emerged, and many things are really beautiful, although the premise is that we can't tell where the beauty is. Is it because we haven't found the beautiful elements of that material yet? But many times we feel that the beauty of a thing needs no reason. In my first class of "Architectural Aesthetics and Appreciation" this semester, the teacher has said to us: "I don't know where the beauty of these buildings lies, but I think they are beautiful. "Many times, in order to explain the beauty of an object, people actually apply some so-called theoretical things to" beautiful "objects mechanically. For example, the teacher of Architectural Aesthetics and Appreciation told us that this Arc de Triomphe is beautiful because it conforms to the golden section, that Greek roof conforms to the golden section, and this column conforms to 1:8, so it is beautiful. But beauty is "golden section" and beauty is "1: 8"? Or "golden section" and "1: 8" must be beautiful? Because the teacher said that this is scientifically verified and ergonomically verified, such a ratio is "beauty". Really? So those who are out of proportion to normal people, such as short people, must be unattractive? So Picasso's paintings are completely unreasonable in scale, so they are not beautiful? Perhaps, beautiful things can be verified by scientific methods, but in my personal opinion, what is verified as "beauty" is indeed beautiful to a certain extent, but "beauty" is far from being verified by "scientific methods", and even if it is verified, who can explain that it is the truth? As Plato said, beauty cannot be defined, and only beauty itself is the truth. The following is a summary of some views on "what is beauty": beauty is harmony-Pythagoras' beauty is useful-Socrates' beauty is the attribute of objects-Bok's beauty is relationship-Diderot's beauty is the perceptual manifestation of ideas-Haigl's beauty is the full objectification of will-Bergson's beauty is vivid-Cherny Chevy's beauty is the performance of success-Croce. The form of meaning-Bell's beauty is a model-Cai Yimei is a unified concept of subjectivity and objectivity-Gao Ertai's beauty is a natural humanization-Li Zehou's beauty is the objectification of human's essential strength-Marxist beauty is life-Yang's beauty is nothingness-Yan Xianglin's beauty is negation-Wu Xuan's beauty is just a technology-beauty is realm-beauty is beauty. But unfortunately, all the above statements are only one aspect. " Beauty is everywhere around us, and they are all right. To some extent, they are all right, but this is not what we want. They just answered, "What is beauty? They only answered the counter-proposition "What is beauty". "... according to mathematics, only the true proposition is correct, and the counter-proposition is correct. Obviously, on this issue, the positive proposition and the negative proposition are completely different. Positive propositions include all negative propositions. Thinking about "what is beauty" is really a bit of a philosophical cycle. It is said that philosophy is the essence of all disciplines, and the roots of all sciences are almost related to philosophy. At the end of Plato's Theory of Form, this paper puts forward a view that scientific statement and Socrates' definition of value soul in Plato's Dialogues are not about specific facts or objects, but about unique S. (2) scientific facts illustrate not a specific problem, but a general problem. Indeed, the previous philosophy of high school learning said that "universality lies in particularity and is manifested through particularity." Without particularity, there is no universality. "In this way, can we regard' beauty' as a universality, and all beautiful substances are its particularity? If so, it is not difficult to understand why scientists