Is Beauty Really In the Eye of The Beholder?, What do you think? Options

[Dreamers]

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?

[*Steven*]

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.

[weed]

Some people like big butts and they can not lie.

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.

[Reidar]

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.

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."

[NoSex]

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.

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.

[Reidar]

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[NoSex]

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

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Reidar]

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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."

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

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

[NoSex]

Beauty is not an independent property of cognition. That's an absurd statement.

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

[Reidar]

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

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.

[NoSex]

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:

In philosophy, an objective fact means a truth that remains true everywhere, independently of human thought or feelings. For instance, it is true always and everywhere that '2 and 2 make 4'. A subjective fact is a truth that is only true in certain times, places or people. For instance, 'That painting is good' may be true for someone who likes it, but it is not necessarily true that it is a good painting pure and simple, and remains so always no matter what people think of it. If the painting could claim this, someone who thought the painting was bad would be completely wrong, in the same way someone who says the sun goes around the earth is wrong. So the reliability of mathematics is an objective truth, whereas the beauty of paintings is probably a subjective one.

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.