Beautiful and Ugly

Women like broad shoulders and broad hips. Broad hips = more leg muscles.

The correlation stems from them not dating men who have small shoulders, since most of them give the weakling vibe and they don’t take them seriously.

Now are men really attracted to small shoulders or just wide hips.
Men are really just attracted to wide hips, they don’t care what shoulder size a woman has.

Symmetry is not the sole factor on which beauty is based.

Example: sunsets, the clouds reflecting the sun-light, are often lacking symmetry.

The sublime. It doesn’t necessarily facilitate survival either; finding sunsets beautiful is not essential, but it def. can be conducive.

Why so unkind?

No, because it is also true that beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. So beauty has a subjective side too. Of course, I never said that symmetry was the sole, the only aspect of beauty. But symmetry is nevertheless a relevant aspect of beauty.

Because they know how the face looks like when it is not covered. And they want to make others curious. Do you not think that there is some psychology behind it?

Nobody here said that symmetry was the sole factor on which beauty is based. But that does not automatically mean that symmetry has nothing to do with beauty.

For example: Baroque gardens are full of symmetry, and that is the reason why some people do not like them as much as other gardens. But there are people too who like baroque gardens. And they have good reasons for liking baroque gardens. The aspect that beauty is in the eyes of the beholder is relevant too.

You’re right; nobody here said that. But I was just making a point, because people often site symmetry as the definition of what is beautiful.

One point to be added is whatever is triggered within the beauty algorithm in the brain must ultimately be linked to the pleasure circuit [or algorithm] which generate different types, shades and degrees of pleasure that emote behaviors.

I believe this pleasure algorithm is a significant player in the final decision of what determines ‘beauty’ at the normal conscious level. This is what determine what we called beauty is in the ‘eye’ of the beholder.
For example if there is deviation from norm, that person may sense beauty from what the majority would perceive as ugly, disgusting, evil, etc. There are many such perverts at the fringes.

If pleasure ultimately determines what is beauty, then how did some people see/perceive beauty/pleasure in pain-expressions or self-torture.
My hypothesis is there a ricochet effect that hit the pleasure circuit eventually.

For example, in general what trigger pains is deemed to be ugly, but in some exceptional cases, certain fringe triggers and activations ricochet and hit the pleasure circuit eventually thus triggering a strong enough ending ‘beauty’ effect and perception. In this case, the abnormal perceive what is supposed to be ugly to the normal person, as some thing ‘beautiful’.
One classic example of this are those into hanging their body by hooks and swinging or various pain-inducing and masochistic practices. In this case, the body naturally produce endorphins, the feel good neurochemicals to minimize the pain. If the endorphin levels are strong enough to surpass the pain threshold then one will get a sense of ‘high.’

Beauty and ugly is not science.

I think that the superiority of ugliness over beauty depends on how the observer defines that standard. For me longevity does not convey superiority on anything…but that’s me. To me beauty is tied to rarity. Our experience of beauty, in my opinion, is tied with our unfamiliarity with the object or experience.
Eddie Murphy in “Boomerang” was surrounded by beautiful women, and yet to him they were average because he had begun to judge them by their feet. The feet in themselves probably were not that exciting but he saw beauty in a set of feet that were unfamiliar to his experience.

Could we say that mystery is beautiful or at least attractive? Would it be the mystery itself which is attractive or the inspiration it gives us to be the mystery solver, or the expectation that the solution to the mystery is beautiful?

A different thought referring to the main subject of the thread: Romantic art often depicts scenes of grandeur, what is unfathomable or beyond the sole capability of the observer to create:

In connection with that thought is the idea of making a reality what did not exist before, particularly if it is an expression of grandeur. That potential to create inspires the imagination of others and causes them to set out into the world with their own plans and aims.

While I agree with this to a degree and can apply it to things like health appearing beautiful and the presence of disease repellent (eg. leprosy), I am having a more difficult time applying it to other things.

For example in architecture, a functional and utilitarian building appears less beautiful, or even ugly:

In comparison to one which contains a lot of ornamentation. There is nothing that I can think of in ornamentation that fundamentally aids survival. In some ways, because of the time and resources which must be directed into it, might even be detrimental to survival because excessive:

Rather ornaments often enough prevent man from deciding to tear a building down.
Ornaments required skilled craft, which is a high value.
People recognize this instinctively.
Ornaments, when well done, thus directly aid survival.

Paradoxically, what doesn’t dare to be fragile at least in part has little chance in this world.

Please read to the end because I made some developments in my considerations as I went along.

I still don’t understand:

Do you mean that because people instinctively recognize that ornaments require skill to produce, they value them? I can see that the quality of having skill could be used to aid survival, but not how that would mean that the ornaments themselves aid survival. Skill, if we think about things like dexterity and delicacy, might be used for something which doesn’t aid survival or even endangers survival or to create something repelling.

I may have partly come a step further in my ponderings.

The original post asked why does beauty exist. Prismatic said to facilitate survival.

Beauty exists to facilitate survival.
Ornaments are beautiful.
Ornaments exist to facilitate survival.

Are we saying that ornaments facilitate survival because they are beautiful?

I guess then the question (in general, not to anyone in particular) is rather, why does beauty facilitate survival? If it is because we see, instinctively, patterns or qualities that would aid our survival, might then recognizing the patterns and qualities in things which don’t directly aid our survival ultimately hinder it by putting resources into obtaining and protecting those things which aren’t directly beneficial to survival?

I am adding a few more thoughts that I had here. I think I might have understood it. Water helps facilitate survival but it can also be detrimental if one drink’s too much at once, and in the same way beauty can facilitate survival by making someone want to continue living, but over-indulging in it or seeking it when other, more pressing things need to be done, can be detrimental.

That could answer the question of why beauty exists or at least why we continue to propagate beauty. To be clear though we aren’t saying that things are necessarily beautiful because they facilitate survival (that the facilitating survival is what makes them beautiful) are we? In that case I might still not understand.

Also something weird I thought of because of the above consideration. If we care for beauty because it makes us want to live, does that mean that the attraction to beauty can arise from a feeling of weakness, because we need it to want to continue living?

Those are some more thoughts I had on the subject.

External beauty … beauty that is perceived by our senses … is a mirror reflection of “inner beauty” … though sometimes difficult to differentiate. For example, a gorgeous woman may protect her facade until she opens her mouth.

All human behavior is based upon the perception of hope and threat, PHT. What is perceived as beauty by any one individual (human or not) is partially innate, genetics and also learned associations. Beauty entails a great many subtle factors, individually assessed, such as symmetry, color, shape, relative size, strength, health, prowess, intelligence, orderliness, manliness, softness,… All perceived associations combine to sum up to a perception (whether accurate or not) of the balance of hope and threat.

Thus literally every individual will have differing tastes and assessing the beauty of each thing differently. But despite the differences, there are many things that tend to be far more commonly perceived as either hope or threat than others. Such attributes are not truly universal, but merely far more common. Attributes associated with health tend to be one of those very common perceptions of hope. No doubt such is due to evolutionary influences and exist in all creatures. Attributes perceived as associated with ill health tend to be perceived as threat by all creatures. But there are other common attributes as well.

Beauty and the ugly, the beast within, are at times totally closed off, separated by a membrane of infinitely subtle durability, porously impenetrable not by design, but by the increasingly reflecting cavern in which it resides, fearful of breaking into the light, of reason destined to call back
back again.

This is the darkness from whence no light can shine through, it wants to borne again, to the degree it fears a prior mabifestation, with renewed earnest promise to remember that which was shut out, shut out by someone else but him,

This time please don’t call into the same trap, but which she again reach for that fruit of judgement for which Paris so calmly judged?

Such judgement rather, not be made for mixing the rhyme and reason.

[b]

[/b]

A priori assumptions stemming from common individual human experience(s).

An individual experience precedes a perception of threat … absence of an individual experience precedes perception of hope.

Words that are not confirmed by individual experience are as transient as a fart in a wind storm … a whiff may visit your nose but this transient whiff is no substitute for the taste, smell, feeling and sound of your own farts.

Individual experience(s) … not carefully and thoroughly examined … are like a precious gift that sits on the kitchen table unopened.
[b]

[/b]

Let me share one of this morning’s trivial experiences. After my routine internet surfing … felt like breakfast at KFC. As some of you know KFC is as closest to Western food available here … and it’s not exactly Western KFC.

I ordered my regular breakfast … 2 coffees and 2 bacon/egg hamburgers. The young girl explained to me … in Chinese of course … there is no coffee available. Suppose the disappointment on my face attracted the attention of another KFC employee … I’m probably their best customer. She tried to tell me there is no sugar and asked if I still wanted 2 coffees. I wasn’t exactly sure what she was talking about but I nodded my head up and down to indicate I will take what ever they have. Turns out to be two black coffees … I never use the KFC creamers.

So what’s the big deal?

I have drank more than 50,000 individual cups of coffee in my life and I don’t remember ever drinking a coffee without sugar. This morning I drank my first black coffee … it wasn’t so bad.

So what’s the big deal?

The experience … while not earth shattering … was unique. Suggests there is something significant/important in this experience.

My first thoughts were:

  1. You don’t always get what you want … what you ask for.

  2. Some bitter experience(s) is on the way.

After more light hearted contemplation the notion “unique” kept cropping up … my first black coffee. A harbinger? … something unique is on the way … be vigilant.

Who the hell knows eh! :slight_smile:

Most people would say … “Who the hell cares!” :slight_smile:

I do!

Word the speaker should seriously reflect upon (as in mirror).

There was absolutely zero “assumptions” involved in:

[b]

[/b]

Implicit assumptions or error(s) of omission … choose your poison. :slight_smile:

I ‘see’ threat and hope as tools to move us in the direction we are supposed to go.
[b]

[/b]

And why would “the Lord” be doing it, if it didn’t work?

It is an irrefutable fact, no omissions, no errors.

[b]

[/b]

What a delightful sense of humor! :slight_smile:

If A=B and B=C than A=C

[b]

[/b]

[b]

[/b]