View Poll Results: What is beauty?

Voters
68. You may not vote on this poll
  • Subjective

    17 25.00%
  • Objective

    22 32.35%
  • Both/neither subjective and/nor objective

    27 39.71%
  • No idea

    2 2.94%
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 49

Thread: Is Beauty Really Subjective?

  1. #21
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Last Online
    Saturday, June 14th, 2008 @ 02:40 PM
    Subrace
    Baltid+Brunn+Atlantid
    Country
    Canada Canada
    Gender
    Age
    31
    Family
    Single
    Occupation
    Student
    Politics
    Disoriented
    Religion
    Atheist
    Posts
    386
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by DriftWood View Post
    I concede I am guilty of many "unfounded opinions", but can you tell me what a founded opinion is? And please don't say yours.:o
    well, for one, you should know what they mean (see your first sentence).

  2. #22
    Account Inactive
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Last Online
    Thursday, January 1st, 2009 @ 01:42 PM
    Age
    12
    Posts
    61
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    people can also be beautiful without actually be sexually attractive.
    When did I equal beauty with sexual attractiveness? Beauty is genetic fitness. You cannot see the fitness of a person directly, you see it from his/her look, behavior etc. The greater beauty a person has, the better the genes he/she has. A cute little girl, though not sexually attractive, is still beautiful, because she has the good genes, which are expressed by her look.

    You don't seem to understand neither the concept of beauty nor the concept of evolution nor the concept of objectivity subjectivity. Objectivity would mean that there was a fixed beauty ideal ALL people find beautiful but this is simply far from being true.
    It seems you are the kind of person you accuse me of. Objectivity has nothing to do with what you said, read my posts again and try to understand what I said. And regarding the concept of evolution, from your posts I can see it's you who know little about it, maybe you should start reading some books about modern evolutionary biology, The Selfish Gene written by Richard Dawkins may be a good start for you.

  3. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Saturday, August 30th, 2008 @ 06:21 PM
    Age
    44
    Posts
    449
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    Ultimately, beauty is subjective. We are different from one another, and even in moments of true honesty, there will be an individual rationale to what beauty is to you.

    This will be all the more so when we take people from other ethnic groups into account in assessing the question.

    Those girls who are most beautiful to me are overwhelmingly those who have a similar phenotype to mine. I didn't force myself to see it that way - it's in the way that I perceive. The rationale of my perceptions is however not shared by everyone, nor do everyone have the same ideal of beauty.
    God expects but one thing of you,
    and that is that you should come out of yourself in so far as you are a created being made
    and let God be God in you.

    Meister Eckhart


    Do U believe in God? | Svensk förskola | Vem äger media? | CA ban on mom & dad | Birth control causes breast cancer

  4. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Last Online
    Thursday, May 13th, 2010 @ 01:33 AM
    Ethnicity
    Extraterrestrial
    Ancestry
    Germany/Saxons
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    Lower Saxony Lower Saxony
    Gender
    Age
    31
    Posts
    1,464
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Griffon View Post
    When did I equal beauty with sexual attractiveness? Beauty is genetic fitness. You cannot see the fitness of a person directly, you see it from his/her look, behavior etc. The greater beauty a person has, the better the genes he/she has. A cute little girl, though not sexually attractive, is still beautiful, because she has the good genes, which are expressed by her look.



    It seems you are the kind of person you accuse me of. Objectivity has nothing to do with what you said, read my posts again and try to understand what I said. And regarding the concept of evolution, from your posts I can see it's you who know little about it, maybe you should start reading some books about modern evolutionary biology, The Selfish Gene written by Richard Dawkins may be a good start for you.
    You equated beauty with sexual attractivity through reducing it on the advantages it gives for sexual selection in your posts. Most people seem to like almost all small children so it's not a good analogy either because the genes don't matter in that case (atleast if it's not totally deformed) and even children with obvious mental disabilities are considered beautiful and cute.
    Fitness cannot be entirely connected with beauty either since there are many more important aspects in a person besides her look. Person A might look like a supermodel but her autoimmune system might be horrible.

    Objectivity has all to do with what I said. Just look it up and then give me your definitions. I know little about it? Then tell me where you got this idea.
    A controversial popular science book might not be the best lecture either. Albeit it is, in contrast to Dawkins "philosophical" works, a valid scientific thesis, not to be confused with a dogma though, it's far from being undisputable in the scientific community.
    Ceterum censeo Iudaeam esse delendam.

  5. #25
    Account Inactive
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Last Online
    Thursday, January 1st, 2009 @ 01:42 PM
    Age
    12
    Posts
    61
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    You equated beauty with sexual attractivity through reducing it on the advantages it gives for sexual selection in your posts.
    I never did, it seems you think I did. Beauty certainly doesn't equate sexual attractivity, because beauty is the expression of fitness, and fitness includes more than just sexual attractivity.

    Most people seem to like almost all small children so it's not a good analogy either because the genes don't matter in that case (atleast if it's not totally deformed) and even children with obvious mental disabilities are considered beautiful and cute.
    The point you made is false, I don't think people like all small children indiscriminately, a good-looking kid is almost always more favored and get more attention than an ugly one. Genes certainly matter here.

    Fitness cannot be entirely connected with beauty either since there are many more important aspects in a person besides her look. Person A might look like a supermodel but her autoimmune system might be horrible.
    What I said is beauty is the expression of fitness, not the vice versa. For the example you provided, it's not valid, it's not likely that she would look very beautiful at all if she's THAT unhealthy.

    Objectivity has all to do with what I said. Just look it up and then give me your definitions. I know little about it? Then tell me where you got this idea. A controversial popular science book might not be the best lecture either. Albeit it is, in contrast to Dawkins "philosophical" works, a valid scientific thesis, not to be confused with a dogma though, it's far from being undisputable in the scientific community.
    The Selfish Gene is not a controversial book, nor did the authur intend it to be. Maybe controversial to creationists i guess. eyes:

  6. #26
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Last Online
    Saturday, June 14th, 2008 @ 02:40 PM
    Subrace
    Baltid+Brunn+Atlantid
    Country
    Canada Canada
    Gender
    Age
    31
    Family
    Single
    Occupation
    Student
    Politics
    Disoriented
    Religion
    Atheist
    Posts
    386
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Griffon View Post
    Beauty certainly doesn't equate sexual attractivity, because beauty is the expression of fitness, and fitness includes more than just sexual attractivity.
    how about a person who is facially scarred (this si superficial scarring) due to an accident but was very good looking (assuming we can assert that objectively) prior? their overall health is still excellent, their genes are still very "good", but i have yet to see, and doubt i ever will see, someone with a huge chemical burn on their face that i would call beautiful.

    and what about intelligence? that is one of the most important aspects of the overall fitness of an individual, how does that come into your definition of beauty?

    Quote Originally Posted by Griffon View Post
    The Selfish Gene is not a controversial book, nor did the authur intend it to be. Maybe controversial to creationists i guess. eyes:
    how can a book which claims that genes are the be-all and and-all of everything not be controversial? i like genetics as much as anyone, but claiming that it is the only factor of importance in the history of all life is just silly...his theories (from what i've heard said of them) seem more restrictive than the bible...

  7. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Last Online
    Thursday, May 13th, 2010 @ 01:33 AM
    Ethnicity
    Extraterrestrial
    Ancestry
    Germany/Saxons
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    Lower Saxony Lower Saxony
    Gender
    Age
    31
    Posts
    1,464
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Griffon View Post
    I never did, it seems you think I did. Beauty certainly doesn't equate sexual attractivity, because beauty is the expression of fitness, and fitness includes more than just sexual attractivity.



    The point you made is false, I don't think people like all small children indiscriminately, a good-looking kid is almost always more favored and get more attention than an ugly one. Genes certainly matter here.



    What I said is beauty is the expression of fitness, not the vice versa. For the example you provided, it's not valid, it's not likely that she would look very beautiful at all if she's THAT unhealthy.



    The Selfish Gene is not a controversial book, nor did the authur intend it to be. Maybe controversial to creationists i guess. eyes:
    I'm too tired now to copy and paste the examples so I just ask you what makes you think that beauty is the expression of fitness. Scientific evidence please.

    I said most small children. Grossly deformed ones are an exception.
    Actually, rather the opposite seems true. As long as they are children, being not beautiful even gives them more attention. It's even something a lot of healthy children pretend to to get attention.

    She is not unhealthy as long as the is in a totally hygienic environment.

    Haha, the typical ignorant follower of Dawkins' theses. Just google for some criticism from within the scientific community and you'll find a lot. He himself is aware of that,too, and intended his book to be controversial.
    Ceterum censeo Iudaeam esse delendam.

  8. #28
    Account Inactive
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Last Online
    Thursday, January 1st, 2009 @ 01:42 PM
    Age
    12
    Posts
    61
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    how about a person who is facially scarred (this si superficial scarring) due to an accident but was very good looking (assuming we can assert that objectively) prior? their overall health is still excellent, their genes are still very "good", but i have yet to see, and doubt i ever will see, someone with a huge chemical burn on their face that i would call beautiful
    As I have already said, we cannot see the fitness of a person directly, we see it through the ways that we can perceive, for instance, his look, his behavior etc. That's also why I said beauty is the expression of fitness. We can hardly overcome that, because we evolved that ability for a long time, even before we evolved into "Homo Sapiens". Modern biology, as well as the intelligence required to know that his deformity is not hereditary, are both too recent to matter, we are all deceived by the look of him, even though we know very well that he's actually "fit".

    and what about intelligence? that is one of the most important aspects of the overall fitness of an individual, how does that come into your definition of beauty?
    Intelligence is not directly related to beauty, but it's one of the most important fitness traits. The more intelligent a person is the more "fit" he/she is. For example, almost all women like intelligent & handsome men. The combo is just deadly.

    how can a book which claims that genes are the be-all and and-all of everything not be controversial? i like genetics as much as anyone, but claiming that it is the only factor of importance in the history of all life is just silly...his theories (from what i've heard said of them) seem more restrictive than the bible...
    What is life based on, anyway? It's the genes, almost all living organisms including you and me are gene-based. It's the fundemental factor and the basic selection unit in evolution.

    Quote Originally Posted by Janus View Post
    I'm too tired now to copy and paste the examples so I just ask you what makes you think that beauty is the expression of fitness. Scientific evidence please.
    If you actually read and understood my previous posts or the theory of evolution then you would not ask that question. As for scientific evidence, it's everywhere, it's the theory of evolution itself. A beautiful woman have an advantage over an average-looking one, she, according to the theory of evolution, is more fit.

    I said most small children. Grossly deformed ones are an exception.
    Actually, rather the opposite seems true. As long as they are children, being not beautiful even gives them more attention. It's even something a lot of healthy children pretend to to get attention.
    You asked me for "scientific evidence" and now you are making your own numerous untestified generalizations yourself? eyes: For the example you provided, healthy children pretend to be "sick" in order to get attention, this behavior is itself evolved because it gives them advantage. Again, given the same situation, a more good-looking kid will often get more attention by doing that than a not very good-looking kid.

    She is not unhealthy as long as the is in a totally hygienic environment.
    Where does she live? Paradise? There is no such "totally hygienic" environment, harmful germs, viruses etc. are everywhere even in a very clean and tidy room.

    Haha, the typical ignorant follower of Dawkins' theses. Just google for some criticism from within the scientific community and you'll find a lot. He himself is aware of that,too, and intended his book to be controversial
    eyes: Ok Mr Smartass... I know about the criticisms, such as group-selection theory, neo-Lamarckism, oh and don't forget the creationists. They are all refuted by the way.

  9. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Last Online
    Thursday, May 13th, 2010 @ 01:33 AM
    Ethnicity
    Extraterrestrial
    Ancestry
    Germany/Saxons
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    Lower Saxony Lower Saxony
    Gender
    Age
    31
    Posts
    1,464
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Griffon View Post
    As I have already said, we cannot see the fitness of a person directly, we see it through the ways that we can perceive, for instance, his look, his behavior etc. That's also why I said beauty is the expression of fitness. We can hardly overcome that, because we evolved that ability for a long time, even before we evolved into "Homo Sapiens". Modern biology, as well as the intelligence required to know that his deformity is not hereditary, are both too recent to matter, we are all deceived by the look of him, even though we know very well that he's actually "fit".

    Intelligence is not directly related to beauty, but it's one of the most important fitness traits. The more intelligent a person is the more "fit" he/she is. For example, almost all women like intelligent & handsome men. The combo is just deadly.

    What is life based on, anyway? It's the genes, almost all living organisms including you and me are gene-based. It's the fundemental factor and the basic selection unit in evolution.



    If you actually read and understood my previous posts or the theory of evolution then you would not ask that question. As for scientific evidence, it's everywhere, it's the theory of evolution itself. A beautiful woman have an advantage over an average-looking one, she, according to the theory of evolution, is more fit.

    You asked me for "scientific evidence" and now you are making your own numerous untestified generalizations yourself? eyes: For the example you provided, healthy children pretend to be "sick" in order to get attention, this behavior is itself evolved because it gives them advantage. Again, given the same situation, a more good-looking kid will often get more attention by doing that than a not very good-looking kid.

    Where does she live? Paradise? There is no such "totally hygienic" environment, harmful germs, viruses etc. are everywhere even in a very clean and tidy room.

    eyes: Ok Mr Smartass... I know about the criticisms, such as group-selection theory, neo-Lamarckism, oh and don't forget the creationists. They are all refuted by the way.
    <yawns>
    I asked for scientific proofs becauses you put so much emphasis on the theory of evolution being so extremely important and making beauty something objective but yet you have failed to give me one and to explain your definition of objectivity. Claiming that the answer of a question regarding evolution is evolution itself is a pure tautology.
    What I said,however, was a plain common sense observation everybody can observe. But well, common sense is the least common of senses it seems...

    The more fit/handsome a person is the more fit he/she is? Nonsense. The selection in this process seems rather a stabilising one, especially as for intelligence. Having a high IQ usually seems to cause problems with society and therefore the person is less adapted to it hence less fit in an evolutionary meaning.

    It's disputable whether genes are really units of selection or rather just another unit of evolution. Let's talk about the selfish quarks for example

    Uhm no. Why should it have any advantages as a beautiful child. Especially parents hardly care about that but it's hard to discuss those things with somebody who refuses to give definitions of the words he uses.

    Group and individual selection theories are far from having been refuted but they are, of course, just theories like the gene centered one.

    So again : Define what is beauty, especially your "objective beauty" and objectivity please.
    Ceterum censeo Iudaeam esse delendam.

  10. #30
    Account Inactive
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Last Online
    Thursday, January 1st, 2009 @ 01:42 PM
    Age
    12
    Posts
    61
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus View Post
    <yawns>
    I asked for scientific proofs becauses you put so much emphasis on the theory of evolution being so extremely important and making beauty something objective but yet you have failed to give me one and to explain your definition of objectivity. Claiming that the answer of a question regarding evolution is evolution itself is a pure tautology.
    What I said,however, was a plain common sense observation everybody can observe. But well, common sense is the least common of senses it seems...
    Haven't I explained it enough? It seems you don't actually read my posts.

    The more fit/handsome a person is the more fit he/she is? Nonsense. The selection in this process seems rather a stabilising one, especially as for intelligence. Having a high IQ usually seems to cause problems with society and therefore the person is less adapted to it hence less fit in an evolutionary meaning.
    Do you get an idea of what "fitness" is? Being more fit means having a genetic advantage. Handsomeness and intelligence are obviously advantageous to the individuals who possess them.
    For the high IQ part, each trait has both advantage and disadvantage, the higher instance of social adaptive problems among higher-intelligence people does not negate its fitness, it's only when the disadvantage of lower social adaptiveness outweigh the advantage of higher intelligence will the individual becomes "unfit", for instance a person who is ultra-smart but too timid that he never dare speaking to strangers.

    It's disputable whether genes are really units of selection or rather just another unit of evolution. Let's talk about the selfish quarks for example
    Genes are the "codes" by which almost all organisms are built, they are fundamental.

    Uhm no. Why should it have any advantages as a beautiful child. Especially parents hardly care about that but it's hard to discuss those things with somebody who refuses to give definitions of the words he uses.
    Each parent shares 50% genetic matters with his/her biological child, that's why parents love their children regardless of how good-looking they are, however, I doubt any parents would prefer to have ugly children instead of good-looking ones if they could choose. After all, more "fit" offsprings can be more successful in spreading their parents' genes after grown up.

    So again : Define what is beauty, especially your "objective beauty" and objectivity please.
    Again, read my posts please. I don't want to repeat what I said over and over.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 193
    Last Post: Monday, December 14th, 2009, 09:41 PM
  2. Beauty Is Objective, Not Subjective
    By Ventrue in forum Fashion & Beauty
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Monday, December 12th, 2005, 06:55 AM
  3. Reality: Objective or Subjective?/The Object
    By Stríbog in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: Monday, September 19th, 2005, 03:14 AM

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
  •