It’s for reproduction purposes. Symmetry and large breasts for example are good indicators of someone who is probably healthy, and can sustain a child. There are many more examples.
do you make it your lot in life to shag unattractive women?
-Imp
If you want evidence then just ask yourself How, why, what, where, and when. Be brutally honest and you will have your emperical evidence.
Warning: Emperical evidence varies for each person. It may cause heart attacks, strokes and uncontrollable urges to gamble and have sex with the person next to you.
Look how you put me in a bind, not very brotherly of you Imp.
I’m an ugly male. 6’, roughly 200 lbs, gray hair, blue eyes and a large Sicilian nose, with a number of noticeable scars … I don’t exactly attract the “model” beauty type of female, regardless my proclivities towards that end.
I think I would likely fall into that “pity f***” category quite honestly.
That’s not empirical evidence, that is subjective conjecture.
Mas,
Your question is about a concept as subjective as any possible answer. “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” I think smears hit the key point. What is beauty is 95% social constructs. It may be that we are hardwired to recognize certain desirable attributes for many possible survival needs and that what seems to be a ‘universal’ appreciation of beauty is merely a by-product of that, but there are no studies that would allow a blanket statement about anything as subjective as what is beauty.
If you say it is beautiful, then it is - right along with the rest of humanity.
No, no, no … not the point tent man … it’s not what is beauty … that’s a moronic question …
Why the fixation? Why does the brain find greater significance with beauty than with ugly or horrid? Empirically speaking, what occurs in the brain that creates the platform for all the constructs? The brain itself seems to be in a want of beauty …
and here you answer your own question…
just remember that the world is what you make it…
-Imp
And you don’t trust yourself to be honest? Thats all empirical evidence for what you ask, is honest facts. Since the only evidence on any possible study would have to come from answers people choose to give. You are just cutting out the middle man and getting to the meat quicker. Answer honestly and you have your evidence. You don’t need 50 other people and a person with a dubious PHD to give you the evidence you seek.
I created absurdity? You sound as if you are arguing for quantum entanglement.
Although, my daughter is a beautiful human specimen, almost painfully, so in some obtuse sense, it could be said that I helped make beauty in the world.
You still aren’t giving me empirical support for why the brain fixates on beauty as highly significant. (I’m asking primarily because it is a known personal flaw.)
you have said you like the way certain women look. based on empirical data. you said you don’t like the way you look. based on empirical data. you said your daughter is beautiful. based on empirical data. for what? because of what? reproduction.
-Imp
Mas,
I question whether the brain has any particular center of excitation we could label beauty. It could well be a by-product of other more basic recognitions such as potential food, (sexual opportunity has already been mentioned), security, or other basic survival patterns. I would argue that beauty is strictly a social construct, and that the mind is excited by attraction-repellancy equally.
It finally comes down to dog philosophy: If I can’t eat it or f*** it, piss on it. That is the brain “platform”. I don’t think the brain cares about beauty or ugliness.
The world is absurd, you said the world is what I make of it, therefore you infer that my creation is absurdity.
WTF? When did you become a drippy romantic … Ewwwwwwwwww. Ima gonna hurl.
My perspective of my daughter’s beauty is not objective, or quantifiable, obviously then, also not empirical.
HELLO … empirical data regarding the minds necessity of fixating on beauty … ?
What am I not being clear about? Anything I hold is necessarily induced and therefore subjective, making it wholly non-empirical.
Apparently, no one can give what I asked for, nevermind.
If you think about the forms, and you consider them to be perfect and unattainable, then you decide that the necessities of perception dictate a pattern which translates into a form, then you see something which coresponds to that pattern then it is beautiful. People strive to overcome perception because it is incomplete. You can’t look at your own perceptual pattern because you have to use it to do so and thus there’s a problem of observation, You can however encounter something visually which mirrors what you can’t see about yourself, or about a universal, then you’ll become obsessed with it because it’s beautiful.
no, you are misunderstanding the term…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical
dictionary.reference.com/browse/empirical
-Imp
You infer the hell out of stuff, don’t be a fibber. If it is absurd, why not go further? Is there an extension beyond absurdity that by definition makes absurdity null and void? If not, it’s at least cerebral entertainment.
Man, promoting emesis, your sense of brotherhood is slipping. Oh hell no, you did not just say truth. Don’t give me that metaphysical balderdash, all truth is subjective, and non-existent outside the individual observer.
A thing “is”, an object “is” … “is” is all there is. Truth is a bogus supposition.
I think that weak definition is abuse. Data is always involved, except in the manner that sensory data is an inferred instance, unlike quantifiable processes or outcomes.
nothing weak about it. empirical evidence is sensed… nothing more… no objective, no quantifiable, simply sensed…
-Imp
Is my imagination a sense? What if I can’t smell, see, touch, taste or hear something, but it’s represented to me in my thoughts?
not empirically
-Imp