Feel free to move it if it's in the wrong forum.


Well, anyway, what do you guys think? (This is meant to be a friendly debate, by the way)

Is beauty REALLY in the eyes of the beholder?

I mean, science talks of all these features considered attractive ona woman like waist-hip-ratios of 0.7, and men being tall, and everyone having smooth skin, but is that really all true?

Is that stuff required to be beautiful?

In my opinion, no. Beauty really is in the eyes of the beholder, and I think one can see someone as beautiful, even if they have all the features that are considered ugly. It just depends on the person.

People are constantly swooning over, oh, Ionno, Rihanna and the typical Brad Pitt, but honestly I don't find either one extremely attractive. Then I see an average, or maybe even below-average guy on the street and I'm like, 'Wow, he's cute! '

So, that's my opinion onit. Is there anyone who doesn't believe in the phrase?

Or others who do?

Of course. We all have our own preconceptions of what is beautiful; sometimes our culture and media influences our judgements, occasionally our own experiences. It's an opinion, really - and God knows he gave everyone plenty of those!

Yeah, beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. Certain things are only labeled as "beautiful" just because it appeals to the majority. Every individual has his or her own views on what's considered beautiful or not.

/commonsense

Agreed, but I am also of the minority, who say that beauty is on the inside as well as on the outside. I tend to not care what somebody looks like on the outside....to me a beautiful heart and personality, go a long way.

Yes. I like Asian people. Some people think Asian people are ugly. Some people like fat chicks. Some people like big butts and they can not lie.

Beauty is not in the eye of the beholder. Modernism erroneously equivocates the aesthetic effect of beauty on one's cognition with the definition of beauty itself. Individual perceptive influence is subjective, but the concept that it's reacting to isn't. In and of itself, beauty is a concept ontologically external to what someone may or may not make of it.

that was hilarious.

Whats to say beauty is not in the eye of the beholder, i think that when it comes to being attracted to someone everyone is different. As steven made clear, different people like different things. I don't believe in science when it comes to matters of the heart.

Statistics wont tell anyone what they like and what they don't, i think its a matter of personality, and the kind of person you are.

I definitely agree with that statement. Alot of things in this world are relative in nature, and beauty is one of them. Some one I think is beautiful, might not necessarily be on the same standard level as some one else.

That's completely different. What makes you attracted to someone is your individual insight of the person's qualities. You may perceive someone as being attractive while another person may not, but the concept of what beauty is characterized by is an objective reality. The difference would be that the other person isn't appealed by that beauty in the same instances as you are.

Immanuel Kant exemplified it by distinguishing between mere "taste" and actual "beauty". By using those synonymously, "he judges not merely for himself, but for everyone, and speaks of beauty as if it were a property of things."

Yeah, it kinda is. I mean, people are different. Not everyone is gonna think Orlando Bloom is drop dead gorgeous. (I don't.) Its just they way they come across and what you think you beautiful about them. (Inside or out, ya know?)

For me, yes it would be based on the eye of the beholder. I mean, I've said plenty of guys at my school are hot, but my friend/cousin thinks otherwise. It's basically what your standard of what you define as "beauty." It's pretty much just your personal preference. People have said that [insert celebrity here] is pretty or " good looking ", but I think otherwise. So to me, yes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. There is also more beauty to someone than just their physical appearance.

I would argue that personal influence would override most factors that would shape one's definition of beauty.

You cannot shape definitions to your own liking. A book isn't a cow just because you see it that way (I've tried to eat books many times, believe me). Analogously, abstractions like "beauty" don't change just because you derive it from something different than another person would. Personal influence is what defines when and where a person would see the aesthetic appeal of beauty, but the concept itself is caused by a specific pleasure instigated by the various faculties of the mind being set in motion simultaneously and harmoniously.

Sure you can. It's a personal definition, not a definition that the entire population follows. Granted, there is a lot of social influence that would be hard to get rid of. (Correct me if I'm wrong) Humans biologically seek the most fit/healthy mate. What one views as fit/healthy is shaped in part by society. For instances, fat women were healthy because they got food, and fat women used to be desired. Now fatties are not viewed as they once were.

i dont see brad pit and angeline attractive at all either.

i dont see tyra attractive as well.

Definitions of words and concepts are not personal. That would be a definition of what appeals to the individual. Defining that pertinence to yourself, however, is not defining what the word "appeal" means. Historic philosophers cringed at applying such relativity in lieu of distinguishing between the concept and the properties that the concept entails, the former being entirely objective and nonpersonal.



Regardless of what the cultural consensus evolved to, it would still abide by an equitable supposition of what "beauty" means.

Unfortunately, what's common isn't always what's correct.

What objective reality is that? Beauty is merely an invention of the human mind in a reflection of sentiment. The quality does not truly exist. If you ask the question, "Is this beautiful?" you're really asking a meaningless question. You might as well just ask, "Does this appeal to you?" The answer to both questions is entirely subjective, based on the sentiment and feelings of the individual and not determined by the essence of the object itself. Though the object will have an effect on the individual, that effect gives no measurable information on the supposed quality of "beauty." In a more deterministic sense, beauty is merely the sum of our past experience and our biology... it is not within the essence of an object itself.

The objective reality of the mind perceiving the aesthetic pleasure that constitutes "beauty". Of course that exists. If the only determinable concepts were physically concrete objects, philosophy would cease to be because there would be no consolidated ontological truth to aspire to.



Yes, the answer is, as I've already established with, "Individual perceptive influence is subjective." However, the instigator of that reaction, "beauty", is an objective word.



Actually, the concept of it is. Regardless of whether or not the individual would find the object beautiful, the definition that would pertain to beauty would still be a universal pleasure, which was Kant's point. That universality is a subjective foundation in our cognitive faculties, since it denotes who would find the object appealing, but the grounded concept of beauty entailing identical properties universally makes it objective, in and of itself.

That the mind perceives aesthetic pleasure might constitute "beauty," but does it maintain that beauty must exist? The objective reality that the mind perceives something surely cannot be a convincing argument that that thing must, by necessity, exist (let alone exist objectively).



The "nature" or "existence" of physically concrete objects is enigmatic and compelling enough. Your metaphysical meanderings are just meaningless overstatements of epistemological understandings. You posit some sort of knowledge that a nature of beauty exists independently of our perception, on an objective plain, but have no demonstrative method to secure such an idea. Further, the discovery that no "consolidated ontological truth to aspire to" exists in particular fields of philosophy (aesthetics, ethics, etc.) has already been proposed by skeptics, logical positivists, etc. It isn't a particularly new idea, and nor has it threatened the vivaciousness of philosophy.



Well, that's such an abstraction as to render the whole world meaningless. In that particular case, all things ever once perceived in pleasure would be held to be "beautiful." I think what we're discussing here is certainly a much larger philosophy. We're questioning the fundamental essence of "beauty," and asking if it exists, as a property, without the invention of the human imagination and creativity.

Your proposition of objectivity dependent on a subjective perception is weak and unconvincing.



What does that mean, exactly, to call beauty a "universal pleasure." For one, we could never determine or measure the independent individual experience of perceived beauty and, embarrassingly, find ourselves hard-pressed to even describe our own personal awareness of beauty. Secondly, how is the concept of beauty "grounded," when philosophers, scientists, mystics, and laymen alike have never been able to agree upon its supposed nature, likeness, and or "identical properties." Just because men might share a sensation does not mean that that sensation arises from and or is determined by a denotative and objective quality. If men find varied beauty in identical properties, clearly, the measurement of beauty arises from and is invented by the mind... it is not imposed by the essence of an object.

Of course it does. Concepts are objective by mere definition. Whether or not the appealing effect of beauty is plausible has no bearing on the concept itself actually existing. The concept of the flying spaghetti monster is objectively real. The effect of that - such a being actually existing - is not. It would be a contradiction to acknowledge the phenomenon of visual pleasure as being subjective, and then turning around to posit that because it's a cognitive reflection, it cannot be substantiated enough to be objective. By that grounds, it couldn't be subjective, either, or even anything at all. Since we can grasp it to any degree, that clearly isn't the case.



Beauty is not an independent property of cognition. That's an absurd statement. Mountains would still exist without minds to garner their perceived beauty. Beauty is objective in its universal appeal to the mind. That's self-evident. What's ironic is how the argument against that is self-defeating in regards to beauty being objectively subjective. By asserting a property of consistency, you're creating an objective concept.



It isn't a "particularly new idea"? It's not a new idea at all. It's the entire premise for the foundations of philosophy and science: to discover knowledge in contradiction of that cosmological limit. Nobody made it out to be recent. If adverse postulations were new, there would be nothing to ascertain because everything would be incontrovertible.



Not in the least, as I've made clear:

"...the concept itself is caused by a specific pleasure instigated by the various faculties of the mind..."

"The objective reality of the mind perceiving the aesthetic pleasure that constitutes 'beauty'."

Beauty being ontologically external from one's personal preference doesn't render it an independent attribute of the mind. It's obviously a sensation concocted by cerebral circumstances - it's just an objective one.



Obviously, it would be, because objectivity isn't dependent on perception. That's exactly what I've already railed against:

"You may perceive someone as being attractive while another person may not, but the concept of what beauty is characterized by is an objective reality."

In that, I contrasted the difference between simply perceiving an aesthetic quality and the linear, non-relative definition of an established term.



The degree of scope has nothing to do with it existing, however little of an extent. It only takes one line with true premises and a false conclusion to establish the invalidity of an invalid inference. Consequently, whatever establishes "beauty" doesn't have to surpass some artificial, quantitative measure to qualify as an instance of it. If it's observable, then it's existing as that property.




Simple: by being objective. The only way for that concern to have merit would be relativity and susceptibility to individual, perceptive characteristics.




If it didn't/wasn't, then it could not possibly be a shared characteristic.

Way I see it is...

Personality
Intelligence
Height
Weight
Hair Color
Skin Color/Texture
Body shape

Are all elements in which stand true to beauty in a person.

Sadly in these days of times, there's a trend where people tend to use; weight, hair color, skin color (primarily), and body shape. Leaving the rest out of the equation of beauty.

Yes, it does lie in the eye of the beholder - some people believe that if one thing is beautiful then other things are not. At the same time, beauty is constantly changing so our perceptions on beauty are always changing.

Fact: Babies are drawn to beautiful faces and they spend more time looking at beautiful faces (faces that have big lips and big eyes).

Other things that are considered beautiful are; good bone structure, components of both the adult beautiful face and the baby beautiful face, high cheek bones, symmetry (which also ties athletic ability - people with symmetric ears run faster than people who do not have symmetrical ears, this is a factor in why some athletes are so beautiful), etc.

But.. since the beholder's thoughts are based off the fashion industry, then the fashion industry calls what is beautiful and what is not. Scientist found that people all judge beauty the same. Causing the major problem of ordinary people comparing looks to "models" and the "more attractive people" making anyone else feeling inadequate. Beauty used to be such a rare thing, but now since it is everywhere, everyone wants it.


... For my sociology class we just watched a sequence of movie clips called The Human Face and we just watched the "Beauty" episode last month. Kind of became a buff on the "beauty" subject.

If beauty isn't independent of the mind, how could it possibly be objective?

-.- who told you that was a fact?... I'd love to meet the mind reader.

It is a documentary on the Human Face. There is a segment about beauty and this was stated in that episode. I would think the information is accurate considering the documentary was nominated for 2 primetime Emmys.

I wouldn't title it fact though. Maybe the person who's making claims of such should prove they can read minds before making a documentary about children staring off into "beauty" and it being fact.

And Emmys doesn't hold weight... (this is nothin against you)

Who said anything about reading minds? I didn't.
And I was just using the Emmys as a way of saying; I doubt they would educate false information on a documentary that is widely known. If it weren’t accurate it wouldn't be as popular as it is. I can't believe I’m arguing over writing the word "fact:" Kind of off topic --> My apologies.

I'm with you on this one. I like brown girls.

By being a universally-applying concept that each mind interprets identically: aesthetically pleasing. That's without regard for whatever the sensation is attached to, which is the individually subjective application of that concept.

1. Each mind, though it may refer to the sensation as "aesthetically pleasing," can not possibly interpret the aforementioned sensation identically.
2. Just because the concept might be "universally-applying" does not mean that it is anything more than a subjective concept with a shared and understood definition. People might share an understood definition of a magical, invisible, and pleasant unicorn that causes it to rain, but that "universal" understanding, would have no logical bearing whatsoever on the reality of such a thing.
3. If the sensation exists without regard for whatever it happens to be attached to, than there is no objectivity at all. The sensation arises from, and the truth of its propositions are determined by, the mind (not the object itself). Thus, it is a purely subjective matter, even if men can agree upon what "beauty" is, which I would still argue, they do not.
4. You don't seem to know what objectivity is, or, for that matter, what subjectivity is. Let's refer to wikipedia, for the f**k of it:



Nothing beautiful unless man decides it as such, and, that man can not possibly be right or wrong in identifying any particular object as "beautiful," and because of this... the beauty of the object is entirely subjective. There is no objectivity in the matter of beauty because no proposition concerning the beauty of any said object could be considered a matter of induction, let alone deduction. Essentially, there is no truth value to a proposition of beauty. Though it can be said that it is true that someone perceives something as beautiful, that is not a proposition concerning beauty itself, but, rather, the perceptions of the human mind and its nature.

When it comes to ones personality, I think its in the eye of the beholder. Physically, thats a different story. I heard that people are more attracted to the symmetrical characteristics of another person than just a pretty face. I found an article that talked a little more about it.
http://www.jyi.org/volumes/volume6/issue6/features/feng.html

Interpreting the sensation as aesthetically pleasing is experiencing an identical facet. The only aberration is how that sensation is applied.



This has already been addressed with the flying spaghetti monster: "The effect of that - such a being actually existing - is not. It would be a contradiction to acknowledge the phenomenon of visual pleasure as being subjective, and then turning around to posit that because it's a cognitive reflection, it cannot be substantiated enough to be objective."

At last, I can finally cross off "Begin sentence with 'This has already been addressed with the flying spaghetti monster'" from my list of things to do before I die.



Objectivity has nothing to do with existing in a corporeal state. An objective conceptualization is created by being demarcated to a degree that the characteristic it entails can be regarded independently from wavering perceptions. Thus, regardless of where you apply said concept, the mindful circumstances remain.



Is that why you're designating an objective supposition by asserting a property of consistency? Any degree of congruity like that automatically disqualifies relativity, since, once again, it only takes one line with true premises and a false conclusion to establish the invalidity of an invalid inference. I suppose that claiming your definitions to be different is one way to get out of it, but those, too, are objectively administering.



Precisely. The palatable reaction garnered from the paintings is a relative stipulation. Since the human mind has no bearing on the definitive attributes of "beauty", it remains objectively beyond human influence. Nobody is "taught" the concept of beauty; it's a natural appeal ingrained in cognition, but independent from the accommodations that relative thought would inflict upon it, as Wikipedia elaborates with, "...and remains so always no matter what people think of it."



You're delineating the effect of the term anointed to variables that would be considered "beautiful", not the actual concept of beauty's definition itself.



Of course it could be, and is. The properties of "beauty" are formally conscripted as recognizable phenomenon. "Induction" and "deduction" aren't even mutually appertained, other than the fact that they rhyme.



Obviously not a "proposition", because a proposition, as a suggestive expression, would be subject to disregard. "Beauty is an aesthetically-pleasing sensation" is an undeviating statement of truth.

I'll make my reply concise: Of course that's not true. Beauty comes in many different forms. I didn't know about the ratio thing till now, but I've seen many beautiful females whose waist-to-hip ratios were probably not 0.7 and many attractive males who were not tall.

I am not too big on Hollywood stars' looks. Now, don't get me wrong, some are ok, but I find many people attractive that no one else thinks are.





I liked this

I think beauty is in the eye of the beholder. We were talking about this in Chinese class today and it's just so awesome >.>

My teacher's husband's sister married a crippled doctor. Even though he was handicapped and people looked at him differently, she loved him because of his personality and other things. When her parents disapproved of their engagement she said something about his appearance and his heart are two different things. Or something like that...yea but it was very touching.

So, she thinks he's beautiful even though others don't. Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.

Yes I do... I may think someone is attractive and my friend may look at the same person and think they're ugly.

Technically it is one's opinion of what they judge is beautiful and what is ugly. So yes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

However, our society today, have evolved so much that what we portray as ugly and pretty is from social norms. We're influenced by the media, and other people's opinion, and we all can distinguished what exactly is ugly and what isn't. We'll stereotype what is ugly and what is pretty, not because of our own beliefs, but because the media says so. Shows like Ugly Betty, and many more, have set what exactly is ugly. Magazines portray beauty as being skinny, tall, nice hair, big breasts, etc. Our generation, we take that in, and we base our opinions on that.

However, of course that isn't the case with a few of us, who actually have a known discrepancy, and have our own values of what beauty really is.


2 User(s) are reading this topic (0 Guests and 1 Anonymous Users)
1 Members: NoSex

Uh oh, sexy nate is reading this thread, i'm scared to get owned by the Oh Great Nate. Be easy baby.

what do I think

Be-Faithful, this is your verbal warning to stop spamming.

To simplify it with complexity behind it. Yes and No

There are women and men to whom the majority would agree on that they're attractive as their are those whom the majority would agree on where they're not attractive.

Mind Closed

Our perception of beauty comes from Classical Conditioning of the mind much of which is modeled by mass media. This would prove why we think there are such standards for what beauty is. Since there is no measurement standard of beauty, it cannot be objective and it is plainly up to the person's opinion.


For further proof: Check out the member's picture thread.

The objective standard is beauty being an aesthetically-pleasing sensation. The application of that effect is what's subjective, not the concept of beauty itself.

Hey I need a few things from you por favor. That exercise guide you posted about the pushups and stuff...and some good bars and drinks to use and which ones to stay away from por favor!?

Touche.

I'll message you about this.

On-topic: human organs in vending machines.

That was our essential "disagreement" the entire time.

We actually agree. However, to point out the definition of a word as its objective quantifier is a bit tautological. Not exactly worth mentioning. I mean, it's obviously analytical to say that the definition of a word is the "true" and "objective" definition of a word.

But, in either case, it's very rewarding to see an articulate, interesting, and (seemingly) well-versed individual roaming the debate boards (kudos on your Norway rebut, I still have to reply to that).

The fact that it's that obvious and yet still subject to relativism is exactly why it needs to be brought up.

Does it make any difference whether we discern between beauty and the application of beauty, if everyone knows what the other means? Yes, I say. These common, fundamental apperceptions have to be addressed before other topics that stand on universal apriorisms can even be conceived, much less debated about. Subjectivity kills the integrity of philosophies that actually pine for the antithesis to relative thought: reality, however abstract the metaphysics of it may be.

I never was one for compliments. May your corned beef not pickle correctly.