Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 47

Thread: What Is Beauty?

  1. #11
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member


    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    -
    Gender
    Posts
    2,858
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    5
    Thanked in
    5 Posts

    Re: Perceptions of Beauty, A Social Construct?

    This begs the question: for if it is an "interpretation" as you say, then it must be a construct of some kind.
    How could beauty ever be anything other than an interpretation? A rose is a rose, and does not become beautiful until someone labels it as such. And even then its only beautiful to the one who is judging it. Another person may not think it to be beautiful at all.... which leads me to the topic subject.... its my belief that the rose would be considered beautiful, or not, by an individual depending on what the rose (the colour, form, smell of it etc) represents to them.

    I argue that beauty is symbollic. (Actually, I believe that all form is symbollic, full stop - created as a representation of the spiritual. But that's another story altogether. lol ) And as such, is a social construct, as individuals in a common society or community belonging to a common culture will often perceive/judge form in a similar fashion due to such interpretations being learned, not congentially inherent.


    However, we do not only apportion beauty to humans, we apportion beauty to the whole of nature.
    That is irrelevant. Whether beauty is being apportioned to a human being or an inanimate object, it is still subjective.


    Therefore, while beauty may be an interpretation, it is not a complete human construct, as it is found in nature [although we cannot know if birds find bird-song 'beautiful' as such, for example].
    Nature may be the subject of beauty, but it will always be deemed as such by a human. Otherwise it is not beautiful. It just is.

    I would make a distinction between the "attractive" [which means physically/sexually attractive] and the Beautiful [which implies the platonic perfection of form, and needn't be sexual in any way].
    Attractive simply means 'something/one which attracts something/one. Think of magnets. Sexual or physical are only two types of attraction. There is also intellectual, emotional, aesthetic, spiritual etc etc. Beauty is different altogether, because it denotes aesthetic appreciation, but not necessarily any attraction. One may find something beautiful, yet not be attracted to it.


    My basic position is that 'beauty' denotes the striving [by men] towards the perfection in form; something that may never be achieved, but the closer to it we get, the more beautiful we sense that striving to be.
    Then how would you explain so many people finding "imperfection" the most beautiful of all? I personally find "perfection" (total order) cold, personalityless, unendearing, uninteresting. It can't be beautiful in my eyes. This is what perfection symbolises to me.... to you it may mean something different and therefore you could find it subjectively beautiful. See what I mean?

    This sense of perfection is racially and culturally specific.
    Subjective you mean?

  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Last Online
    Monday, December 11th, 2006 @ 03:51 AM
    Gender
    Posts
    2,313
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Re: Perceptions of Beauty, A Social Construct?

    You are right, Bridie, that beauty is partly subjective. But not entirely. If beauty would be entirely in the eye of the beholder, there could be no term for it. Every human being has a concept of beauty of which the term "beauty" is the sound figure. And in order for such a concept to exist, every human being must have a natural comprehension what beauty is, because it cannot be defined by other means than recursion. So it can't be a social construct.

    Beauty embodies in general something that is pleasing to the senses or the intellect. As every human being has a natural comprehension of pleasure, every human being can comprehend beauty.

    Everything that is beautiful is pleasing. We have a motivated interest in pleasure, but not a motivated interest in beauty, though, i. e. we can find things beautiful which we do not desire and which do not interest us at all. An organo-ruralist Heathen can find an urban cathedral beautiful.

    That means that while the pleasing is (in the last consequence) entirely subjective, beauty isn't. A judgment about beauty has both a subjective and an objective character. Kant called it "uninterested pleasure." So it is definitely something, as Moody said, that is rooted in nature.

    Taste is the ability to distinguish the beautiful (which has an objective component) from the ugly. But what is this objective component?

    It is in its purest form perfection. Things that are more beautiful than others are more perfect, they are a higher developed. What is perfection? Manifoldness whose differences have been resolved in unity. (Yes, Lucifer, Hegel once more.)

    Tanned skin isn't more beautiful than untanned skin or vice versa. Blonde hair isn't more beautiful than black hair. You might just find the one or the other more pleasing.

    But symmetric faces are more beautiful than asymmetric faces. Beethoven's music is more beautiful than bongo drumming. And the Taj Mahal is more beautiful than a hut. Albeit you could find all of the latter alternatives more pleasing. Beauty has an objective component and the philosophical school of thought that teaches us about it is called aesthetics.
    .

  3. #13
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member


    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    -
    Gender
    Posts
    2,858
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    5
    Thanked in
    5 Posts

    Re: Perceptions of Beauty, A Social Construct?

    You are right, Bridie, that beauty is partly subjective. But not entirely.
    You think I'm wrong then. LOL I think its ENTIRELY subjective. And furthermore that this subjectivity is developed in the very early stages of life and further influenced/controlled by social, learned factors.

    Even a mother's smile will be construed as beautiful by an infant because of what the smile communicates to the baby. Its not the smile itself that is beautiful.

    If beauty would be entirely in the eye of the beholder, there could be no term for it.
    That doesn't make any sense. If beauty is the subjective appreciation of an object, and a beautiful object is one that conveys and inspires pleasure in the viewer, this does not negate use of the term.

    But I think that you mean that if there was no universal agreeance on what qualifies as "beautiful" and what doesn't that the concept of "beauty" would be redundant? I disagree. This makes no sense to me.

    Perceptions of beauty don't have to conform to a pre-determined assessment in order to be valid.


    Beauty embodies in general something that is pleasing to the senses or the intellect. As every human being has a natural comprehension of pleasure, every human being can comprehend beauty.
    Yes. Exactly. But what one comprehends as "beautiful" or "ugly" is subjective and varies greatly among individuals - particularly if they are from different cultures.

    Everything that is beautiful is pleasing.
    Yes. Making it subjective. For example, perfect handwritng may be seen as beautiful to some, it may bring them pleasure to look at it. But for me I can see its perfection and this very thing brings me frustration and negative feelings due to my own past experiences (its a long story involving my great tendancy for obsessive compulsivism/perfectionism! LOL), so to me its ugly. Do you get what I mean?

    What we find pleasing, or not, is subjective. Humans are subjective.

    That means that while the pleasing is (in the last consequence) entirely subjective, beauty isn't.
    You're contradicting yourself here. You say that pleasure indunction is subjective. And ealier you equated beauty with pleasure induction:
    Everything that is beautiful is pleasing.
    So if what we find pleasurable is subjective and varies according to personal factors, then so is beauty, as the two are one in the same.

    Kant called it "uninterested pleasure."
    Interesting you brought him up.... I haven't read anything of his in years, but from memory he was an aesthetic relativist wasn't he? I think (could be wrong here) I can vaguely remember that he believed that while perceptions of beauty are subjective, there is still a universal agreeance on what constitutes "beautiful"..... leading me to think that this can only mean that it is a "social construct". That our own subjectivity is dictated by our cultural/social environments.


    Tanned skin isn't more beautiful than untanned skin or vice versa. Blonde hair isn't more beautiful than black hair. You might just find the one or the other more pleasing.
    Yes, thereby finding one or the other more beautiful.

    But symmetric faces are more beautiful than asymmetric faces. Beethoven's music is more beautiful than bongo drumming. And the Taj Mahal is more beautiful than a hut. Albeit you could find all of the latter alternatives more pleasing. Beauty has an objective component and the philosophical school of thought that teaches us about it is called aesthetics.
    I actually find a hut more pleasing and therefore more beautiful than the Taj Mahal. I'm a simple gal. I prefer the earthiness and simplicity of a hut. It makes me calm, grounded and secure. The Taj Mahal is grand, but does not evoke pleasant feelings for me. So the hut is more beautiful to me.

    Aesthetic philosophy doesn't only deal with theories of universal beauty and objective evaluations.

  4. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Last Online
    Monday, December 11th, 2006 @ 03:51 AM
    Gender
    Posts
    2,313
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Re: Perceptions of Beauty, A Social Construct?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bridie
    You think I'm wrong then.
    I not only think so. I also know.

    LOL I think its ENTIRELY subjective.
    If you use beauty as a synonym for the pleasing then it is -- among adults. Among children not even the the pleasing is entirely subjective.

    And furthermore that this subjectivity is developed in the very early stages of life and further influenced/controlled by social, learned factors.
    What pleases us is determined by genetic dispositions and learned factors imho. Biology and environment.

    Even a mother's smile will be construed as beautiful by an infant because of what the smile communicates to the baby. Its not the smile itself that is beautiful.
    Interesting thesis, but what is the evidence?

    That doesn't make any sense. If beauty is the subjective appreciation of an object,
    That's exactly what it isn't. The pleasing is the subjective appreciation of an object.

    and a beautiful object is one that conveys and inspires pleasure in the viewer,
    Yes, it does, be it then you are unable to recognize the beautiful. Then you have bad taste. Beauty has an objective component. If you argue that something is beautiful, you are expressing something absolute and universal. It is beautiful to everyone. If you say (or mean): "It is beautiful to me (but not to everyone)", you actually mean "It pleases me." But that's just a problem of language then.

    But I think that you mean that if there was no universal agreeance on what qualifies as "beautiful" and what doesn't that the concept of "beauty" would be redundant? I disagree. This makes no sense to me.
    Yes, that's also true. There would be no concept of beauty, only a synonym for the pleasing.

    Perceptions of beauty don't have to conform to a pre-determined assessment in order to be valid.
    Perceptions also have no reality, they only exist.

    Yes. Exactly. But what one comprehends as "beautiful" or "ugly" is subjective and varies greatly among individuals - particularly if they are from different cultures.
    Only if you consider beauty as a synonym for the pleasing. Then I rest my case.

    Yes. Making it subjective. For example, perfect handwritng may be seen as beautiful to some, it may bring them pleasure to look at it.
    It's pleasing to some if not most, yes. And beautiful.

    But for me I can see its perfection and this very thing brings me frustration and negative feelings due to my own past experiences (its a long story involving my great tendancy for obsessive compulsivism/perfectionism! LOL), so to me its ugly. Do you get what I mean?
    Absolutely. For you it's not pleasing. But it's still beautiful because it has a higher degree of perfection than if one writes like a rooster on the manure pile. The contradictions of the unorderliness of the manifold were resolved on a higher level creating a system of order. If you really want to argue it's not beautiful, then you simply have bad taste.

    What we find pleasing, or not, is subjective.
    Sure thing.

    You're contradicting yourself here. You say that pleasure indunction is subjective.
    It is.

    And ealier you equated beauty with pleasure induction:
    Contradictions are resolved on a higher level. The pleasing is subjectively pleasing. The beautiful is subjectively and objectively pleasing. If it doesn't please you, you have bad taste, but objectively beauty doesn't depend on the subject. This resolution creates a more perfect comprehension, by the way, and is thus beautiful. Even if you don't fit it pleasing.

    So if what we find pleasurable is subjective and varies according to personal factors, then so is beauty, as the two are one in the same.
    Well, that's what I gather. You try to deny the concept of beauty. You try to construe beauty as another terminus for the pleasing. If you want to view it that way, be welcome, but this point of view has no reality, it just exists.

    Interesting you brought him up.... I haven't read anything of his in years, but from memory he was an aesthetic relativist wasn't he? I think (could be wrong here) I can vaguely remember that he believed that while perceptions of beauty are subjective, there is still a universal agreeance on what constitutes "beautiful"..... leading me to think that this can only mean that it is a "social construct". That our own subjectivity is dictated by our cultural/social environments.
    No, he was a prominent opponent of aesthetic relativism, arguing my case (in a less developed form, we understand it all better since Hegel), namely that the judgment of beauty is universal. He recognized it as a concept or category different from the pleasing.

    Yes, thereby finding one or the other more beautiful.
    More pleasing, in fact.

    I actually find a hut more pleasing and therefore more beautiful than the Taj Mahal. I'm a simple gal. I prefer the earthiness and simplicity of a hut. It makes me calm, grounded and secure. The Taj Mahal is grand, but does not evoke pleasant feelings for me. So the hut is more beautiful to me.
    Yeah, well, if you use beauty as a synonym for the pleasing. If I would define largeness as a synonym for the pleasing, then the hut would be larger than the Taj Mahal for you. Great insights we get through this.

    Aesthetic philosophy doesn't only deal with theories of universal beauty and objective evaluations.
    It does. Sophism is no philosophy. It's a waste of time.
    .

  5. #15
    Mother
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Enibas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Last Online
    Wednesday, February 4th, 2009 @ 11:20 AM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Subrace
    Westisch
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    Baden-Wuerttemberg Baden-Wuerttemberg
    Gender
    Family
    Married, happily
    Occupation
    Raubtierbändiger
    Posts
    124
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    AW: Perceptions of Beauty, A Social Construct?

    I found this on wikipedia:

    Beauity.physical attractiveness and sexual attraction are determined by the prevailing culture, i.e. each group within a society will have its own consensus of ideas, beliefs, and behaviours and it is constantly changing over time. Children quickly learn who among them is considered attractive, although this will change as the peer group ages. More often, these evolving judgements are based on appearance, personality and behaviour. Those who win friends, enjoy popularity and achieve high status through sport or employment will be associated with qualities that may match the forms of virtue, beauty, nobility, etc. Those who inspire fear and loathing will often be characterised as unattractive or ugly but, if they nevertheless wield power and accumulate wealth within society, they may be considered sexually attractive. It depends on the qualities the partners wish to see in their children.
    People use signs to associate themselves with the most successful groups within their society. In cultures where pale skin is valued, people modify their behaviour to avoid acquiring a tan or use face paints and whitening creams (e.g. in Europe in the Middle Ages and in China, the only people who had dark skin were the poor peasants; the aristocracies therefore valued pale skin as an indicator of their wealth and often relied on lead or other poisonous ingredients in cosmetics to create the lustrous white complexion seen in portraits from the sixteenth-century onward). In cultures where being fat is considered a sign of success, health, and beauty, people modify their diets to achieve a body image reflecting the consensus of thought among those within the social group they aspire to join (e.g. in China, the fat male belly symbolises happiness, luck, wealth, and generosity; in Europe, the Dionysian aesthetic associates fatness with cheerful and relatively innocent decadence; in modern Ghana the popular view is that “the thicker and heavier, the richer and more attractive a woman is."). In cultures where certain body parts or athletic forms are desirable, clothing is modified to enhance or disguise a feature (e.g. ancient Greek men exercised in the nude in the gymnasium following the Apollonian ideal, Minoan dresses were usually topless in this matriarchal society, and padded codpieces ensured a European man's reputation appeared intact).
    Wer die Wahrheit nicht weiß, der ist bloß ein Dummkopf.


    Aber wer sie weiß und sie eine Lüge nennt, der ist ein Verbrecher.


    -Bertold Brecht-

  6. #16
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member


    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    -
    Gender
    Posts
    2,858
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    5
    Thanked in
    5 Posts

    Re: Perceptions of Beauty, A Social Construct?

    I not only think so. I also know.
    Now you're just trying to piss me off aren't you Tryggvi? Well, behave, or it will be this for you....





    Sorry, back to being serious now....

    If you use beauty as a synonym for the pleasing then it is
    Well, it was actually you that stated that beauty = pleasing (have I misinterpreted you here?);
    Everything that is beautiful is pleasing. We have a motivated interest in pleasure, but not a motivated interest in beauty, though, i. e. we can find things beautiful which we do not desire and which do not interest us at all.
    And see, that last statement was a contradiction too.... you say that everything that is beautiful is pleasing, then go on to say that we can find things beautiful yet not pleasing -----You did, after all, say that we are all interested in pleasure ----- so if all beauty is pleasing and we are all interested in pleasure inducing things, then it stands to reason that none of us could ever find anything of beauty undesirable or uninteresting.


    Quote:
    Even a mother's smile will be construed as beautiful by an infant because of what the smile communicates to the baby. Its not the smile itself that is beautiful.
    Interesting thesis, but what is the evidence?
    I don't need evidence, its common sense. In any case, I could present you with all the studies and theories of well known scientists in the world and none of it would matter.... because interpretation of such studies will always be subjective, as well as the theorists who write their theories. Theories come and go in and out of fashion. None of them reliable. What's reality one year, may be passed off as rubbish the next, as another reality takes over the minds of the masses.


    Yes, it does, be it then you are unable to recognize the beautiful. Then you have bad taste.
    Does that mean that you have bad taste then Tryggvi? Because the majority of people that I could see in that other thread of yours on the subjectivity of beauty found that Kluft chick beautiful, yet you did not. (Mind you, I've since seen pics of her body too, and by God! She looks like a bloke!! )


    Beauty has an objective component. If you argue that something is beautiful, you are expressing something absolute and universal. It is beautiful to everyone. If you say (or mean): "It is beautiful to me (but not to everyone)", you actually mean "It pleases me." But that's just a problem of language then.
    The problem with that, is that I don't think there would be one thing or person on this earth that EVERYONE finds beautiful.... which would render the bold part of your quote incorrect. In order for beauty to be universal, everyone must be able to see its beauty. And to just try to save your argument by stating that, 'well if someone doesn't find the supposedly univerally beautiful thing beautiful then they just have bad taste,' is just a bit too convenient. That's a weak argument. A cop out.


    No, he was a prominent opponent of aesthetic relativism, arguing my case (in a less developed form, we understand it all better since Hegel), namely that the judgment of beauty is universal. He recognized it as a concept or category different from the pleasing.
    Ah-ha, I remember now.... he believed that harmonious objects are always beautiful..... well, here's that problem with that idea....

    beauty - 1.n. combination of qualities, as shape, proportion, colour, in human face or form, or in other objects, that delights the sight; combined qualities delighting the other senses, the moral sense, or the intellect.
    - Australian Oxford Dictionary

    beautiful - a. delighting the eye or ear; gratifying any taste; morally or intellectually impressive, charming or satisfactory.
    - Australian Oxford Dictionary

    .... hmmmm.... so it would seem that the good people at Oxford agree with me. And since the dictionary offers universal definitions, it would seem to be univerally agreed that I am right.

    Sometimes it hurts being this good.

  7. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Last Online
    Monday, December 11th, 2006 @ 03:51 AM
    Gender
    Posts
    2,313
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Re: Perceptions of Beauty, A Social Construct?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bridie
    Now you're just trying to piss me off aren't you Tryggvi?
    Nah, just teasing you.

    Well, it was actually you that stated that beauty = pleasing (have I misinterpreted you here?);
    Yes, I did. But once more, beauty has an objective component. It doesn't depend on the perception of any random subject (it could be wrong) and even less on what such a subject claims (it could lie). In addition beauty comes in degrees, in fluent transitions. If a subject doesn't find something to any degree beautiful that is objectively beautiful, it will be most of the time because this subject confuses the category of beauty with a different category (usually the pleasing which is entirely subjective.) Or it could lie, or its senses might be distorted, or it might make a sophist argument in order to win a discussion rhetorically.

    Compare beauty to largeness. I mentioned the example already. Largeness is also a category that is both subjective and objective. Usually, we consider largeness much more objective than beauty, but in fact it isn't. And like beauty it is combined with a sensual impression that is entirely subjective. Largeness measures the degree of size. The Taj Mahal is objectively larger than a fisher hut. It is also subjectively larger for me. Now you might come and claim that it isn't larger for you, and thus largeness is entirely subjective. Very well, what could the cause be? Maybe you popped some acid, maybe you are visually impaired, maybe you are comparing a photo of the Taj Mahal with a real fisher hut. Maybe you have a wrong concept of the Taj Mahal and a hut. Maybe you have a wrong concept of largeness and confuse it with another category (such as greatness). Maybe you just get pleasure out of arguing sophist cases. But whatever it might be, it doesn't change a jota about the fact that the Taj Mahal is objectively larger than a fisher hut. To avoid this conclusion you would have the deny that there is an objective reality that can be recognized.

    Of course, you could do this. You could defend solipsism and say there is no objective reality, but it's all in our heads. Very well, that argument isn't new, and while this argument is probably philsophically unfalsifiable, there are also no indication that it is true (it can't be verified) and it doesn't correspond with our real-life experiences. So I'd give you the answer Bertrand Russell gave a solipsist woman that asked him why so few people believe in it: If solipsism is true, why you don't you make me and everyone believe in it? It's all in your head after all.

    If largeness measures the degree of size, what does beauty measure? It measures the degree of perfection and perfection is objective. That's why it doesn't matter if you say something that is objectively beautiful (like Beethoven's music or the Taj Mahal) isn't beautiful. You are simply wrong. You would have bad taste or maybe you don't understand the concept. You could deny its beauty because of many indefensible prejudices and personal experiences, too. You could be confused. Probably you are only confusing categories. A racist might confuse beauty with Europeanness and thus say the Taj Mahal is not beautiful. You might confuse beauty (which has an objective component, perfection) with the sole pleasing (which is entirely subjective).

    I don't need evidence, its common sense. In any case, I could present you with all the studies and theories of well known scientists in the world and none of it would matter.... because interpretation of such studies will always be subjective, as well as the theorists who write their theories. Theories come and go in and out of fashion. None of them reliable. What's reality one year, may be passed off as rubbish the next, as another reality takes over the minds of the masses.
    Ok, the burden of proof is on you. You seem to be quite a relativist, but not everything can be relative, because even if everything would be relative, there would still be something that is absolute, namely that everything is relative. Not even the postulate of relativism can avoid that there is an objective truth.

    Does that mean that you have bad taste then Tryggvi? Because the majority of people that I could see in that other thread of yours on the subjectivity of beauty found that Kluft chick beautiful, yet you did not. (Mind you, I've since seen pics of her body too, and by God! She looks like a bloke!! )
    I might simply have been guilty of using "beautiful" where I should have written "pleasing" or "attractive," as we do it so often in colloquial language. But that here is a philsophy thread, so we should try to be precise. I might have bad taste, who knows?

    The problem with that, is that I don't think there would be one thing or person on this earth that EVERYONE finds beautiful....
    That's not necessary. It's also not necessary that everyone agrees on degrees of largeness. Try an optical deception test.

    which would render the bold part of your quote incorrect. In order for beauty to be universal, everyone must be able to see its beauty.
    Nopes, I would only be necessary that human nature and reality provides us with a concept of beauty. It's not necessary that every concrete human being comprehends it or that the concept is developed in every concrete human being. The vegetable in a lunatic asylum might not have it.

    And to just try to save your argument by stating that, 'well if someone doesn't find the supposedly univerally beautiful thing beautiful then they just have bad taste,' is just a bit too convenient. That's a weak argument. A cop out.
    It's a bit unprecise, for sure, as there can be many reasons. Only somebody that comprehends the concept of beauty and whose senses and mental faculties are developed but still can't distinguish the more beautiful from the less beautiful has bad taste.

    Ah-ha, I remember now.... he believed that harmonious objects are always beautiful..... well, here's that problem with that idea....
    Harmony in disharmony. Order in the manifold. Contradictions resolved on a higher level.

    - Australian Oxford Dictionary

    - Australian Oxford Dictionary

    .... hmmmm.... so it would seem that the good people at Oxford agree with me. And since the dictionary offers universal definitions, it would seem to be univerally agreed that I am right.

    Sometimes it hurts being this good.
    General dictionaries are really of little use when it comes to philosophical concepts. They only reflect how words are frequently used.
    .

  8. #18
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member


    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    -
    Gender
    Posts
    2,858
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    5
    Thanked in
    5 Posts

    Re: Perceptions of Beauty, A Social Construct?

    Largeness is also a category that is both subjective and objective. Usually, we consider largeness much more objective than beauty, but in fact it isn't. And like beauty it is combined with a sensual impression that is entirely subjective. Largeness measures the degree of size. The Taj Mahal is objectively larger than a fisher hut. It is also subjectively larger for me. Now you might come and claim that it isn't larger for you, and thus largeness is entirely subjective.
    No "largeness" is 100% relative. "Large" is an ambiguous term which merely compares the size of one object to another. Therefore the Taj Mahal is large compared to a hut, yet it is small compared to the size of the moon. ALL descriptive terms are relative. Only precise measurements can be absolute.... the object is 10cm long = objective..... the object is pretty small = relative. So the measurement is objective, but the interpretation of that measurement is subjective.

    As "beautiful" is an adjective, it is by definition subjective.


    So I'd give you the answer Bertrand Russell gave a solipsist woman that asked him why so few people believe in it: If solipsism is true, why you don't you make me and everyone believe in it? It's all in your head after all.
    LOL Well touche to Mr Russell! That's funny.

    But anyhoo..... Well firstly, something doesn't have to be true for everyone to believe in it. Is God true? Who knows.... but plenty of people believe in Him. And let's face it, some people are so devoid of discrimitive abilities and intellect that they'll believe anything that anyone tells them.

    Secondly, I've never said that I believe in solipsism.... if I did, I wouldn't believe in social construction, as this resides external to the self.


    If largeness measures the degree of size, what does beauty measure? It measures the degree of perfection and perfection is objective.
    Nope, I've already refuted that, see above.


    You seem to be quite a relativist, but not everything can be relative, because even if everything would be relative, there would still be something that is absolute, namely that everything is relative. Not even the postulate of relativism can avoid that there is an objective truth.
    I am a bit of a relativist I guess, but I do have my limits. No I don't really believe that EVERYTHING is relative, just that all interpretations of reality are. We are infinitely variable. There are of course absolutes.... but how can we as humans, with our limited senses and awareness, ever know what they are? We might look at an apple and see an apple.... when from a different vantage point it may look like a cluster of electrons, protons and neutrons. So which is the truth? Is it an apple according to popular discourse? A stable, unanimate object? A piece of fruit? Food? Or it is a buzzing, dynamic group of sub-particles? I say both, depending on the person who is interpreting it.


    I might have bad taste, who knows?
    Well, let's see.... do you like the same dresses as me? If you do then you have good taste, if you don't you have bad taste. (Hey, maybe there is only one reality after all.... mine! )


    General dictionaries are really of little use when it comes to philosophical concepts. They only reflect how words are frequently used.
    Well now Tryggvi, for someone who is such a fervent advocate of universal truth, you are being very open-minded. If there is only one definition of the term "beauty" then surely you can't dispute the universal one? (I could, but then that's my perogative as a relativist. LOL Only joking.... I do believe in standard definitions for words.... they act as a yardstick for communication.... otherwise how are we all supposed to understand each other?)


    Maybe you popped some acid,
    .... you're pushing me to it Tryggvi... you're pushing me to it....


  9. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Last Online
    Monday, December 11th, 2006 @ 03:51 AM
    Gender
    Posts
    2,313
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Re: Perceptions of Beauty, A Social Construct?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bridie
    Nope, I've already refuted that, see above.
    You are, as always, examplary in behavior and magnanimous in victory.

    Well, let's see.... do you like the same dresses as me? If you do then you have good taste, if you don't you have bad taste. (Hey, maybe there is only one reality after all.... mine! )
    I don't know, which dresses do you like? Maybe you can make a thread about it in The Lounge. Wait, better make one in the Realm of the Senses.

    Well now Tryggvi, for someone who is such a fervent advocate of universal truth, you are being very open-minded. If there is only one definition of the term "beauty" then surely you can't dispute the universal one? (I could, but then that's my perogative as a relativist. LOL Only joking.... I do believe in standard definitions for words.... they act as a yardstick for communication.... otherwise how are we all supposed to understand each other?)
    Philosophy has its own language and definitions because language itself is a core problem of philosophy. It might be the biggest obstacle to conveying thoughts and truth.
    .

  10. #20
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member


    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    -
    Gender
    Posts
    2,858
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    5
    Thanked in
    5 Posts

    Re: Perceptions of Beauty, A Social Construct?

    You are, as always, examplary in behavior and magnanimous in victory.
    Oooh... what a nasty man. Okay, well I'll admit that my behaviour is often disgraceful and I'm somewhat lacking in humility, if you can say directly that I am victorious today!


    I don't know, which dresses do you like? Maybe you can make a thread about it in The Lounge. Wait, better make one in the Realm of the Senses.
    No worries.... I'll create the thread.... you can model the dresses. Deal?


Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. What Is Beauty?
    By Blutwölfin in forum Fashion & Beauty
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: Wednesday, August 17th, 2016, 05:27 PM
  2. An astonishing beauty
    By aneurysm in forum Men, Women, & Relationships
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: Tuesday, March 28th, 2006, 02:18 PM
  3. Whatever Became of Beauty ?
    By Gorm the Old in forum Music & Hymns
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Saturday, June 11th, 2005, 10:45 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •