The nature of beauty: subjective or objective?

[Ichneumonwasp]

In his defense, and I'm still waiting for him to respond if I have his ideas correctly, he would agree. In fact, he has agreed that subjectivity is involved in the evaluation of what is considered beautiful to an individual. The difference of opinion rests in the presence or absence of objective beauty as well. Is beauty an aspect of particular objects in an objective sense? Or is beauty a construction of the mind? Bubblefish maintains (if I have his ideas correctly) that there is an objective beauty in certain objects and that individual evaluations of that beauty provide the subjective differences we see.

Your example should suggest that there may an infinite number of other "beauties" in the universe that we are not capable of appreciating or understanding, just as an alien may or may not be capable of appreciating a rainbow.

In other words, he does not seem to be saying that our experience of beauty is purely objective. He is saying that objective beauty exists and we recognize it to varying degrees, hence differences in taste. He uses "objective" in a very particular way and from what I have seen so far, seems to be consistent in his use of the term.

 

[Z]

Oh dear, I see we have yet another person who believes Platonic essences are real.

Bubblefish, not you Ichneumonwasp.

Exactly. While the rest of the world has moved ahead, Rome is stuck in Platonism.

The only other logical explanation is if he's claiming that ALL things are beautiful - since there is someone, somewhere, who finds beauty in each and every thing.

Is crap inherently beautiful? It is to someone. Maybe we can't see the beauty in crap.

If 'everything is beautiful', then beauty loses all meaning. If beauty exists regardless of any observers, and if different observers perceived beauty in different things, then we can only say that beauty is a universal trait, common to all things! Symmetry isn't any more beautiful than assymmetry; harmony isn't any less beautiful than discord; and all loses meaning.

This is the same as the 'everything is good' arguments about Heaven - who the hell wants a place where everything is 'perfect'?? Good loses all meaning, without evil to compare it to.

Beauty loses all meaning without ugly to compare it to.

Yet, given that one group perceives something as beautiful, and another as ugly, what can we learn? That one group cannot see beauty in some things? That objects have both beauty and ugliness at the same time?

There is another consideration: if beauty is an inherent quality of the world, but the ability to perceive beauty can be influenced by culture, history, mood, personal preference, etc. - then this still relegates beauty to being internal/subjective. In fact, if beauty were an inherent quality of objects, then beauty would be measurable and observable by all parties; there would be no arguments about beauty.

The fact that there are, proves that beauty is subjective.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Oh dear, I see we have yet another person who believes Platonic essences are real.

Yeah, I was waiting to see if I understood his ideas correctly before going there. But that is what I fear too. It isn't necessarily the case, but that is one very real possibility.

 

[Mercutio]

...

 

[jimbob]

Yeah, I was waiting to see if I understood his ideas correctly before going there. But that is what I fear too. It isn't necessarily the case, but that is one very real possibility.

This might answer your question:

You're right...



http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2417323#post2417323

Who here does not think she is beautiful?
What are the arguments against her beauty

Has it occured to you that there aren't any "arguments" because beauty is "subjective"?

Jimbob, can you please just try to think through what you write just a little? I mean, why are you making me do all of your work?

Consider; If Beauty is subjective only, then Angelina Jolie is not beautiful in the objective sense, and nothing in her appearance would suggest otherwise. So therefore, If angelina jolie is not beautiful in and of herself, she must be either common looking, peculiar looking, unattractive looking, or ugly.

Consider; If beauty is soley subjective, then so must be ugliness, and commoness. I can argue how AJ is beautiful, can you or anyone argue how she is ugly or possesses commoness in appearance?

If I or any reasonable person can argue she is beautiful, then how is it that there is failure to find argument of her ugliness?

I was trying to explain how one doesn't need to argue about reasons for aesthetics, because, as they are subjective, the answers reduce to "because I like this and not that"


BTW how is perfect symmetry in a person beautiul?

BTW2, isn't this what davidjjordan also believes in?

Jim

 

[Paulhoff]

BTW how is perfect symmetry in a person beautiul?

BTW2, isn't this what davidjjordan also believes in?

Jim

On the first, it is one of the things that are supposed to help one to be more beautiful.

On the second, DJJ is nuts..........

Paul

 

[Z]

You know, I wonder how Rome's gonna spin this one back on his forum. You know, the part where he's been backed completely into a corner, where he has to embrace metaphysics and contradictory subjective-objective values, and where he's almost completely stopped arguing about anything? Where is his great dialectic now?

It's so amusing to watch him become the very thing he's warned others against doing.

 

[Solus]

Maybe Z is proving a point with his avatar that beauty is definitely objective in some cases...


or maybe he just got unlucky in avatar selections...

 

[Solus]

the "western face" is considered very attractive in japan - especially (god knows why) a small face (kao chisaii!) and a "tall" (high bridged) nose (hana takaii!)

Since I have a typical "western face" and I'm 6ft tall (normal weight). Question though would a person with my general description be attractive to girls in Japan...

Darn, I can't remember the name of the actor I'm supposed to resemble closely. Oh yeah John Cusack:

Imagine this but 10 years younger, nose is the same eyebrows are different. He does have a bit of resemblance to me.

 

[Paulhoff]

Since I have a typical "western face" and I'm 6ft tall (normal weight). Question though would a person with my general description be attractive to girls in Japan...

Darn, I can't remember the name of the actor I'm supposed to resemble closely. Oh yeah John Cusack:

Imagine this but 10 years younger, nose is the same eyebrows are different. He does have a bit of resemblance to me.

Poor baby, did you get beat up on when you were young.......

Paul

 

[Z]

Maybe Z is proving a point with his avatar that beauty is definitely objective in some cases...


or maybe he just got unlucky in avatar selections...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=74496

Please.... help me....

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

This might answer your question:

You're right...



http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2417323#post2417323

My, that is a long thread. It reminds me of a few discussions with Undercover Elephant with the same rehash of differing principles and ships passing in the night.

Consider; If Beauty is subjective only, then Angelina Jolie is not beautiful in the objective sense, and nothing in her appearance would suggest otherwise. So therefore, If angelina jolie is not beautiful in and of herself, she must be either common looking, peculiar looking, unattractive looking, or ugly.

Consider; If beauty is soley subjective, then so must be ugliness, and commoness. I can argue how AJ is beautiful, can you or anyone argue how she is ugly or possesses commoness in appearance?

If I or any reasonable person can argue she is beautiful, then how is it that there is failure to find argument of her ugliness?

I don't know how this was addressed (that thread is just too much to read), but there are several logical flaws in the argument, as I am very sure you know.

I am not sure how one moves from "if Angelina is not beautiful in and of herself" to "then she must be either common looking, peculiar looking, unattractive looking, or ugly." That maneuver depends critically on deciding that beauty is "objective" (in the usual sense that he uses the word) in the first place. He is arguing his conclusion, in other words, with this argument. So, we must throw that argument in the trash heap.

And this, "I can argue how AJ is beautiful, can you or anyone argue how she is ugly or possesses commoness in appearance?", Z has already addressed with his example of other cultural views of beauty. For other cultures she might appear common because her neck is too short. Or her skin color is too light. While symmetry is an important aspect of our aesthetic valuations, it is clearly not the only criterion we use. Frankly, if it was, we should all masturbate over every circle we encounter. I don't particularly find circles beautiful. They're just circles. Perfect symmetry, but just a geometric design. In and of themselves they have no particular meaning for me.

Now, Heidi Klum, on the other hand...............

sorry, Heidi, I'm still abiding by the restraining order.........

 

[pv+]

I haven't got time to read everything here, so excuse me if this has already been said. Attractiveness and beauty are not the same thing, and it seems to me that many in this thread and the other (infinitely more stupid) thread are discussing attractiveness rather than beauty. And while were about it, would anyone care to comment on objective ugliness, or objective neither-beautiful-nor-ugliness, or maybe objective blandness?

 

[pv+]

I discovered for myself very many years ago, as probably have some others here similarly done, that Bubblefish's view of the world and all it contains is available to anyone who wishes to have it - exclusively through an impenetrable chemical fog.

 

[Z]

pv+, I appreciate you taking the time to post this thread back to life, but comments on bubblefish's otherwise irrelevant viewpoint only serves to add drama to a thread I'd rather not see it in.

Since you brought up the discrepency between attractiveness and beauty, why don't you offer the definitions we'll use for this discussion, so we can see what you're talking about? Thanks.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I don't know Z. I think I might prefer the impenetrable chemical fog at this point.

 

[Z]

I don't know Z. I think I might prefer the impenetrable chemical fog at this point.

You know, the last time I made one of those, the old lady made me sleep on the couch for ten years.

Eight more years to go...

 

[Paulhoff]

Attractiveness and beauty are not the same thing,

But they are still subjective...........

Paul