Why are things beautiful?

[Dogdoctor]

IMO, mate selection as the driving force behind an appreciation for human beauty is a distinctly plausible hypothesis. But how in the world does one test such an hypothesis? (As you can see, I am not well-read in the theories of evolutionary psychology.)

I am not sure but because of the universality of it, it must be genetic. There are plausible ways that we have acquired an appreciation for the beauty of things other than a mate as a side effect of selecting for another trait. For one thing having that trait is not apparently harmful so if it was secondary to some other trait it would not cause any selection pressure against it. I was reading about the genetics of cave fish a while back and realized that the loss of eyes was probably not selected for but probably occurred because they no longer needed eyes so their was no selection pressure against it.

How to test for it? I guess looking for the exceptions and studying them.

 

[Ferguson]

I think beauty evolved in much the way revulsion did, out of usefulness, for example most people are disgusted by a spider crawling on them, or by being cheated in trade (i.e. ripped off). In a similar way, a beach is very beautiful because there are no predators, and any approaching threats can be seen from a long distance (no need to even watch the water for threats, and no where in the sand for predators or enemies to hide). Conversely a swamp is very disgusting, where predators and poisonous insects can be around any bush.

Certain other "beautiful" things might piggy-back on existing pattern-finding or color-seeking parts of the brain. For example a beautiful red flower might be pleasing because your brain is seeking a certain ripe red fruit, or perhaps because the flowers represent fertile ground where food will be easy to gather. Of course this is conjecture and "backxplanations," but I could see a lot of ways preferences evolved in the same way prejudices (against snakes, spiders, rotten food, etc.) evolved.

 

[Tumbleweed]

Why are things beautiful? Who are you asking? The philosophers or the scientists? They are not necessarily connected unless you believe philosophy is a function of science and/or vice versa. Given the on and on ad nauseum evolutionist/ bible thumper contentioness, I think its more like East is East and West is West etc, but I'm open to the idea of the mutual functionality of science and philosophy

 

[I Ratant]

... In a similar way, a beach is very beautiful because there are no predators, and any approaching threats can be seen from a long distance (no need to even watch the water for threats, and no where in the sand for predators or enemies to hide). Conversely a swamp is very disgusting, where predators and poisonous insects can be around any bush.
...

.
Depends on the beach.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNnx_X5ue2c
http://www.andaman.org/mapstsunami/tsunami.htm

 

[Tumbleweed]

Cultures seem to develop a standard of HUMAN beauty as a means of saying which genes are deemed the most worthy of assured propagation. Those deemed " beautiful" have no shortage of suitors.
But are we not talking about "things" such as architecture, paintings, scenes, music, gardens. For them beauty just a function of sensual creativity. Some people find E=MC2 or Relativity to be beautiful "things". Its beauty is a function of visualization creativity. No creativity no beauty?

 

[blue sock monkey]

Cultures seem to develop a standard of HUMAN beauty as a means of saying which genes are deemed the most worthy of assured propagation. Those deemed " beautiful" have no shortage of suitors.
But are we not talking about "things" such as architecture, paintings, scenes, music, gardens. For them beauty just a function of sensual creativity. Some people find E=MC2 or Relativity to be beautiful "things". Its beauty is a function of visualization creativity. No creativity no beauty?[/QUOTE]


I don't think I would posit this, given that a mountain or a river, while certainly beautiful, doesn't depend upon creativity. But it is often an important factor in how I respond to many works of art (on the conscious level, at least).

 

[Piggy]

In a similar way, a beach is very beautiful because there are no predators, and any approaching threats can be seen from a long distance (no need to even watch the water for threats, and no where in the sand for predators or enemies to hide).

I'm just not buying this, cause I've seen ugly beaches, and the most beautiful beach I've seen was just as predator-free as the less beautiful beaches.

Something just doesn't ring true for me in these kinds of theories, that beauty is somehow linked to friendly environments. I'm not seeing it.

 

[Piggy]

Regarding medieval v. modern objects of beauty....

I wouldn't be so quick to chalk it up entirely to cultural differences.

There may be a physiological reason in the mix as well.

If beauty is something like a sense, then it may be prone to habituation. It may be that medieval folks commented less on the beauty of nature, and indeed noticed it less, because they were habituated to it. While buildings and cities and forts, however, were less common, and therefore more noticed.

In the modern world, on the other hand, we mostly live in cities and towns, and rarely see wild nature, so it's that which has more novelty and therefore gives us more of a "beauty rush" when we experience it.

I remember one of the times I lived in Madrid, an American woman who went there when I did commented shortly after we arrived on how the Spaniards walked by all this gorgeous architecture and didn't seem to notice. After we'd been there several months, one day I mentioned a building we'd just passed and she said she hadn't noticed, then she said, "Oh my God, I've become like the Madrilenos!"

On the flip side, the street people at first disturbed her very much. She wanted to feed all of them and got depressed at their plight. But by that time, she was able to ignore them.

 

[Piggy]

I can't get SkeptiChick's hypothesis out of my mind.

Perhaps the experience of beauty (EoB) originated as a kind of physical sense, perhaps a little blip of endorphins or other feel-good chemicals when we encountered scenes that seemed "right", which appeared habitable and friendly or sexy and inviting or some such; much in the same way as we get positive feelings from the scent of good foods or healthy mates.

But maybe, as we evolved more complex brains, it became something more like our senses (if that's the right word) of purpose and meaning. Those who had a heightened EoB were more engaged with the world, more attentive to it, more motivated to explore it, and more content living in it.

That would provide an evolutionary pressure favoring humans with stronger EoBs. Over time, we get a universal EoB, albeit one that responds in various ways from individual to individual.

Hmmm.... I wonder how you'd test THAT hypothesis!

 

[Olowkow]

I'll read the thread later, but for now, scientifically, beautiful=

1. non life-threatening and
2. new to individual's experience

 

[Piggy]

I'll read the thread later, but for now, scientifically, beautiful=

1. non life-threatening and
2. new to individual's experience

If that were true, then pretty much all people I see would be beautiful.

They're not.

 

[Olowkow]

If that were true, then pretty much all people I see would be beautiful.

They're not.

Hmmm, you have a different view of beautiful from me then. It doesn't mean you have to love everything you can see as beautiful. All in the eye of the eye of the beholder, and all that.

Edit edit edit. I think it has to be 1. absolutely not life-threatening and 2. (some facet of the stimulus) absolutely new to one's experience.

 

[Piggy]

Hmmm, you have a different view of beautiful from me then. It doesn't mean you have to love everything you can see as beautiful. All in the eye of the eye of the beholder, and all that.

Edit edit edit. I think it has to be 1. absolutely not life-threatening and 2. (some facet of the stimulus) absolutely new to one's experience.

Nah. That simply does not correspond to the reality I live in.

Suppose your next door neighbor decides to dump a bunch of junk in his back yard. It's not threatening to you. You've never seen it before.

Are you going to say, "Honey, come out here and look at this -- it's gorgeous!"?

No.

ETA: I've dated women who were not new to my experience, and were at times threatening, but they were beautiful.

 

[Olowkow]

Nah. That simply does not correspond to the reality I live in.

Suppose your next door neighbor decides to dump a bunch of junk in his back yard. It's not threatening to you. You've never seen it before.

Are you going to say, "Honey, come out here and look at this -- it's gorgeous!"?

No.

ETA: I've dated women who were not new to my experience, and were at times threatening, but they were beautiful.

Garbage: not new, not life threatening= Not beautiful.
Women: new for sure, not life threatening, but hinting to be so = beautiful.

Next!

ETA: trees? mountains? god? flowers? food??? (beautiful food?)

 

[Piggy]

Garbage: not new, not life threatening= Not beautiful.
Women: new for sure, not life threatening, but hinting to be so = beautiful.

Next!

Sorry, I'm not buying that at all.

1. There's lots of new, non-threatening stuff that ain't beautiful.

2. There's lots of stuff that's not new at all that is beautiful.

3. Even some life-threatening things, like lightning storms, are beautiful.

Game over.

 

[Olowkow]

Sorry, I'm not buying that at all.

1. There's lots of new, non-threatening stuff that ain't beautiful.

2. There's lots of stuff that's not new at all that is beautiful.

3. Even some life-threatening things, like lightning storms, are beautiful.

Game over.

Ok you win.

 

[blue sock monkey]

Suppose your next door neighbor decides to dump a bunch of junk in his back yard. It's not threatening to you. You've never seen it before.

Are you going to say, "Honey, come out here and look at this -- it's gorgeous!"?

No.

True story: I went with a friend to an upstairs Manhattan gallery to look for sculptures. On our way down the hall, we passed an open door, which was cluttered with paint cans, miscellaneous tools and an open workman's lunchbox, all scattered across a stained dropcloth.

You've guessed it: there was a price tag on this piece of artwork.

To each his own.

 

[Olowkow]

I've even had some beautiful ◊◊◊◊.

 

[Jeff Corey]

True story: I went with a friend to an upstairs Manhattan gallery to look for sculptures. On our way down the hall, we passed an open door, which was cluttered with paint cans, miscellaneous tools and an open workman's lunchbox, all scattered across a stained dropcloth.

You've guessed it: there was a price tag on this piece of artwork.

To each his own.

Gotcha. I've done that a number of times in Provincetown Mass, Greenwich Village and other artsy-fartsy locales as a goof.

 

[I Ratant]

Tastes in beauty change.