Is Beauty Objective?

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

So - I’ve been wrestling with the idea of beauty being objective. I’m leaning towards it being objective, but I’d like to have a dialogue on this, and figure out what makes the most sense.

Here is my current thought: The vast majority of people would find Miranda Kerr to be objectively beautiful. Some may prefer other models over her; some may not even be attracted to her ( May the gods have mercy on their souls ), but how many would find her to be ugly? If one was not deceiving oneself, it would be damn near impossible to find her ugly. There is a general agreement in regards to human/physical aesthetics, and I think this is a manifestation of a deeper cosmic reality, some sort of platonic reality, e.g., the forms.

Thoughts?

2

Didn’t Miranda Kerr appear in another venue? But seriously, i really would in the affirmative that objective standards could be set apart from such hughly publicized and politically motifated grandstands as the Miss America and Miss World pagents. I think the way toarrive to that would be incredibly accurite, however the flip side of it would be that it may be ove the top regarding the afordability aspect of it. But here is my proposal anyway. Have a ntional memorandum, or if need me congressional approval with the budget commitee to introduce and enact a national censuson the issue. Census takers would be required to go door to door, and show the family, (everybody over legal age) to fill in a questionnaire as to who they thinkisthe most beautiful woman, within a sample of ay 100, of different types. Unfortunately, census takers would need to be accompanied by homeland security or fbi or even federal police, to prevent the outbreak of violence amongindividual households, where members of those households may not come to ttttotal agreement, for one particular chosen beauty. The cost may further escalate, because for other reasons, which are not proper at this time to be enumerated. However, if the desire for such objectivity was great enough, and the endemnification of the feds would become fool proof, why not? This is a democracy after all, and all it takes to get the ball rolling is someonem to take it upon himself to go grassroots, sign petitions, and i am as sure as the grass is green, (not merely the almighty buck) that this kind of effort would snowball into an incredibly popular endeavor, and who knows, it may even go national with a hum dinger of a reality show. Eric, why not You? Activism this way, my even afford You the oppotunity to find the woman of Your dreams, as an added benifit.

3

A male gorilla would say, ‘Damn that bitch is ugly. She don’t even have no body hair. Look like the bitch got all her hair burnt off in a fire. I ain’t fuckin’ with no burnt-up-bitches.’

4

Hmm not sure about that; I see a lot of male gorillas in the city, who make cat-calls at beautiful White women who pass by. Just go to the Bronx and you will see what I mean.

5

This thought pattern is what is in some circles known as the Mind Projection Fallacy
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_projection_fallacy

That woman looks sexy to us because she has physical attributes that are visual signs of health and fertility. We have evolutionary reason to seek women who are healthy and fertile; evolution moulded the human male brain to think that she’s sexy (and because it’s hard to change the male brain without affecting the female brain at least somewhat, females will also have an appreciation of her body as well).

Among other species, other things are signs of health and fertility. Perhaps a nice red rump for a baboon. Perhaps a very erect and stiff fin for dolphins. I don’t know, just making shit up. Point is, a lot of our aesthetic taste is driven by evolution, and evolutionary pressures are different among different species. An alien species from Tatooine may not find her sexy, and there’s no science we can point to to say, ‘You’re wrong’. Not that I’m aware of.

6

Is the woman’s evolutionary predicament also cover such traits as kindness, understanding as distinctive vs. gross projections? (as derivatives of power motives, or primary manifestatins in them selves?)
Biblically, and literally, Adams Rib?

7

Beauty is objective, because people are objects first, subjects second. Everything that exists is an object first. The only thing that is “Subjective” is individual interpretation and experiential perspective. People are locked inside their own minds, “Solipsism”.

So how is a woman objectively beautiful, what is beauty? I answered this question recently in another thread. Beauty is nature’s means and method for perpetuating Privilege. Automatic, innate, inherited, genetic, Privilege. Females are born privileged, because of their sexuality. Automatic worth. The more beautiful an organism is, the more worth it has to more people. Quality and Quantity together, best of both worlds. A most beautiful woman, the european Aryan ideal, represents the epitome, apex, and height of human privilege. So the Aryan female is closest to immortality. She is most beautiful. She is top of the food chain. There is almost no chance, whatsoever, that she will die before reproducing. And her genes, hypothetically, can reproduce forever.

She is as “immortal” as possible for a life form.

A most beautiful, therefore most privileged female, has no true worries or stresses in life. She is utterly protected from suffering, evil, and “negative” feelings of any kind. This is due to the male nature. Males compete the hardest and most ferociously, for the highest beauty and privileged female. So an Aryan woman has 12 suitors, 12 alpha males, all competing for her affection, love, and loyalty. She chooses the winner. This is the reality of evolution. If any of her suitors are “bad”, “mean”, or she disapproves of anyone of them, then the other 11 will oust the oddball, to reduce their own competition and improve their chances. Males exclude “bad” men, according to the whim of the female.

In this way, all societies, cultures, civilizations, species, are formed. There are NO exceptions to this rule. Since this is objective, universal, absolute, Natural Law. Biology. Genetics.

8

Ok - I see what you are saying. But even in these relative cases, there is still an object of beauty, whether that be the baboon’s red ass, or the model’s lithe form. This concept, Beauty, is there some sort of abstract/transcendent reality to it. Are these material incarnations of it imperfect emulations? Yes, I’m alluding to Plato.

9

That something is objective does not mean it produces universal agreement. So even if there are people who think that Miranda is ugly, that wouldn’t mean there is no objective truth regarding her beauty. Similarly, just because apes and aliens have different tastes does not mean there is no rank (i.e. relation) between our tastes and their tastes. Finally, the fact that it is difficult to determine rank does not mean there is no rank.

10

Aye - well stated.

Do you think that beauty has some sort of transcendent existence in an Evolian or Platonic sense?

11

There’s nothing “transcendent”. It’s a stupid word used by the retards (even by Schopenhauer) to escape the reality. Everything that fragments the world, that denies that certain parts of it are related to one another (and that’s what this “transcendence” business does), is solipsistic non-sense.

12 
   Everything flows from the basic premise: Beuty is objective first, then, subjective.  The reverse may be more true, conditional to where the emphasis is laid.  The subjective can any time be accentuated, priotirized to the very beginning of the objective/subjective split, where the first mirroring of the self is appreciated. Prior to the split, , objective/subjective differentiation is non existent, therefore, beaurty at that point is neither.  Beauty exists, nevertheless in another sphere, as in a Platonic realm.  Boticelli's Venus is a very good representation of this concept, as she arises out of the see from a shell. If this conceptual/sensational realization is sustained, the idea of Beauty, the ideal, needs no further differentiation.  Art is for art's sake, and hence the only means to immortality.
13

Double aye.

I agree, but I wasn’t, really, using the word in that sense, though as previously mentioned, I agree that many use it with those connotations attached.

Question rephrased: Do you believe that beauty has an existence of its own separate from minds of conscious entities/becomings.

14

So why is it considered “sexy” for women to have shaved genitals (these days, in the West, at least)? That’s a sign of infertility.

Erik - what’s your experience/knowledge of other cultures? Classical chinese ideals of feminine beauty were quite different to modern Western ones, and they’d probably have been appalled by Miranda Kerr - were they measuring beauty incorrectly?

This is true, but it makes it very difficult for people proposing the existence of a ranking system independent of preference to persuade others to their point. And, if they’re being intellectually honest and self-critical, they should persuade themselves first against the best counterarguments they can find.

15

No one likes hair in their mouth…

16

That’s not the crux of the problem. The crux of the problem is that people do not want to introduce the possibility that their tastes are inferior, which is why they defend themselves by trying to undermine the discussion (by arguing that there is no rank or that it is impossible to determine the rank or by asking for peer-reviewed large-scale scientific experiments and their meta-studies published in various prestigious scientific journals.)

17 
 Of course it has.  How can not, as for example, a theatre of cruelty being able to become a work of beauty becoming a possibility?Artaud went insane holding on to this repartee.
  Would You Say one needs an innate sense of

cruelty not to suceed in being able to appreciate it’s vagrancies?
If not, then what is art or beauty, especially a women, who are only able to objecively demand an appreciation of men, that they be able to withstand their beauty as a sign of submission via the man’s masochistic compliance?

18

It’s so-so; I’ve traveled abroad before and like reading about various cultures. The Chinese ideals/memes may have contradicted, but what about the genes? Genes and memes can contradict. Just being intellectually honest, I highly doubt that the Chinese ancients would be appalled by Miranda Kerr from a strictly physical sense. Perhaps they would be appalled by her possible Western, materialistic Diva attitude, but not her human form in of itself. I know the orientals had peculiar customs, like the binding of feet. If I’m not mistaken, in Japanese culture, it’s considered erotic for a woman to convey the sides of her neck, like when pinning her hair back. That’s not all that anomalous to Western aesthetics of the soft, smooth, lithe female.

19

Beauty is a neuronal process, how can it be separate from the minds that experience it?

20

This is debatable, and art may be a rude reminder of the fact, that it has to be heard, regardless of the minds who try to interpret it.