beauty

[jts]

Diana Hsieh on beauty:

http://www.philosophyinaction.com/archive/2012-07-29-Q3.html

Ayn Rand on beauty: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/beauty.html

Beauty is a sense of harmony. Whether it’s an image, a human face, a body, or a sunset, take the object which you call beautiful, as a unit [and ask yourself]: what parts is it made up of, what are its constituent elements, and are they all harmonious? If they are, the result is beautiful. If there are contradictions and clashes, the result is marred or positively ugly.

For instance, the simplest example would be a human face. You know what features belong in a human face. Well, if the face is lopsided, [with a] very indefinite jawline, very small eyes, beautiful mouth, and a long nose, you would have to say that’s not a beautiful face. But if all these features are harmoniously integrated, if they all fit your view of the importance of all these features on a human face, then that face is beautiful.

In this respect, a good example would be the beauty of different races of people. For instance, the black face, or an Oriental face, is built on a different standard, and therefore what would be beautiful on a white face will not be beautiful for them (or vice-versa), because there is a certain racial standard of features by which you judge which features, which face, in that classification is harmonious or distorted.

That’s in regard to human beauty. In regard to a sunset, for instance, or a landscape, you will regard it as beautiful if all the colors complement each other, or go well together, or are dramatic together. And you will call it ugly if it is a bad rainy afternoon, and the sky isn’t exactly pink nor exactly gray, but sort of “modern.”

Now since this is an objective definition of beauty, there of course can be universal standards of beauty—provided you define the terms of what objects you are going to classify as beautiful and what you take as the ideal harmonious relationship of the elements of that particular object. To say, “It’s in the eyes of the beholder”—that, of course, would be pure subjectivism, if taken literally. It isn’t [a matter of] what you, for unknown reasons, decide to regard as beautiful. It is true, of course, that if there were no valuers, then nothing could be valued as beautiful or ugly, because values are created by the observing consciousness—but they are created by a standard based on reality. So here the issue is: values, including beauty, have to be judged as objective, not subjective or intrinsic.

Whatsisface on beauty: (seems to mostly agree with Diana Hsieh)

Health is a condition of perfect development, a state of wholeness and harmonious development and growth and adaptation of part to part, of organ to organ within the organism, with no part stunted and no part in excess. In this state of organic development lies the perfection and symmetry of beauty. Beauty is but the reflection of wholeness, of health. It is easy to demonstrate that the forms and proportions of man and of every animal and plant, which are in their highest and most perfect state, are also the most beautiful.

---

When every bone is of the best form and size for its service in the total organism, there is perfect proportion; when every muscle is fully and proportionately developed, with just enough fat in the cellular tissues to round out the muscles, we have the highest beauty of form. When the texture of the skin is finest and the circulation of the blood most vigorous, the body well nourished and freed of all waste, there is the glow and charm of the finest complexion. The highest beauty is the expression of the highest health.

---

Partial beauty, fading beauty, decaying beauty--these are but expressions of partial, fading or decaying health. They represent unsatisfactory and painful states of existence. Beauty belongs to glowing health and perfection of organization. It is impossible for us to separate these ideals. We cannot picture health in terms of the conventional, for contemporary man is far short of this wholeness of organization and vigor of function that is health.

---

Disease is the result of any impairment of the normal functions. It hinders development, mars beauty, impairs vigor and destroys happiness. It is characterized by indolence, weakness, pain and misery, and brings a wretched life to a premature and painful end.

---

Lasker on beauty:

Lasker devoted a whole chapter to the The Aesthetic Effect in Chess.

[Jonathan]

Beauty is but the reflection of wholeness, of health.

What about the beauty of non-living entities: rock formations, still lifes of inanimate objects, landscapes, vases, wallpaper patterns, etc.? Attempting to equate beauty with health and fitness (or any other function) doesn't work.

It is easy to demonstrate that the forms and proportions of man and of every animal and plant, which are in their highest and most perfect state, are also the most beautiful.

It's also easy to demonstrate the opposite: many individuals who are at their highest and most perfect state of health and fitness are hideously ugly. Attempting to equate beauty with health and fitness is an approach to aesthetics frequently used by people who have no knowledge of the history of aesthetics and very little serious interest in the subject.

J

[william.scherk]

Jonathan, you have witnessed a kind of catechism delivered via Jerry: Ayn Rand says thus. Hsieh says thus. Dr Shelton says thus.

All the thus is just that -- thus spake so and so. No evidence given, no counter-evidence considered. Thus ... you have catechism class with Jerry Story featuring all he needs to know about beauty.

Jerry will not be returning to discuss beauty with you, Jonathan. The subject is closed. The catechism is clear and succinct: beauty is what Hsieh, Rand and Shelton say it is; Jerry is merely passing along the dicta.

[jts]

Jonathan, you have witnessed a kind of catechism delivered via Jerry: Ayn Rand says thus. Hsieh says thus. Dr Shelton says thus.

All the thus is just that -- thus spake so and so. No evidence given, no counter-evidence considered. Thus ... you have catechism class with Jerry Story featuring all he needs to know about beauty.

Jerry will not be returning to discuss beauty with you, Jonathan. The subject is closed. The catechism is clear and succinct: beauty is what Hsieh, Rand and Shelton say it is; Jerry is merely passing along the dicta.

If I had quoted Lasker one beauty, there would be a contradiction with Shelton. What would you do with that? The only reason why I did not quote Lasker on beauty is I couldn't find that chapter on Google.

You make false assumptions about me.

[jts]

Beauty is but the reflection of wholeness, of health.

What about the beauty of non-living entities: rock formations, still lifes of inanimate objects, landscapes, vases, wallpaper patterns, etc.? Attempting to equate beauty with health and fitness (or any other function) doesn't work.

There are different kinds of beauty. Beautiful body, beautiful landscape, beautiful melody, beautiful geometry (eg. the golden mean), beautiful architecture, beautiful game of chess, beautiful story, etc. etc. etc.

The question is: what is common to all these that makes them beautiful?

The beauty of living things seems to be often related to wholeness and health. The beauty of the golden mean is something mathematical. The beauty of music seems often mathematical but perhaps also involves physiology and maybe psychology. Beauty in chess, according to one theory, involves the impression that a mind is animating the chessmen, maybe mind over matter. What is common to all? I don't have a theory on that. Neither does wiki. Do you?

[jts]

It is easy to demonstrate that the forms and proportions of man and of every animal and plant, which are in their highest and most perfect state, are also the most beautiful.

It's also easy to demonstrate the opposite: many individuals who are at their highest and most perfect state of health and fitness are hideously ugly. Attempting to equate beauty with health and fitness is an approach to aesthetics frequently used by people who have no knowledge of the history of aesthetics and very little serious interest in the subject.

J

If it is easy to demonstrate the opposite, perhaps you would like to demonstrate it, perhaps with pictures.

I can imagine a person with health and fitness who is horribly disfigured by acid thrown in the face. But the source of the ugliness is not the health and fitness.

Can you show a picture or 2 of a person who is at his/her 'highest and most perfect state of health and fitness' and is 'hideously ugly' and the ugliness is related to the health and fitness?

There may also be instinct or physiology involved. For example most people probably would not see a healthy and fit spider as beautiful, at least not up close.

[Jonathan]

.If it is easy to demonstrate the opposite, perhaps you would like to demonstrate it, perhaps with pictures.

Do a Google image search for topics like "ugly athletes," "East German female athletes," "Soviet shot put," and "Martina Navratilova no makeup," and you'll see examples of people who are ugly despite being perfectly fit and healthy.

J

[jts]

.If it is easy to demonstrate the opposite, perhaps you would like to demonstrate it, perhaps with pictures.

Do a Google image search for topics like "ugly athletes," "East German female athletes," "Soviet shot put," and "Martina Navratilova no makeup," and you'll see examples of people who are ugly despite being perfectly fit and healthy.

J

I looked at some 'ugly' athletes. Not convincing.

"Martina Navratilova no makeup" is not ugly.

Very few are ugly. And those who might be considered ugly are so for reasons other than good health and fitness.

Leon Spinks, missing teeth; Bastion Booger, grotesque body shape; Butterbean, obesity; Andre the Giant, abnormal body shape: these are not examples of ugliness due to health and fitness. All these examples are due to a defect, which might exist while being in other ways healthy and fit.

Missing teeth, misplaced teeth, pimples, abnormal body shape, obesity are defects.

I doubt anyone is ugly because of health and fitness, not to be confused with in spite of health and fitness. If someone is ugly, I doubt it is health and fitness that makes them ugly.

[Jonathan]

I looked at some 'ugly' athletes. Not convincing.

"Martina Navratilova no makeup" is not ugly.

Very few are ugly. And those who might be considered ugly are so for reasons other than good health and fitness.

Those are your subjective opinions. Mine and others' opinions differ from yours.

Plus, you appear to be intent on redefining beauty so that the concept fits your desire to equate it with the concept of health and fitness. That's not the way that philosophy works. Inventing your own personal definitions and meanings and attempting to twist reality to fit your desired conclusions is silly.

I doubt anyone is ugly because of health and fitness, not to be confused with in spite of health and fitness. If someone is ugly, I doubt it is health and fitness that makes them ugly.

You appear to have confused yourself. No one has argued that health and fitness makes people ugly. Rather, my position has been that people can be ugly despite the fact that they are healthy and fit. The point being that health and fitness are not equal to beauty, nor are they necessary or sufficient for beauty. The fact that health and fitness may coincide with beauty is not reason to conclude that it is the basis of beauty.

J

[Guyau]

As an aside, good hearted I assure you, note that Heraclitus maintained “the most beautiful of apes is ugly compared to the human race” and that Plotinus and Augustine agreed. On the comparative beauty of Collie and human, the philosophers have been silent.

Neglect not also the radical view of Dolly Parton in Steel Magnolias: “There is no such thing as natural beauty.”