What is beauty? Can beauty be objective?

[aFireInside]

I’m talking about physical beauty not internal.

 

I noticed that the idea of what is beautiful tends to change with time and culture.

Examples: The in Mayan culture crossed eyed individuals are attractive. Greeks or Romans liked big foreheads. …etc

I remember Stefan talking about how back then being strong wasn’t attractive because it meant you worked in the fields.

 

 

I have this idea that I experiment with. In where I try to ignore all culture and just look at  individuals as a fresh pieces of art. I noticed that when I leave all the culture behind what makes someone “attractive” is their hygiene , and presentation/style.

So it makes me think can beauty be objective?

 

 “Beautify is in the eye of the beholder” - or in the hand of time and culture? 

[MysterionMuffles]

That's a really good question. It is also harder to answer it with culture involved. Just a few decades ago, women were encouraged to include yeast in their diets to GAIN weight because, much like Marilyn Monroe's era, thick women were valued because it meant they could ensure healthy births. Nowadays though, as you know, the value is on THIN women partly because of our over abundance of food and more particularly, processed food. Less and less homemade food is being made and in its place the quick and easy stuff.

 

But anyways on the question of beauty being objective...I don't know if it ever can be something that is objective. Beauty can also be in the eye of the beholdee if that makes sense, as Dick Solomon says in 3rd Rock From the Sun. Perhaps choosing not to define beauty, all things are beautiful in the end? 

 

For instance, Sarah Jessica Parker would be classified as a horse face by many a shallow men, but even she's beautiful to some degree wouldn't you agree? Yeah that's a long stretch...even I don't agree lol. I dunno it's a tough question to answer. Only due to my current lack of insight on the matter, I would strongly believe that physical beauty is still subjective unless you take the approach of simply not choosing standards for what constitutes beauty.

[Guest - Josh -]

Apparently I would have been quite the lady’s man had I lived in ancient Rome, lol.

 

In all seriousness, the only beauty that is objectively unethical is the kind that is forced. Hijabs may be aesthetically preferable within a given culture or community, but the moment a woman is made to wear one against her will is the moment the object which everyone else considers “beautiful” becomes objectively ugly, if you will. Now, social pressures and cultural norms may encourage conformity, but you do not have to go with the crowd. You can get a face tattoo if you want, but that may make your job search difficult in a culture which values a professional, traditional appearance. It’s very important to distinguish social influences from force.

 

Other than that, asking what forms of beauty are objective is like asking “What’s the best music for everyone to listen to.” I have no idea. I can’t even say hygiene approaches some universally preferable ideal, because that word entails different meanings for different people. If you’re a westerner, your liberal application of deodorant and pungent cologne may not be very appreciated by Bedouin tribesmen, in the same sense your grandmother would not likely share your excitement over the latest Korn album.

 

I’m sure that there are some biological determinants of beauty, like symmetry, etc. Apart from that, I don’t think there’s any universally preferable definition.

[Wuzzums]

I'm highly skeptical as to what people in the past found beautiful or not, if it's to be objective. You gave the example that bulky guys were unattractive because it meant they had low status and had to do manual labor. This is cultural, the status of the person is taken in account and not the appearance. 

 

I think the best way to determine this is not to hear what anyone has to say on beauty but to look at the individuals in society. What are the common traits most people have? Because if those traits are common throughout mankind then it means they're preferred traits to have in order to gain a reproductive advantage.

 

Good thing someone already spent some time on this:

 

[Tadas]

I think beauty is partially objective, because we all see children beautiful and we can extract what exactly makes them beautiful.

and what same traits grown up people retain who are considered being beautiful

 

it will be:

head to eye ratio: people with tiny eyes are ugly and perceived as evil

body head ratio in certain degree: big body small head is ugly, perceived as dangerous and stupid

smooth skin texture: wrinkles and any skin texture is ugly

round forms: corners are unfavorable in any figure smooth transitions preferred

 

of course people may develop personal preferences.

[fridolutin]

Beauty standards are presently disconnected from the basic fundamentals on which they should be .  This is a reflection of the era where all is exteriorized, where the superficial rules over the essential.  

 

This is why we are deceived by the fabricated modern beauty where a sick and infect individual looks like a healthy person.    

[MysterionMuffles]

I think tadas nailed it quite simply especially since it's in quick list form lol

[Rayne]

I've been to a few CE courses on cosmetic facial surgery in conjunction with cosmetic dentistry (I'm a dental hygienist) and the surgeons talk a lot about symmetry and ratios.  For example the ratio of a patient's upper lip to nose and nose to chin is a big one they look at.

 

I believe it can be objective.  Most of the faces posted above are very symmetrical.

 

 http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/35976-science-of-sex-appeal-facial-symmetry-importance-video.htm

 

http://www.cosmeticsurgeryspecialists.org/beauty.html

[Guest - Josh -]

A number of people on this thread seem to think an evolutionary favoritism for symmetry implies objectivity. In terms of UPB, beauty cannot be thought of as universally preferable. In any case, perfect symmetry can produce some pretty freaky results.

 

Beauty can be forced, in which case it falls under the universally proscribed category. Then again, beauty can be personally positive, or neutral. Keep in mind that concepts of beauty vary wildly. The unibrow has historically been a sign of beauty in parts of Asia, and crooked teeth are so popular in Japan now that people try to alter their "perfect" smiles. Neon white teeth are seen as ugly in the UK.

 

At best, all that can be said is that aspects of beauty, such as symmetry, are widely preferred due to biological reasons, but there will always be exceptions to that. There is a critical, major difference between widely preferred and universally preferable.

[fridolutin]

At best, all that can be said is that aspects of beauty, such as symmetry, are widely preferred due to biological reasons, but there will always be exceptions to that. There is a critical, major difference between widely preferred and universally preferable.

 

 

 

I wouldn’t say the preference for symetry is for biological reasons, as we see in nature animals can show non symmetrical features such as long members to reach or eat their food. Same with humans that lived in a given environment adapt their morphology to the prevalent conditions. Big nose or narrow eyes, the protuberance on the back of amerindians , the canoe bump, is an example of this true biological adaptation. I think the exception is the symmetrical. 

[HasMat]

beauty cannot have any quality unless its utility based (has causation (or imitation of causation/signal:breast implants)). utility belies a goal. if goal is objectively desireable, and a beauty's causation has objective cardinality among alternates, then its quality will be objective at respect of its cardinality. 3rd best choice = 3rd prettiest form.

 

if 2 physical traits have equal utility for all potential functions they have the same beauty.

 

i know lots of guys who think tatoos are sexy on a woman. I find it repulsive. IMO the divergence is over goals, and how tatoos reflect on those goals. i would argue it has nonuniversal utility-based beauty, and therefore subjective quality.

 

what that quality is depends on beholders goals, and his awareness/recalibration. a family man who used to be a biker might still like tatoos, but arguably its cuz he hasnt made the mental shift. nothing is forcing him and if his wife still has them he may want to hold onto that opinion.

 

objective beauty can only exist where objectively desireable goals (for which beauty has a measure of causation) exist.

 

The problem of objecitve goals can be resolved if you put qualifiers on the judgment (true only for a subcategory), therefore its objective. "As a potential reproduction partner her wide hips have objective beauty." Even gays can't logically dispute that.

 

What I find most sad about modern culture is how powerful social proof is. Ppl arent very interested in objective beauty, and I dont think ppl are even as interested in subjective beauty as they are social acceptance/status. A potential companion's perceived beauty by circle of friends is more important that her forms causation on any goals you may have.

 

 

 

I wouldn’t say the preference for symetry is for biological reasons, as we see in nature animals can show non symmetrical features such as long members to reach or eat their food. Same with humans that lived in a given environment adapt their morphology to the prevalent conditions. Big nose or narrow eyes, the protuberance on the back of amerindians , the canoe bump, is an example of this true biological adaptation. I think the exception is the symmetrical. 

 

bilateral symetry is different from general symetry. general symetry = sphere.

 

bilateral symetry is a general reflection of healthy genes. potential mates have been seeking this trait long before there were mammals. its the norm. can you imagine dating a woman with 1 leg that was 6 inches shorter than the other? or missing 1 hand as a matter of genetic development? that is what bilateral asymetry is. not sexy.