The idea that everyone can be beautiful is directly against the definition of beauty:

c.1275, from Anglo-Norm. beute, from O.Fr. bealte, earlier beltet, from V.L. bellitatem “state of being handsome,” from L. bellus “fine, beautiful,” in classical L. used especially of women and children, or ironically or insultingly of men. Famously defined by Stendhal as la promesse de bonheur “the promise of happiness.”

For there to be an idea of beauty there has to be an idea of ugly. The distribution of “beautiful people” in the world is probably Gaussian normal. Most people are of average beauty, while some are exceedingly beautiful, and some are quite compellingly ugly. To say that all are beautiful is to redefine the word in such a way that it has no distinguishing meaning, because no matter whom it is applied to, it has the same meaning. Thus, it becomes not an adjective, but a participle. Meaningless.

I write this in academic protest of the “True Beauty” exhibit in Willard Straight Hall which will be showing shortly. You can go read Jenna’s announcement, but the summary is:

We’re promoting positive self-image among women at Cornell with one message: you’re beautiful.

Practically, if you look at a photo of two people like the below, won’t you agree that one is more beautiful than the other?

True, this example is just physical beauty. But the same rule applies even for mental beauty, or beauty of the soul.

3 Responses to “Not Everyone Can Be “Beautiful””

1. WannabeStar says:

   11/21/2008 at 2:14 pm

   Beautiful people of the world – unite!

   Reply
2. eq2 plat says:

   12/1/2008 at 11:56 pm

   The man is creazy but the woman is rubbish.

   Reply
3. Locjan says:

   2/24/2009 at 11:55 am

   very bad smile,
   what this woman think! bad mood

   Reply