DA Contest: Guest vs. Dre.

[Sieguest]

Dre. and I are debating whether beauty is objective or subjective. I am taking the objective stance.

There are two points I will present as to why beauty is objective to start this off.

1. Firstly we have indicators of physical attractiveness in we look for in our mates. One may say "well all of the partners we take interest in are different". But this only concerns a few areas. Take for example the waist-to-hip ratio that people of one sex find attractive in another. Men find women with a WHR of .67-1.18 to be attractive. While women find men with a WHR of .8-1.0 to be attractive. Women also take to men with broad shoulders. It's also shown that humans look for mates who are symmetrical. Those who are more symmetrical tend to be more attractive and in better health than those who are not as symmetrical. The difference may not even be noticeable but can still be picked up on. Estrogen helps shape the face of women in a way that makes their eyes seem more prominent while testosterone works to on men's faces to give them a more prominent brow and jaw. In humans where these features are more defined, they are perceived as more attractive. These are just a few of the many indicators on what humans look for in mates.
One may say in response to this the example that "one may have green eyes and one may have blue eyes and be considered beautiful just the same." The thing here is... both have beautiful eyes which is why they're both considered beautiful. The same situation could be done in which the estrogen didn't accent the eyes as much as other women in one of them. Same eye color though now she isn't "beautiful" anymore. The illusion we fall under that makes us think that beauty is subjective is produced by not looking far enough into the genetics behind the human being.

2. My second point concerns art. The largest argument for beauty being subjective comes from an analysis of art. Most arguing that beauty is subject will say that people have different tastes for different works of art. However, the problem here is that when most are considering the beauty of art they are taking in more than visual appearance. Using such things as themes and doing what we call "bringing the art to life" skews the interpretation of the physical appearance of art (a quick google search of qualities of good art will show you that somewhere most people stick in something about the meaning behind the art or something similar). Just like in humans finding a mate there are things that make art good. Exactly the kinds of things your art teacher pounds into your head. Form, texture, shading, dimension, and others. Even abstract pieces of art have form. Although texture varies from piece to piece the mere presence of texture is what gives the art beauty. Shading and dimension immerse the viewer into the work which adds to its beauty. These are qualities you can see in all works of art that people deem beautiful.

 

[Dre89]

The argument for objective physical attraction is flawed in that we know different cultures find different attributes attractive. For one, it is thought that the first humans found body odour attractive. Secondly, we know of civilisations in which obesity was considered attractive. In modern civilisation, a larger penis is desired, as it is perceived as a measure of masculinity and sexual performance, yet in Ancient Greece, a smaller penis was desired, for it was perceived as a measure of discipline and self-control.

There are many other examples. The existence of sexual fetishes, which are invoked by psychological factors, of course which are individual to the subject, is another example.

What is deemed attractive may be what is desired in a specific culture. For example, in a civilisation in a colder climate, thicker body fat, or larger quantities of body hair may be considered more attractive, as such qualities are advantageous in that environment.

One may say in response to this the example that "one may have green eyes and one may have blue eyes and be considered beautiful just the same." The thing here is... both have beautiful eyes which is why they're both considered beautiful.

This statement is self-refuting and strengthens my argument. Beauty is not a specific colour or object, it is a state, or end, (or at leastt he eprception of such) achieved by certain means. The fact that in this case, beauty of the eye is achieved by alternate means indicates the subjectivity of beauity.

2. My second point concerns art. The largest argument for beauty being subjective comes from an analysis of art. Most arguing that beauty is subject will say that people have different tastes for different works of art. However, the problem here is that when most are considering the beauty of art they are taking in more than visual appearance. Using such things as themes and doing what we call "bringing the art to life" skews the interpretation of the physical appearance of art (a quick google search of qualities of good art will show you that somewhere most people stick in something about the meaning behind the art or something similar). Just like in humans finding a mate there are things that make art good. Exactly the kinds of things your art teacher pounds into your head. Form, texture, shading, dimension, and others. Even abstract pieces of art have form. Although texture varies from piece to piece the mere presence of texture is what gives the art beauty. Shading and dimension immerse the viewer into the work which adds to its beauty. These are qualities you can see in all works of art that people deem beautiful.

But factors beyond visual appearance are in fact part of the art. You speak of aesthetic beauty alone mattering in art, but that is just fine art, one specific art form. Even then, you still have issues with determining what is objectively most beautiful, and who has the credentials to be the judge of such matters.

 

[Sieguest]

The argument for objective physical attraction is flawed in that we know different cultures find different attributes attractive. For one, it is thought that the first humans found body odour attractive. Secondly, we know of civilisations in which obesity was considered attractive. In modern civilisation, a larger penis is desired, as it is perceived as a measure of masculinity and sexual performance, yet in Ancient Greece, a smaller penis was desired, for it was perceived as a measure of discipline and self-control.

I do understand the inclination towards a certain look being preferred being different from one society to another but as even yourself have pointed out, these things were perceived as maturity signs and not necessarily as signs of beauty.

There are many other examples. The existence of sexual fetishes, which are invoked by psychological factors, of course which are individual to the subject, is another example.

Most of those fetishes (at least the ones I can bring to mind) that tend to show the subjectivity of attractiveness tend to broach personality subjects and not necessarily the physical. Those that do deal with the physical share a common trait that most can pick up on.

What is deemed attractive may be what is desired in a specific culture. For example, in a civilisation in a colder climate, thicker body fat, or larger quantities of body hair may be considered more attractive, as such qualities are advantageous in that environment.

Again this leans more towards a view of what constitutes a mature male or female, not necessarily what is sexually or visually appealing to another being.

This statement is self-refuting and strengthens my argument. Beauty is not a specific colour or object, it is a state, or end, (or at leastt he eprception of such) achieved by certain means. The fact that in this case, beauty of the eye is achieved by alternate means indicates the subjectivity of beauity.

Not necessarily. The example goes to show that whose eye shape are at a point attractive men point towards beauty being objective. (Eye form in women is controlled by Estrogen.) This is made known in the other sentence which considered the situation in which one woman did not have as much of the influence of Estrogen in her eyes as the other woman and how she was no longer considered beautiful. This is derived from the source I posted in my last post.

But factors beyond visual appearance are in fact part of the art. You speak of aesthetic beauty alone mattering in art, but that is just fine art, one specific art form. Even then, you still have issues with determining what is objectively most beautiful, and who has the credentials to be the judge of such matters.

I don't see how anything outside of what your senses can pick up could go in determining what is beautiful. In my understanding what is beautiful translates to what is visually appealing or audibly appealing. Things such as hidden meanings and the like may add insight to the work but I do not see how it adds on to the beauty of some work.

 

[Dre89]

I do understand the inclination towards a certain look being preferred being different from one society to another but as even yourself have pointed out, these things were perceived as maturity signs and not necessarily as signs of beauty.

But maturity signs are sexually attractive. As these signs are subjective, so is what is deemed sexually attractive.

Most of those fetishes (at least the ones I can bring to mind) that tend to show the subjectivity of attractiveness tend to broach personality subjects and not necessarily the physical. Those that do deal with the physical share a common trait that most can pick up on.

I don't see the common link between sexual attraction to a turtle and such an attraction exclusively towards a specific body part of a female.

Again this leans more towards a view of what constitutes a mature male or female, not necessarily what is sexually or visually appealing to another being.


Refer to my first statement.


Not necessarily. The example goes to show that whose eye shape are at a point attractive men point towards beauty being objective. (Eye form in women is controlled by Estrogen.) This is made known in the other sentence which considered the situation in which one woman did not have as much of the influence of Estrogen in her eyes as the other woman and how she was no longer considered beautiful. This is derived from the source I posted in my last post.

This just shows the influence estrogen has on eye colour. the argument is completely countered by the fact that different eye colurs may be preferred in different cultures.


I don't see how anything outside of what your senses can pick up could go in determining what is beautiful. In my understanding what is beautiful translates to what is visually appealing or audibly appealing. Things such as hidden meanings and the like may add insight to the work but I do not see how it adds on to the beauty of some work.

Senes are a part of perception. When we perceive an object, we also invoke analysis, opinion and judgement, therefore these factors have an influence on what is considered beautiful.

 

[Sieguest]

Apologies for the late response, I got caught up with another project in another board. x.x

Senes are a part of perception. When we perceive an object, we also invoke analysis, opinion and judgement, therefore these factors have an influence on what is considered beautiful.

So does this then mean that "2+2" is beautiful? We use our senses when evaluating anything. That doesn't mean that the object in question is subject to individual interpretation.

But maturity signs are sexually attractive. As these signs are subjective, so is what is deemed sexually attractive.

I don't really see how they're sexually attractive. Such as in the case of the obesity being a maturity sign. A male may choose her because of this because this shows her maturity, not because it sexually appeals to him. Maturity is a personality trait. Both men and women look at more than just beauty to find who their "soulmate" but personality traits do not line up with the visual appeal. This is commonly misconstrued when we say something is "beautiful".

This just shows the influence estrogen has on eye colour. the argument is completely countered by the fact that different eye colurs may be preferred in different cultures.

Estrogen influences eye shape, not color.

Do you have an example of one eye color being preferred over another in any culture? No matter what the color of the eyes are, if they don't have a shape appealing to a mate then they are not considered as beautiful as one who does.