Why are things beautiful?

[volatile]

Well from an ontological standpoint that one considers something beautiful makes that perception of beauty real, at least for them. From an epistemological standpoint what knowledge or information beauty tends to infer is perhaps just those common attributes of symmetry and the perception of perfection. So I think we can examine those common attributes without necessarily getting bogged down in ontology and epistemology.

We can - and those would be scientific questions. But you'd need to figure out what you meant by "beautiful" before you could answer them - and to do that, you need ontology and epistemology. The philosophic questions are necessarily prior to the scientific ones. "The common attributes of beauty" is a scientific question, as I said, but examining them is not the same as examining the concept of beauty itself.

Dynamic hit the nail on the head. When Piggy talks about the difference between beauty and ugliness - or rather, between perceptions of beauty and ugliness - he's asking a philosophical question, not the type of question you talk about here.

 

[The Man]

Because beauty, as a subjective concept, can't be defined simply through recourse to statistics. You could say "75% of people think circles are beautiful, therefore they are", but then how do you account for the guy who thinks circles are ugly?

"The common attributes of what is considered beautiful" is an interesting (and certainly scientific) question, that may be approached in a number of scientifically-legitimate ways, from statistical anthropology via neuroscience or evolutionary psychology. But what exactly "beautiful" means remains a philosophical question.

What one considers to be hot, cold, cool or comfortable are also subjective concepts, yet this does not prevent us from examining thermodynamics or the physiology of why someone would consider that some particular environment is hot and others feel it is cold, cool or comfortable. I am not saying that the common attributes are the end all of the definition of beauty, but it is really where we have to start even if one is going to bring in those ontological and epistemological considerations. Unless one wants to simply label beauty, what is hot, cold, cool of comfortable personal perceptions and be done with it.

 

[volatile]

What one considers to be hot, cold, cool or comfortable are also subjective concepts, yet this does not prevent us from examining thermodynamics or the physiology of why someone would consider that some particular environment is hot and others feel it is cold,

Your analogy doesn't work, and here's why. Reaction to temperature is subjective, but temperature itself isn't. People might physiologically differ in their rates of reaction, or whatever, but temperature is objectively measurable. The same cannot be said for "beauty".

You're still confusing "what is beauty" and "what is considered beautiful [by an individual, group or statistical majority]". The two are different questions, fundamentally. The second is scientific, I agree. The first is not.

 

[The Man]

We can - and those would be scientific questions. But you'd need to figure out what you meant by "beautiful" before you could answer them - and to do that, you need ontology and epistemology. The philosophic questions are necessarily prior to the scientific ones. "The common attributes of beauty" is a scientific question, as I said, but examining them is not the same as examining the concept of beauty itself.

Dynamic hit the nail on the head. When Piggy talks about the difference between beauty and ugliness - or rather, between perceptions of beauty and ugliness - he's asking a philosophical question, not the type of question you talk about here.

I think Piggy stated quite clearly why he was posting on the science forum and not the philosophy forum and that he was looking at it “From a scientific point of view”, so it is the type of question I am talking about. Although the content of the OP does tend towards the philosophical aspects. I suspect Piggy just did not have the requisite information to pose his question in the more “scientific point of view” he is looking for.

 

[volatile]

I think Piggy stated quite clearly why he was posting on the science forum and not the philosophy forum and that he was looking at it “From a scientific point of view”, so it is the type of question I am talking about. Although the content of the OP does tend towards the philosophical aspects. I suspect Piggy just did not have the requisite information to pose his question in the more “scientific point of view” he is looking for.

Perhaps.

But his question isn't framed - wasn't framed - as "statistically, what do people find beautiful". It was framed in implicitly philosophical terms - "do aliens find things ugly" is not the same type of question, and cannot be approached in the same way, methodologically, as the type of questions you're posing. It's not possible.

 

[Piggy]

Perhaps.

But his question isn't framed - wasn't framed - as "statistically, what do people find beautiful". It was framed in implicitly philosophical terms - "do aliens find things ugly" is not the same type of question, and cannot be approached in the same way, methodologically, as the type of questions you're posing. It's not possible.

Not really. The aliens thought-experiment was just to point out that we did not, of course, have to evolve any sense of beauty. But we did.

The question of why that happened is not philosophical, any more than the question of why birds have feathers is philosophical.

 

[The Man]

Your analogy doesn't work, and here's why. Reaction to temperature is subjective, but temperature itself isn't. People might physiologically differ in their rates of reaction, or whatever, but temperature is objectively measurable. The same cannot be said for "beauty".

What my “analogy doesn't work” because “Reaction to temperature is subjective”? Well so is reaction to what can be defined as the common aspects of beauty. Sure “temperature is objectively measurable” but so are some of those common aspects of beauty, particularly symmetry.

You're still confusing "what is beauty" and "what is considered beautiful [by an individual, group or statistical majority]". The two are different questions, fundamentally. The second is scientific, I agree. The first is not.

No your are or at least thinking Piggy or I am. Again he was quite specific about this being the “The second” scientific consideration, hence posting it on the science sub forum. Again admittedly he may not have done such a great job limiting it to that consideration is his OP, but that was the stated intent.

 

[volatile]

Not really. The aliens thought-experiment was just to point out that we did not, of course, have to evolve any sense of beauty. But we did.

The question of why that happened is not philosophical, any more than the question of why birds have feathers is philosophical.

I can think of a number of ways of scientifically testing the "birds have feathers" hypothesis.

Can you think of similar ways to test the "aliens think things are ugly" hypothesis without first developing a philosophically-coherent statement of what "ugly" means?

You cannot compare beauty and feathers. The first is a subjective concept; the latter are physiological features.

 

[Piggy]

I hope the philosophers will not turn this thread into a total train wreck. We'll see.

Again, the question I intended to pose -- and believe I did pose -- is merely a question of why this capacity is present in our species.

I'll post some related articles to try to keep it on track.

Here's one regarding perception of beauty in unfamiliar faces:

Israeli scientists build a Beauty Machine.

 

[Third Eye Open]

I always thought part of it had to do with pattern recognition. Our brains give us a reward when we recognize patterns, the more complex the pattern the bigger the reward. If people can't hear a pattern in the music, they say it is 'just noise', also why solving a mystery or a puzzle feels so good.

 

[volatile]

What my “analogy doesn't work” because “Reaction to temperature is subjective”? Well so is reaction to what can be defined as the common aspects of beauty. Sure “temperature is objectively measurable” but so are some of those common aspects of beauty, particularly symmetry.

Only if you arbitrarily say symmetry is beautiful first. You're wagging the dog.

100 degrees is ALWAYS 100 degrees, by definition, even if someone has no nociceptors. "Symmetry", however, is not always beautiful, because beauty is subjective. You cannot compare the two, because they're entirely different.

IF you want to talk about "why do many people find symmetry beautiful", then that's fine. That's an interesting scientific question. But you still need recourse to philosophy to develop an idea of what "beautiful" means.

 

[Piggy]

I can think of a number of ways of scientifically testing the "birds have feathers" hypothesis.

Can you think of similar ways to test the "aliens think things are ugly" hypothesis without first developing a philosophically-coherent statement of what "ugly" means?

You cannot compare beauty and feathers. The first is a subjective concept; the latter are physiological features.

The question of whether there are aliens who don't have the capacity to perceive beauty is one that can't be answered, and is not intended to be.

As I said, it was merely to point out that we could have evolved in other ways.

And I am not intending to compare beauty and feathers.

However, there is no doubt that birds have feathers, and there is no doubt that humans find some things beautiful, i.e. that humans have an innate capacity to experience the perception of beauty.

And again, the question "Why did birds evolve feathers?" is scientific, not philosophical.

By the same token, the question "Why did humans evolve to find some things beautiful (regardless of what they are)?" is also a scientific, not philosophical, question.

I can't believe I'm having to restate this so many times, but here goes again:

Since theoretically we could have evolved without a sense of beauty, why did this arise in humans?

Or to put it more colloquially: Why is it that we find some things (anything) beautiful?

A scientific, not philosophical, topic. Which is why it is in this forum.

 

[volatile]

Again, the question I intended to pose -- and believe I did pose -- is merely a question of why this capacity is present in our species.

If that's the question you want to ask (and all this talk of "pattern recognition" and "symmetry" implies even if you did mean that, responders did not understand you that way), then OK.

Surely it's just a product of our evolved capacity for intelligent reflection? It's a by-product of subjective self-hood. That's the process that gives rise to a sense of beauty. But that says nothing at all about what beauty itself is, which remains an inherently philosophical question.

 

[volatile]

Since theoretically we could have evolved without a sense of beauty, why did this arise in humans?

Or to put it more colloquially: Why is it that we find some things (anything) beautiful?

Those aren't the same question. The first is a scientific one, the second is not. That's why you're getting dissent, and why no-one, yet, has actually given you an answer to the first. Talk of "symmetry" and "pattern" are answers to the second question, but not the first.

 

[!Kaggen]

I agree with Doubt and volatile -- it IS a philosophical question, regardless of how emphatically you may declare it to be a scientific one. You have already framed it in philosophical terms by asking:

"I wonder, are there creatures out there on some other planet who wake up, go outside, and find the universe unbearably ugly?"

Those who do have patience for philosophy will recognize this immediately as an inquiry into Platonic Essence. As it is, you have simply taken your philosophical baggage on board unexamined.

Well put.
I couldn't agree more.
This is my biggest grip with many "scientists" who do exactly this.
That is why I call much of modern science "Platonism by denial".

 

[!Kaggen]

How do you really define beauty without identifying and examining the common attributes of what is considered beautiful?

What does identifying and examining the common attributes got to do with the scientific method?
This is just using your thinking an attribute of cognition.

Do you think that only scientists should define beauty?

 

[volatile]

What does identifying and examining the common attributes got to do with the scientific method?

To be fair on The Man, doing as he suggests would be a scientific endeavour (and could be done from within a number of scientific methodologies). But doing so would not tell us what beauty is, what is beautiful, nor answer either of Piggy's questions.

 

[The Man]

Only if you arbitrarily say symmetry is beautiful first. You're wagging the dog.

It is not arbitrary or saying "symmetry is beautiful", much of the scientific research of what people do consider beautiful involves symmetry. It is simply an aspect of beauty that perhaps can be statistically demonstrated.

100 degrees is ALWAYS 100 degrees, by definition, even if someone has no nociceptors. "Symmetry", however, is not always beautiful, because beauty is subjective. You cannot compare the two, because they're entirely different.

72 degrees is always 72 degrees “by definition”, but my girlfriend finds that temperature hot, I find it comfortable (particularly when I’m just in my underwear). What one finds hot or not is subjective even though we have an objective measure of temperature.

IF you want to talk about "why do many people find symmetry beautiful", then that's fine. That's an interesting scientific question. But you still need recourse to philosophy to develop an idea of what "beautiful" means.

So make your own thread to discuss the “philosophy to develop an idea of what "beautiful" means”. It is the scientific aspects that the OP claims he wants to address here.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

Simple question: Why are things beautiful?

I wonder, are there creatures out there on some other planet who wake up, go outside, and find the universe unbearably ugly?

Now, let me point out that I'm posting this in the science forum rather than the philosophy forum. I'm not posing a philosophical question. (As some of you know, I have no patience for philosophy.)

From a scientific point of view, why is it that we should find our world so often beautiful, even overwhelmingly so, even at times when it is attempting to destroy us? Storms, eruptions, and catastrophes are often awesomely beautiful.

I try to make time every day, weather permitting, to sit out on my porch and watch the clouds and the birds and the trees. It's quite fulfilling.

But why?

I'm not looking for a definitive answer, tho I'd love it if someone provided one. Just interested in a dialog, and hopefully some nice linkies to interesting studies.

I hope others are interested in this topic as well.

Deceptively great question, I am interested.

Why do some find Ann Coulter attractive, even "hot"? Or Sarah Palin? I find them both to be nasty, and not just because of their politics... or maybe I do, and that's part of the answer you're looking for: personal bias.

I'm biased against blondes because they are supposed to be a standard of beauty without intellect. I prefer dark haired women because I think they're more likely to be assertive and intelligent.

I'd love to think that a glimpse of M13 in a telescope would be awe inspiring... it is to me... and that is beauty that I can't fathom anyone else looking at and going, "meh."

 

[The Man]

What does identifying and examining the common attributes got to do with the scientific method?
This is just using your thinking an attribute of cognition.

Do you think that only scientists should define beauty?

Not at all and as volatile states we can still examine what is considered beautiful as a "scientific endeavor". I also agree with volatile that such an endeavor would not address the philosophical considerations of Piggy’s questions. However those considerations are specifically what Piggy claimed he was not interested in addressing in this disscussion.