Beauty.

[peter]

We have a girl that comes into our shop who is one of the rare individuals of this world who can make all men stand slack jawed in amazement and all womens eyes flash with hatred. She is off the scale beautiful in a way you rarely see.

But what exactly is going on here. I've heard it said that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, in which case we all behold the same thing as constituting beauty. Likewise it has been said that it is 'symetry' that most strikes us, the most symetrical of faces being translated in our brains into those percieved as most beautiful. Another explanation is that somehow the overall quality of the persons genetic constitution [in respect of their desirability as a potential mate with whom to mix your own genes] is somehow refected in the way they appear to members of the opposit sex.

And then there is the business of what the culture we live in imbues into us as representative of the acme of beauty. Whale fat in Greenland, khol in Egypt, small noses in London. There must however be something more than just this culturally imprinted thing going on however, because beauty always seems to transcend these cultural divisions. If I look at an eskimo woman, nine times out of ten I will see her as beautiful if she is also seen as beautiful by the men of her own culture; similarly if she is not so fortunate in the looks department to her own people, the chances are I can pick up on that too.

None of this is to say that there are not many forms of beauty that are mot immediately apparent, that are 'learned' [as it were] as time goes on. Kate Blanchett for example is beautiful in my eyes - but that's to me, and I'm not talking about this kind of 'taste driven' perception of beauty; I'm talking about the kind that transcends taste, the kind that defies you to stand before it and not think "And God Created Woman!"

[nb Ladies - switch to a face [and words] of your choosing where appropriate. Do women see 'beauty' in the male face/form in the same way as I'm describing or are there different factors at play.]

[aliantha]

[nb Ladies - switch to a face [and words] of your choosing where appropriate. Do women see 'beauty' in the male face/form in the same way as I'm describing or are there different factors at play.]

Yes and yes.

There was something floating around the intarwebz not long ago -- a woman (either an artist or a reporter, I forget which) offered a picture of herself on a public forum and invited artists from various cultures to make her into their culture's idea of beauty. The result was fascinating. Sometimes the artist would reshape her eyes, sometimes her hair, sometimes her makeup. But as you say, she was beautiful in all of them -- not heart-stoppingly beautiful the way the woman in your shop is, but still.

[Zarathustra]

It's similar to asking, "Why do flowers exist?" As Deutsch said, perhaps there is such a thing as objective beauty, or at least some objective principle that we're describing as beautiful.

I was fascinated by him pointing out how flowers evolved to attract insects [this is literally the reason they exist; there were no flowers before insects to pollinate them], and yet there is nothing in the evolution of humans and insects that suggests we'd have similar criteria for attractiveness. The fact that attractiveness could "jump species" like this, for such a wide gulf between species, is an astounding coincidence if it's not a simultaneous recognition of the same thing.

It can't be explained in terms of symmetry or high color contrast with background, because a spider in the bath tub would qualify for these and yet produce an entirely different effect in humans. Nor can it be explained in terms of cultural preferences, because humans often find flowers beautiful that they've never see before.

[peter]

I thought after posting this that it might seem a trite subject, but of course it's not. There is something about 'the history of the world being different if Cleopatra had had a bigger nose' and even now peoples physical atrractiveness or otherwise exerts massive influence on what they can achieve in all areas of human endevour. It's in our very essence that we are [try as we might to avoid it] influenced by the appearence of people we interact with.

In respect of flowers I don't remember if Deutsch actually posited an explanation as to why we should find them aesthetically pleasing. If I had to make a stab I'd guess it was the combination of form and color that was the key [as in the same way, an unrecognisable array of color and form in a non-figurative painting can be 'beautiful'] - but what 'evolutionary goal' this should satisfy to make it so I can't say.

[Zarathustra]

I thought the explanation was the same as why this woman you mention is so universally regarded as beautiful: because beauty is something objective we can recognize, and not merely a subjective preference. Culture didn't teach us the definition of beauty. Our species--as an intelligent, rational race which can recognize universal properties of reality--shaped our own form through sexual selection, so that we have gotten more objectively beautiful as a people. It's not just that we think we're prettier than apes, we ARE prettier, because we embody our own recognition of universal principles which define aesthetics. Or so Deutsch thinks.

[SoulBiter]

Beauty is sometimes part of an attitude and/or displaying an air of confidence in yourself. Ironically studies show that how others see you is usually 20% more positive than you perceive yourself.

[peter]

Yes - now I remember that Deutsch is not afraid to 'objectify' that which others see as purely subjective. I suspect this would be an area where people who don't share his vision would attack first. In a sense it works for me untill I start trying to fit it in with evolutionary development. What is the bridge that allows us to jump seamlessly from an evolutionary based 'gene driven' machine [ie you don't see stuff that you aren't evolved to see for a very specifically advantageous reason in respect of promulgation of your genes] to a position in which things almost as nebulous as Plato's 'Ideal Forms' [ie observable 'ideal' beauty] are rendered observable to us.

But re-reading your post I'm guessing that the 'objectiveness' we are percieving is one that we have created of and for ourselves over the course of our evolution.

[Zarathustra]

What is the bridge that allows us to jump seamlessly from an evolutionary based 'gene driven' machine [ie you don't see stuff that you aren't evolved to see for a very specifically advantageous reason in respect of promulgation of your genes] to a position in which things almost as nebulous as Plato's 'Ideal Forms' [ie observable 'ideal' beauty] are rendered observable to us.

That's a damn good question. It's the crux of the matter. I think it has to do with his point that we have evolved to be universal explainers. This means we can detect universal truths, and not merely parochial ones. Our power to explain has universal reach precisely for this reason.

Once a species develops the ability to manipulate, understand, and replicate memes, then evolution becomes social/conceptual instead of genetic. At that point, it's not problematic to think of our evolution converging around universal truths, because we're constantly updating our memes based on how well they explain our reality. But until then, there must have been some genetic "push" toward these objective truths before we realized it consciously.

That's not very surprising when you consider that evolution must follow universal truths itself. No genetic mutation can violate the laws of physics. We embody Newton's theory of gravity in our muscle and bones. The way we move takes these laws into account. It's not surprising that our consciousness evolved to recognize similar patterns/laws, since that's what reality is made of.

[Vraith]

What is the bridge that allows us to jump seamlessly from an evolutionary based 'gene driven' machine [ie you don't see stuff that you aren't evolved to see for a very specifically advantageous reason in respect of promulgation of your genes] to a position in which things almost as nebulous as Plato's 'Ideal Forms' [ie observable 'ideal' beauty] are rendered observable to us.

That's a damn good question. It's the crux of the matter. I think it has to do with his point that we have evolved to be universal explainers.

And I believe this [and a number of other capacities besides "beauty"...including morality, mathematics, complex language beyond this hoot means danger, this air-dance means nectar] all come from the ability to displace our frame/view/selves. The fact that we can examine/ponder/analyze things from directions other than simply straight out of our own eyes.

The first step to that capacity, evolutionarily, probably began with things like the first hunter to look around and realize [[though this predates humans, in the earliest manifestations]] that THAT angle/position is better than THIS one for taking down that wildebeest. [space relations/concept] and the first parent to realize THAT person just puked from eating that new and strange fruit, and deduced at that distance that he/she should slap that fruit out of the hand of his/her child.

Tied to "beauty," I think it's the difference between...
Seeing an "other" person, and seeing another person.

[[And, in that way, that spider in the bathtub can definitely be beautiful, due to that same distancing/shifting. Once one over-rules the atavistic "threat" response.]]