Is Beauty Really Subjective? (ritual, Earth, choice, hell, America)

[Sunstone]

It's often said that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" or that "beauty is subjective", but is this really true?

Consider first that there have been several studies which suggest that certain standards of feminine beauty are cross cultural. For instance, a symetrical face is almost universally prefered to an asymetrical face.

Next, consider Maslow's finding that people who test as self actualizing tend to agree on questions of what's beautiful and what's ugly, while people who are not self actualizing tend to disagree on questions of what's beautiful and what's ugly.

If notions of what's beautiful or not are truly subjective, how does one account for there being such agreements on what's beautiful?

[Djamila]

I suppose it's mostly biological and cultural. The biological preferences are the same everywhere - full lips, wider hips, perky breasts. All of these are physical manifestations of high estrogen and relative fertility in each individual woman. As women age, and estrogen and fertility start to decline, so too do lips, hips, and breasts.

But then there are cultural preferences as well. My sister is blonde, and in America no one would notice but in Bosnia she's constantly getting comments like, "You're very pretty for a fair girl.", or "You'd be a knock-out if you dyed your hair brown!". I have a darker complexion than most Bosnians and my Grandmother will always pass comments like, "Oh, Mila. You should stay out of the sun this summer. You get any darker and people will think you're Italian, or worse yet, Greek!"

Just a few dozen kilometers away in Croatia, and the opposite is true. The blonder, and darker, the better.

So we seem to all share the biological concepts of beautiful that reflect reproductivity as a foundation but put tremendously varied and different cultural preferences on top of it as well?

[michel]

Originally Posted by Sunstone

It's often said that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" or that "beauty is subjective", but is this really true?

Consider first that there have been several studies which suggest that certain standards of feminine beauty are cross cultural. For instance, a symetrical face is almost universally prefered to an asymetrical face.

Next, consider Maslow's finding that people who test as self actualizing tend to agree on questions of what's beautiful and what's ugly, while people who are not self actualizing tend to disagree on questions of what's beautiful and what's ugly.

If notions of what's beautiful or not are truly subjective, how does one account for there being such agreements on what's beautiful?

Whilst I know that you are right about "symmetrical faces", I am not sure that the argument necessarily is that simple.

The reason I say this is because there is a part of the brain (as I am sure you know), that 'picks up' on face symmetry; it is part of the section that allows us to remember people's faces.

Now, if you think back to the thread not so long ago about the choice between cartoons or famous landscapes (people had to chose one or the other & then report on how they felt later), it strikes me that that is what is happening here.

Sure the symmetrical 'perfect' face will 'do something to a man', justifying the immediate attraction. But, there are other factors which come into play, when a man chooses a potential mate.

I believe I am right in saying that most men who are not ' over brainy' will end up looking (subconsciously) for a woman with whom he feels mentally superior.

When you think about it, it makes sense.

So, we now have 2 elements; 1) The immediate reaction to the pretty face
2) the later realisation that, sometimes, the perfect face doesn't necessarilly mean that the person will have a 'good character'......add to that the 'superiority' need in slightly insecure men...........

BTW, what is meant by "self actualizing "?

[JerryL]

If notions of what's beautiful or not are truly subjective, how does one account for there being such agreements on what's beautiful?

The same bit of biology that has us attracted to humans of the opposite gender and not to palm-trees.

Subjective does not mean random. Our preferences begin in our biology and are effected by our experiences. We pretty much all agree that sugar tastes good and dirt tastes bad, but we can't make up our minds on Kimshee. Earthworms have somewhat different ideas on the matter.

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by Sunstone

It's often said that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" or that "beauty is subjective", but is this really true?

Consider first that there have been several studies which suggest that certain standards of feminine beauty are cross cultural. For instance, a symetrical face is almost universally prefered to an asymetrical face.

Next, consider Maslow's finding that people who test as self actualizing tend to agree on questions of what's beautiful and what's ugly, while people who are not self actualizing tend to disagree on questions of what's beautiful and what's ugly.

If notions of what's beautiful or not are truly subjective, how does one account for there being such agreements on what's beautiful?

Well, I don't know what self-actualizing is (aren't we all actual?) but I would say that objective or subjective is entirely dependant upon us. Beauty is objective or subjectve depending on how we choose to look at it.

[Ðanisty]

There are certain underlying things that make us more attracted to some people. I don't think that means that we all have the same taste though! One thing that's interesting is the "golden mean" or "fibonocci's sequence." It's found all throughout nature (seashells, plant leaves, etc.) including in humans. Our entire bodies, for the most part, are proportioned according to the golden mean. I don't remember the actual number of the golden mean, but the sequence is 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13...

You calculate the next number by adding the two previous numbers. You'll find these dimensions in some of the strangest places (3x5 index card?).

[anders]

Some years ago, I once found myself watching a trailer for a movie. It was something like "The beautiful and the ugly". I thought, "Yes, that girl really looks nice. I don't like the other one at all, but it is a bit too harsh to call her ugly." It took several minutes before I understood that my beauty was the supposed ugly one and vice versa.

[Random]

Originally Posted by Willamena

Beauty is objective or subjectve depending on how we choose to look at it.

I think so too. Facial symmetry, pot bellies and flat stomachs, blonde, brunette and redhead...but you'll find attractive features and physical beauty harder to get consensus on than spiritual beauty. Even the "ugliest" can have that.

[Fluffy]

Universal agreement on a particular belief is irrelevant with regards to whether that belief is subjective or objective. If something is objectively true then it is true regardless of how many people view it as true not because most people view it as true.

Therefore, agreement about beauty does not mean that beauty is objective. Similarly, disagreement about beauty does not mean that it is subjective. Beauty is subjective because it is based on emotion rather than reason.

[kreeden]

Originally Posted by anders

Some years ago, I once found myself watching a trailer for a movie. It was something like "The beautiful and the ugly". I thought, "Yes, that girl really looks nice. I don't like the other one at all, but it is a bit too harsh to call her ugly." It took several minutes before I understood that my beauty was the supposed ugly one and vice versa.

Been there myself Anders . I perfer natural beauty over paint and plaster any day . It is the little " imperfections " that make beauty stand out .

Phi Danisty ? 1.6something ... Brown got into it in some detail in the DaVinci Code .