Original Post
Beauty: Objective/Subjective?
It's often said that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. We're all different individuals and so we can all look at something and come away with different thoughts about it. But is that really true?
A fat girl with crooked teeth, patchy skin and shit hair would be immediately labelled as ugly (or not beautiful) by the vast majority of people who gaze upon her. This would suggest that some characteristics that are more beautiful than others. We have standards of beauty. Are people who call the fat girl beautiful simply wrong?
Something either is, or it isn't (truth exists). 1+1=2 and anybody who argues that it equals 5 is plain wrong. Is the same true with judgements of beauty?
Phrased differently, is a 10/10 always a 10/10, regardless of who does the judging? If someone says the 10 is a 3, are they just plain wrong?
I'll offer my opinion after there's been some discussion on this. What are your thoughts? Don't think you have to restrict your response to solely talking about beauty in people - You can talk about beauty in all spheres.
inb4 beauty standards are socially/culturally/evolutionarily constructed
Last edited by Ele; Mar 30, 2017 at 05:22 PM.
Beauty is always subjective but because of our evolutionary traits most of us find similar features attractive creating the illusion of some objectivity.
In some contexts because of these shared views we can call some traits objectively beautiful in a conversational context.
But fundamentally things like beauty can never be objective as that would imply that any creature would find these same traits beautiful.
Same applies to any similar adjectives like good, tasty etc.
EDIT:
In summary calling that woman ugly is wrong if your idea of right is what most people think.
Obviously it's not "wrong" to call her ugly, just unconventional.
Confusing common views and ideals as objective truths just because they are commonly shared is basically the lowest kind of intellectual mistake one can perform.
In some contexts because of these shared views we can call some traits objectively beautiful in a conversational context.
But fundamentally things like beauty can never be objective as that would imply that any creature would find these same traits beautiful.
Same applies to any similar adjectives like good, tasty etc.
EDIT:
In summary calling that woman ugly is wrong if your idea of right is what most people think.
Obviously it's not "wrong" to call her ugly, just unconventional.
Confusing common views and ideals as objective truths just because they are commonly shared is basically the lowest kind of intellectual mistake one can perform.
Last edited by cowmeat; Mar 31, 2017 at 12:12 AM.
Yeah, it's a weird one. There's definitely objective lines to be drawn. A small, petite nose generally looks more attractive on a female than a big, pronounced one. But like cowmeat said, it's mostly down to evolution.
I wouldn't say it's wholly subjective either. Subjective means "influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions". If we're biologically hardwired into perceiving a certain kind of beauty, then it's surely none of those things.
I wouldn't say it's wholly subjective either. Subjective means "influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions". If we're biologically hardwired into perceiving a certain kind of beauty, then it's surely none of those things.
Originally Posted by Mallymkun
I wouldn't say it's wholly subjective either. Subjective means "influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions". If we're biologically hardwired into perceiving a certain kind of beauty, then it's surely none of those things.
Everything we do as biological beings is "hardwired". That is not a valid argument for objectivity in beauty. If beauty was objective that would mean that things could be beautiful separate of our views of it, which they cant.
Let me put that phare as an example:
1+1=2.
Our perceptions of this truth don't change the fact that it's an objective truth.
I talked about the illusion of objectivity earlier and I think you are focusing on that illusion.
There are very few things objectively true in general, not to mention such complex and sensitive things as beauty.
I think a fruitful conversation would be for example "For what extent does culture and personal preferences define beauty" But by almost definition beauty cannot be objective since it requires an individual to perceive that beauty in the first place.
Originally Posted by cowmeat
1+1=2.
Our perceptions of this truth don't change the fact that it's an objective truth.
I talked about the illusion of objectivity earlier and I think you are focusing on that illusion.
There are very few things objectively true in general, not to mention such complex and sensitive things as beauty.
The proper line to draw here is the difference between things that are concrete (real, tangible) and things that are abstractions (conceptualisations, intangible). It's possible to establish truth and objectivity with concrete things because they have a basis in actual reality, so we can investigate them with the scientific method (+logic and reason) and come up with objective truths - Statements of fact.
It's much harder (but I wouldn't say impossible) to come up with objective truths about abstractions. They have no basis in reality, but that doesn't mean that we can't use reason and science to come to 'objective' conclusions. They may not be objective in the sense that nobody can come up with a different conclusion, but they are objective in the sense that any sane, reasonable person would agree with them. I don't think it's far-fetched for us to be able to make objective judgements about certain subjective matters. I think it's possible for us to find truth in the realm of abstractions by using some of the same tools we use to find it in the concrete world - logic and reason.
Take morality, for example. Any sane and reasonable person would agree that it's never OK to torture and rape a child - There are no circumstances in the universe in which that sort of behaviour would ever be considered acceptable. We do not need to be wishy-washy and say, 'Hey man, moral relativism, each to their own'. No, that is an objectively immoral act. Any course of action that decreases suffering and increases happiness is good and moral, any course of action that does the opposite is bad and immoral. Would any sane and reasonable person disagree with that as a starting proposition?
Is it technically 'objectivity'? No, because we're talking about conceptualisations that don't actually exist. Can we, however, achieve some standards of 'objectivity' and make a statement of fact about conceptual things though? I think we can, so long as we put on our thinking caps and justify it with logic and reason.
Last edited by Ele; Mar 31, 2017 at 06:47 PM.
