Is beauty subjective or objective?

[wolf-girl]

Something defined by subjective thoughts is actually having unlimited definitions therefore it can be considered as "indefinable", as in the end of his way to define beauty Plato too reaches the point that beauty is indefinable.
but Again Plato was the philosopher that Nietzsche describes as "boring".

if we want to have a definition of the word "beauty" it has to be an objective definition made by natural rules.

example: a peacock we see with more colourful feathers and consider more beautiful the peahen too considers as a more fit choice for copulation, as for lions too a male lion with a mane that we may consider more beautiful is the priority for the female lion. nobody in the world considers a red rose ugly. And between two kinds of animals like wolves and Chimpanzees wolves are physically known as beautiful even between those who dislike wildness but Chimpanzees though considered funny and cute are not knows as "beautiful" creatures. so if the beauty is a "subjective" definition why it becomes common in "the eyes of the beholders" when we observe the nature? and are humans parted from nature? or are just a kind of creature between all the creature lost in the complexity of nature? and if he is a simple part of the nature, can what we see as common beauty in nature determine the beauty in humans as an objective definition too?

I wonder...

so what are your thoughts? are you careless enough to reject everything out of "the eyes of the beholder" or Bold enough to step forward to define "beauty"?

[jesseray]

This discussion has been based on the assumption that something is objective when human beings have reached a universal agreement on the definition of it. That is to say that something that was once subjective can be turned into something objective by taking the subjective opinion of one person and then persuading every other person in the world to adopt that subjective opinion for themselves. This confuses objective truth with intersubjective agreement. In other words, it makes objective truth dependent on thought patterns instead of being independent of them. I reject this assumption.

I believe that beauty is a feeling which does not exist apart from thought patterns. The feeling of beauty is like the feeling of happiness and sadness. Just as one and the same thing can make one person feel happy and another sad and therefore we cannot define these feelings by the things that trigger them, one and the same thing can make one person feel beauty and another revulsion and therefore we cannot define beauty and revulsion by the things that trigger them. We can define these feelings only by the experience of them.

There can be widespread agreement about the things that trigger the feeling of beauty (such as pink sunsets and red roses) as much as there can be widespread agreement about the things that trigger the feelings of happiness (such as love and money) and sadness (such as loneliness and poverty), so it would be wrong to assume that the feeling of beauty is any more random and arbitrary as the feelings of happiness and sadness. These things may be subjective, but there is also widespread intersubjective agreement about the things that trigger these emotions because human beings share so many commonalities.

[apropos]

I think it's objective generally, however, I'm curious about the notion of people purposely choosing a non-average trait in order to balance out their own. I. e. a person with a big nose may choose someone with a small nose, etc.

[wolf-girl]

and can you prove it with reasons? on the example i said about the beauty in nature

[spsophie]

Objective beauty, I think, is the basis of beauty but there is a certain subjectivity to it as well. For instance, clear healthy skin is beautiful to everybody, because genetically it is a sign of good health and therefore healthy offspring. Subjective beauty is present when we look at beauty trends over time. For instance, during the Renaissance, women would pluck their hairlines to achieve a higher hairline. Today, smaller foreheads on women are viewed as more beautiful.
There are more examples I'm sure, but I'm too lazy to list any right now haha

[wolf-girl]

A subjective definition about something simply makes it indefinable as i mentioned. and as we cannot define an indefinable and at the same time in science we know something as existing when it is definable so the thing defined by a subjective definition simply doesn't exist. So if beauty has to sides one Objective and one Subjective, it is the objective side that is definable therefore existing and the subjective part doesn't exist.

[spsophie]

With all due respect, I don't think indefinable and non-existing are synonymous. People can't wrap our minds around everything or define everything 100%. We each have a different definition of beauty, but can all agree it exists, because we have all experienced an exposure to it. Even if beauty were purely subjective, it would still be because, although it may come in different forms with endless possible definitions, it is still always aesthetically pleasing. It still makes us feel something. But it's not purely objective! We have all disagreed with somebody as to whether or not we find somebody beautiful. Cate Blanchett, Yolandi Visser, Lady Gaga and other controversially beautiful/ugly people are examples of this.

[spsophie]

*are not synonymous

[spsophie]

oops i didn't need to correct that sorry!

[wolf-girl]

And that is not a scientific reasoning. science knows existing as only definable based observation. and what that cannot be defined simply doesn't exist. whatever out of this considered non-scientific reasoning or pseudoscience and doesn't have any scientific value based on logical reasoning. "our" definitions of beauty will "die" with us, and we don't live a second compared to the whole nature. therefore what we "think" subjectively about something doesn't exist and if there's a delusion of its existence when we "are", that will become non existing with us. what we want is a logical rule existing in nature that is everlasting. if there is an objective logical definition it is existing, if there isn't, there's no definition.

[spsophie]

Subjectivity may not exist outside of humanity, and maybe in the end there is a law or explanation for what we see as subjective beauty, and it is indeed objective. But for now, since we are very small and not very knowing, people can't possibly say that beauty is purely one thing or another, purely existent or non existent. Although logic is an attribute I commend you for, sometimes it's important to take a step back and let things be a little less concrete. Beauty, as I see it currently, may not have scientific value. But it does have value to me, whether it is logical or not. You could very well be right about what beauty is and is not, but perhaps it isn't as black and white as you see it right now. I don't know the answer, it's just something I don't think we can box and organize like that. Beauty must exist, even if it is something abstract in our minds.

[Anonymous]

It's both. There are certain people with certain facial structures that I believe everyone can admit is beautiful. But then there are other more unique faces that are very subjective and will only appeal to certain people

[wolf-girl]

It cannot be both literally. there should be two definitions for the features you are mentioning or no definition at all.

[Opinion Owner]

Not everything is that black and white

[wolf-girl]

logic is.

[poppunk]

Defiantly subjective. Look around, everyone says something different is ideal. I've had people who i've thought were model types who my friend thought were ugly

[wolf-girl]

and so it doesn't exist, in your opinion. thanks for the answer.

[thtdiablo]

I find it interesting that you refer to Plato. In fact, his view of the world, in general, not only beauty, can serve us here to find at least an approach to this topic.

Plato, though he said, that beauty can't be defined, would still argue that beauty has an ideal which is the divine, ideal world. What we see in our world, is the "shadow" of true beauty talking with the images he created in his Allegory of the Cave.
The objective aspect of beauty exists and we all have a faint knowledge of it in some way. But this objective beauty is part of the other world and not fully comprehensible for us in our current state. The subjective aspect of beauty though is at least partially subject to personal views. The ideal of true beauty is still found in people's subjective view of beauty (omitting possible exceptions now as certain sicknesses can influence also our views on this), but it is largely covered by our worldly needs: almost nothing is beautiful out of being close to that ideal of beauty, but also out of its usefulness in our current situation. One example would be a woman's figure. In times of food shortage, thick, even fat, women were more attractive (e. g. back in 17th/18th century in Europe, nowadays still in many African places) while abundance of food let to a beauty ideal of a very thin woman.
[I do, this just as an incidental remark, not believe, that media can take that big influence on our view of beauty. It's rather that they mirror what society craves for in order to make a better fortune from it.]

So it definitely has both aspects and I even tend to utter (aware of the contradiction it may cause with some things I wrote up there) that the objective part of beauty might still overwhelm the subjective (with exceptions), such as in the example of the rose.

[thtdiablo]

This is an interesting article by Esther Honig about the topic of cultural influence!
https://www.estherhonig.com/#!before--after-/cvkn

[wölfin-fräulein]

True that it has two sides. one in our eyes and one in the nature. and that is what i mean, that if we can part the Genetic preferences that is subjective and we "see" as beautiful and what we observe in nature as objective beauty and have one unchangeable definition for it determined by maybe mathematical laws in nature.

we are parting the word beauty into two, one in the eye of the beholder that is "felt" unconsciously towards other "Humans" of our own genetic background or occasionally someone we fell is fit for us by any means and that is a feeling of delicacy, and another that is Observed in the nature by the Conscious mind that is a feeling of nobility and wholeness that isn't just a feeling of delicacy but an overwhelming feeling leads us to the state of "worshipping" and make us claim that that certain thing is worshipable even if we don't actually worship it.

[wölfin-fräulein]

And if we say humans are parts of nature, so they have the both views, one as a Sense in humans that is a feeling of attraction towards the fittest of their own kind for the sake of survival in the best shape and nothing else, and another as a Universal sense of Attraction to anything that is more harmonized determined by a law of harmony in the whole Universe.

the first view is common between Animals and humans that don't have the same conciousness level so it doesn't need conciousness, the second view is only in humans and Specially in humans that their level of Conciousness is very high, Like we see Artists have better understanding of "this" kind of beauty and of beauty in the whole, while a low IQ man may not ever understand what a white Artist chase.

And the thing is, which we should call beauty?

[thtdiablo]

As a native German speaker I find it, let's say, an interesting translation you have from your old alter ego here... :D
Genetics make parting it into two basically impossible. It's where nature meets the subject in a way. Our genes tell us to like more what looks alike ourselves while in these very genes also those very individual tastes are formed that let us like what others might not or less.

[thtdiablo]

Something strange happened here... One of your answers popped up after I had answered your first answer o. O I have to reread tomorrow everything and reword my answer I think. Please remind me, if I didn't answer you within the upcoming days ;) I'm pretty busy - and forgetting things easily :/

[wölfin-fräulein]

I'm a German native speaker myself too :)) wölfin is she wolf, i put fräulein to make it more alike wolf-girl :))

The Genetics is not where nature meets the subject the whole subject is about nature and our Genetics is made by nature and we are a part of it, nature. there's nothing out of it. And how do nature creates us? it creates us in a process of trial and error and its goal is survival. and in a process we always have failed and successful experiments. but also in this process we have no absolutes, so we do not have absolutely successful and absolutely failed what we have is a row or a pyramid with two poles of fitness and unfitness, the more near to each pole the more near to beauty or far from it, but the point is this, that in whatever point you are the "survival" instinct will be in you, And for that the Genes make you in a way to have feelings for the ones near to you simply to survive. it is not related to beauty but can be considered a natural instinct to survival.

[wölfin-fräulein]

awh okay :) no problem. answer any time you wished and had the time to waste :)))) i know you are busy, i am too, studying hard for a new expedition in autumn. hope your work goes well.

[thtdiablo]

No, the trial and error will be cut by Ockham's razor. And I'm native speaker as well, just found it an interesting combination. If the aim is survival why would it evolve beyond the basically immortal state of many bacteria? It's contradicting itself. If survival is the benchmark, then a single cell has the best chances.

[wölfin-fräulein]

So what is the benchmark if it is not survival? and what is survival? is it more than the domination of will power? When we say survival it means having more power to effect as well. And a bacteria being "immortal" is because of having less will power to act so having less reaction upon it. but what we say as in the best shape is having more action and surviving more reactions, this is like a vortex the outer lines are bigger yet less dense like the bacteria and as it goes through center it becomes smaller and smaller and having more density and power. the thing about nature is the same and survival is actually not "living" but it is the amount of ones influence because nothing dies and get nonexistent but goes in circles. So evolving is through having more influence, example is the evolution of humans. It is survival in a more complex definition than surviving.

[thtdiablo]

Nonono :) I meant something different with the bacteria, let me try to explicate it further:
In the post-darwinistic (has to be expressed this way) evolution theories "survival of the fittest" means something like: He who matches the requirements "given" by nature the best, will survive and procreate. Those requirements are exempli gratia the climatic environment a certain plant or animal lives in; adjust or die out.
But if such survival be the benchmark, then why not stay with what works best: single cells which can survive for millions of years in basically any environment, maybe even on Mars and Europa (the moon of Jupiter).

[wölfin-fräulein]

i did understand what you have said. and i do know that is the survival as it is said it's something we all read. but what i said was the survival in this subject. maybe i shouldn't call it survival because the word itself is confusing but then i don not find a better word. let's put it this way, see the survival in both life and death, or simply "power", death is a part of nature and you cannot part it for there will be no meaning for life. when it's said nature goes for survival it means it is going through a more powerful state. a state with more influence. that is what chased in the universe. and i told the example about humans, it's what we see in stellar evolution too, there's a birth of a star then expanding and influence and the bigger and more influential a star the less it lives.

[wölfin-fräulein]

But the point here about "beauty" is the same, that nature creates everything including Genes that can evolve in a process that they go for more influence. and as there are no absolutes there will be two kind of poles power/weakness that more near to each makes you more near to the “objective” ideal or distanced to it. and for this too, that everyone and everything is in one row, so everything has completeness in its own place therefore satisfaction, but again there is duality in this feeling. One as an individual, that makes you satisfied, and one as a part of the whole that makes you flawed in comparison to the whole. And there’s again no absolutes for beauty but one can only be more and more near or distanced. And that objection and subjection in us, comes with Genes one as a preference keeping you in one place and one as an understanding of objective beauty that comes with intelligence that is again completely related to genetics.

[thtdiablo]

If so, why is there so much genetical garbage? I've been in that area of research for a while when we had a joint study group between biologists and physicists when I was on the way to my first master degree.
How is genetical information created? Have a look at multi-resistant bacteria cultures. They are suddenly resistant to certain medics. Would you expect that they grew new DNA information for said resistance?

[Tractorbeam]

Beauty is always in the eyes of the beholder. Different people appreciate diferent things and see beauty in them.
There is some social conditioning, which can affect what people accept as beautiful.

[wolf-girl]

And so in your opinion beauty doesn't exist. thank you for the answer.

[thtdiablo]

I disagree. Think of the example of the rose, or let's take a sunset. People all over the world, independantly from their cultural/social background will find it beautiful (even Nietzsche wrote things like this). I would even tend to state that the subjective part of beauty is weaker than the objective and social/cultural influences are only of limited importance.

[NoblesseOblige]

Ahhhh wall of text. Bad!

Subjective. Why? Experience yo.

[wolf-girl]

experience of what?

[NoblesseOblige]

Everybody has different taste. And it's largely based on where they grew up and their genetic taste. Even from city to city in the same country is different.

[wolf-girl]

personal experiences are subjective thoughts themselves. they are not reasons. have a reason if you can.

[NoblesseOblige]

Bleh, too much effort.

[wolf-girl]

bleh :))

[randomwhiteguy]

I don't know if this answers your question but beautiful is for dating and real love.

Hot is "I want to have sex with you"