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

[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?

[illriginal]

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.

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

[lojay]

-.- 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.

[illriginal]

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)

[lojay]

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.

[EddieV]

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.

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

[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.

[Stuckie]

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

[Reidar]

1. Each mind, though it may refer to the sensation as "aesthetically pleasing," can not possibly interpret the aforementioned sensation identically.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

4. You don't seem to know what objectivity is, or, for that matter, what subjectivity is.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[tokyo-rose]

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?

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.

[dowhead]

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.

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.

I liked this

[ForgiveTheSinner]

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.

[Luna5]

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

[Tung]

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.

[Be-Faithful]

what do I think

[tokyo-rose]

what do I think

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

[EddieV]

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

[Sumiaki]

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.

[Reidar]

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.

[DoubleJ]

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

[Sumiaki]

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.

Touche.

[Reidar]

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!?

I'll message you about this.

On-topic: human organs in vending machines.

[NoSex]

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.

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.

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).

[Reidar]

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.