- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
As a rule, we learn about the true aesthetics of things and the world around us by ourselves. This is not taught in school. Understanding aesthetics is one of the hallmarks of an intelligent person. The inner aesthete is the side of the personality that everyone will have to cultivate independently. And this is a path that you either choose for yourself once, or avoid. There is a lot of literature devoted to aesthetics. You can get acquainted with it and discover something new.
In psychology, the desire for beauty and harmony is attributed to the emotive radical. It is inherent in the category of people who are distinguished by pronounced kindness. Such people are used to empathizing. They usually listen carefully and show understanding when talking. These are emotionally passive people who like to watch other people's experiences rather than experience them themselves. They may show a tendency to avoid conflicts, psychosomatic manifestations are possible, which increase against the background of stress. People are sensitive to shades and semitones in everything, and strive to harmonize space in all its manifestations.
As for the second part of the question, yes “aestheticism”, as the author of the question called it, may not always manifest itself. This is due to the fact that in the human psychotype there are always several radicals, for example, schizoid or epileptoid, one of the features of which is the desire for ordering and pragmatism.
From my personal experience, I can say that there are people who do not have a desire for beauty, this is noticeable by external signs, and whether this is innate or not is quite difficult to say, this is a topic of a different answer, an answer to the philosophical dispute between rationalists and empiricists, a dispute about the presence of a priori(pre-experimental) knowledge.