beauty

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Re: beauty

Postby MagsJ » Wed Nov 18, 2020 1:27 pm

iambiguous wrote:
obsrvr524 wrote:You should join the Ecmandu cult - only insult and disclaim what others say ("unless your wrong of course").
I'm sorry but, to the best of my knowledge, I don't have a "condition".

You are a human paternoster Iam.. circular, just like the machine.

“..a type of passenger lift that consists of a chain or conveyor belt of open compartments that move slowly in a loop up and down inside a building. As each car reaches the top (or bottom) of the loop. It shifts sideways before descending (or ascending).” ..Though I would say, that you have become less-so in recent weeks, and refer to your signature threads less-and-less. A move in the right (not circular) direction. ; )

A beautiful piece of engineering and a nice score to go with, no. : D

The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. - MagsJ
I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something at some point in time.. Huh! - MagsJ
You’re suggestions and I, just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a really bad DJ - MagsJ
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek
 
Posts: 20864
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka / LDN Town

Re: beauty

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Wed Nov 18, 2020 2:04 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:He appears to be promoting (not necessarily intentionally) the leftist idea that one should not use one's feelings of beauty to make important decisions such as who to employ, who to marry, who to be friends with and so on.
So, how would you use beauty as a criteria regarding employment and friends? I'd be interested in other what other non-romance/procreative activities you use the beauty of a person to make decisions. How much weight do you give this criterion. How does it play out?
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3403
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: beauty

Postby Peter Kropotkin » Wed Nov 18, 2020 4:06 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Magnus Anderson wrote:He appears to be promoting (not necessarily intentionally) the leftist idea that one should not use one's feelings of beauty to make important decisions such as who to employ, who to marry, who to be friends with and so on.
So, how would you use beauty as a criteria regarding employment and friends? I'd be interested in other what other non-romance/procreative activities you use the beauty of a person to make decisions. How much weight do you give this criterion. How does it play out?



K: and we have a winner... how do we use beauty to inform all our other decisions?
and does the concept of beauty inform all our other decisions? should I let my concept
of what is beautiful inform my ongoing decisions about what is life, who are my friends,
what kind of job I should hold? the ancient Greeks did believe that what is "beautiful"
should inform all our other life decisions.... and why not?

Kropotkin
"Those who sacrifice liberty for security
wind up with neither."
"Ben Franklin"
Peter Kropotkin
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8598
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 1:47 am
Location: blue state

Re: beauty

Postby Ecmandu » Wed Nov 18, 2020 4:50 pm

You folks passed my small post over...

So I’ll explain this:

“Beauty is different for everyone, even two people who see the same beauty see it differently”

There are men and women (much more common in men) who see obesity (regardless of how you look) as the most beautiful attribute. There’s a whole sub culture for this. It’s not only a subculture for the weight, it’s also characterized by the obsession to do everything for the person because at a half ton, they can’t get out of bed. This is real stuff.

People who don’t understand my little quote there need to get out more.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11025
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: beauty

Postby phyllo » Wed Nov 18, 2020 5:08 pm

Peter Kropotkin wrote:
Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Magnus Anderson wrote:He appears to be promoting (not necessarily intentionally) the leftist idea that one should not use one's feelings of beauty to make important decisions such as who to employ, who to marry, who to be friends with and so on.
So, how would you use beauty as a criteria regarding employment and friends? I'd be interested in other what other non-romance/procreative activities you use the beauty of a person to make decisions. How much weight do you give this criterion. How does it play out?



K: and we have a winner... how do we use beauty to inform all our other decisions?
and does the concept of beauty inform all our other decisions? should I let my concept
of what is beautiful inform my ongoing decisions about what is life, who are my friends,
what kind of job I should hold? the ancient Greeks did believe that what is "beautiful"
should inform all our other life decisions.... and why not?

Kropotkin
Why not?

Because it can produce bad decisions.

For example, people find mammals beautiful. Therefore they are much more enthusiastic about preserving mammals rather than preserving "ugly" animals like reptiles or insects or arachnids or vultures, etc.
That produces a particular distortion in preservation/conservation. And that's not healthy for the biosphere.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12113
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: beauty

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Thu Nov 19, 2020 12:16 am

Peter Kropotkin wrote:
Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Magnus Anderson wrote:He appears to be promoting (not necessarily intentionally) the leftist idea that one should not use one's feelings of beauty to make important decisions such as who to employ, who to marry, who to be friends with and so on.
So, how would you use beauty as a criteria regarding employment and friends? I'd be interested in other what other non-romance/procreative activities you use the beauty of a person to make decisions. How much weight do you give this criterion. How does it play out?



K: and we have a winner... how do we use beauty to inform all our other decisions?
and does the concept of beauty inform all our other decisions? should I let my concept
of what is beautiful inform my ongoing decisions about what is life, who are my friends,
what kind of job I should hold? the ancient Greeks did believe that what is "beautiful"
should inform all our other life decisions.... and why not?

Kropotkin
One thing about us is things like beauty do affect our decisions, if not officially, then at unconscious levels. So, how do you see to it that it does not affect your decisions? (if that is goal of yours, it's a bit hard to get your position from what you write here) What makes you confident, if you are, that biases based on beauty are not affecting your decisions?
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3403
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: beauty

Postby Magnus Anderson » Thu Nov 19, 2020 3:10 am

phyllo wrote:You're going to hire someone who is beautiful rather than someone who is capable?

You're going to marry someone who is beautiful rather than someone who you enjoy being with?


I agree with you that we want to hire someone who's capable and marry someone who we enjoy being with. Where we seem to disagree is the idea that beauty can be used to these ends.

I don't think it's as simple as "We should only rely on beauty" and "We should never rely on beauty". It's more like "In certain situations, we should rely more on it; and in certain situations, we should rely less on it".

If you have 10 people in front of you and you know nothing about them except for how they look (because they are in front of you), how would you go about choosing who to initiate conversation with in order to get to know more about them? Would you throw a dice or would you use what information you have (how they look) to make the best possible guess you can? If there's a sufficiently strong correlation between how someone looks and the degree to which they possess desirable traits, wouldn't you, since it is only rational to do so, choose to base your decision on how they look?
"Let's keep the debate about poor people in the US specifically. It's the land of opportunity. So everyone has an opportunity. That means everyone can get money. So some people who don't have it just aren't using thier opportunities, and then out of those who are using them, then most squander what they gain through poor choices, which keeps them poor. It's no one else's fault. The end."

Mr. Reasonable
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4721
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: beauty

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Thu Nov 19, 2020 3:49 am

Magnus Anderson wrote:If you have 10 people in front of you and you know nothing about them except for how they look (because they are in front of you), how would you go about choosing who to initiate conversation with in order to get to know more about them? Would you throw a dice or would you use what information you have (how they look) to make the best possible guess you can? If there's a sufficiently strong correlation between how someone looks and the degree to which they possess desirable traits, wouldn't you, since it is only rational to do so, choose to base your decision on how they look?
But once you are hiring candidates for a job, you have cvs, the way they answer questions, references, etc. So how do you weigh in their beauty?

And I am not sure what situation, other than one where I was looking for love or sex, where I would go, consciously, for beautiful. What the person was wearing would have an effect, their facial expression (did they look like an asshole, beautiful or otherwise), how they look at other people, do they look smart or interesting? If I was in Spain, for example, and wanted some help getting advice or directions, I doubt beauty would play much of a role, me being married and in love with her. I can't see myself using beauty as a criteria in hiring, unless I ran a modeling agency.

And someone wearing fashionable brand clothing would probably put me off. Even if it was beautiful clothing. Not saying that prejudice is objective, but it works for me. I tend not to share values with those people. Those I am not closed to them. I'd go for someone with quirkier clothes or cleanly dressed but simply, say jeans and a t.shirt.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3403
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: beauty

Postby Magnus Anderson » Thu Nov 19, 2020 5:34 am

KT wrote:But once you are hiring candidates for a job, you have cvs, the way they answer questions, references, etc. So how do you weigh in their beauty?


I appreciate your question and I wholeheartedly agree it's an interesting one. But I'm afraid I can't answer it in as much detail as you perhaps wish. I seriously wish I could. (I have no experience hiring employees, not yet at least, and I didn't think enough about the subject to be able to dive into the details.)

Here's what I can say. Suppose you have two CV's that are completely identical in every regard except one: the photo of the candidate. Who would you pick? The more attractive one or the less attractive one? Why would you choose to ignore that detail? Is it not the point to use all of the information that you have in order to make the best possible decision that you can?

I suppose that we could take a CV, break it down into individual parts, assign each part how important it is (weight) and how good it is (quality), multiply the two values (weight times quality) and then add those numbers up to get the final of that CV. I cannot tell you the exact weight of CV photos (it's probably different for different jobs) but I can tell you that it is not zero or that it isn't as low as some insist it to be.

I will respond to the rest of your post (I have to pack now.)
"Let's keep the debate about poor people in the US specifically. It's the land of opportunity. So everyone has an opportunity. That means everyone can get money. So some people who don't have it just aren't using thier opportunities, and then out of those who are using them, then most squander what they gain through poor choices, which keeps them poor. It's no one else's fault. The end."

Mr. Reasonable
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4721
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: beauty

Postby iambiguous » Thu Nov 19, 2020 5:44 am

iambiguous wrote: If you honestly think the point I am making here is not on topic regarding a discussion of beauty, that in and of itself speaks volumes regarding the gap between us. This is precisely where I believe all discussions must end up once the intellectual contraptions, the definitions and the concepts are taken down out of the clouds. But, for some, it never goes beyond that. Why? Because "up there" everything can revolve around the meaning that you give to words defining and defending other words.


Magnus Anderson wrote: You are wrong about the bolded.


Ah, the Catch-22. You claim that I am wrong about bringing intellectual contraptions regarding beauty to bear on the beauty or lack thereof of a particular face, body or work of art. But you won't go there in order to substantiate the claim.

iambiguous wrote: You are also wrong when you say that what I said about beauty has nothing to do with reality.


Same thing. What particular reality? It would be like have a discussing about war, but first agreeing not to include references to any actual wars historically.

Magnus Anderson wrote: I am more than willing to discuss these things with you, but if you are not willing to do so, that's fine; but let it be known that it is you, and not me, who quit the discussion.


At my age, time becomes a rather precious commodity. It's a judgment call. Is there any possibility that I can bring you down out of the scholastic clouds? I have come to conclude that, no, there is almost no likelihood that you will abandon your precious [and pristine] definitions and concepts.

Farewell indeed. Though I do respect both your intelligence and your capacity to articulate it. So, sure, I'll take a look at your posts from time to time. You might actually note something that is closer to the way I pursue philosophy...given "I" interacting with others at the existential juncture that is identity, value judgments and political economy.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing?
iambiguous: a post from Pedro?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38466
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: beauty

Postby iambiguous » Thu Nov 19, 2020 5:51 am

Pedro I Rengel wrote:
Magnus Anderson wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Over and out.


Farewell.


:o

This victory will be remembered many years hence.


Trust me: Given some of your attempts to bring the tools of philosophy down out of the clouds, I would actually encourage you to stay up there.

Well, unless the discussion revolves around women and chess. Those really were rather insightful speculations.

What some call the exception that proves the rule. :wink:
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing?
iambiguous: a post from Pedro?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38466
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: beauty

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Thu Nov 19, 2020 5:53 am

Magnus Anderson wrote:Here's what I can say. Suppose you have two CV's that are completely identical in every regard except one: the photo of the candidate. Who would you pick? The more attractive one or the less attractive one? Why would you choose to ignore that detail?

I would likely go for the one that I felt I liked more personally. Now beauty might be an unconscious bias on my part, though vastly more likely to affect me if the candidates are women. e point And that bias might work the other way with male candidates, me having an unconscious bias to want to not be outshone by a man. Let's add to your scenario. I like the personalities of both candidates equally. I like their personalities equally. I And that bias might work the other way with male candidates, me having an unconscious bias to want to not be outshonhe sense we shared values (which I might get clues about through style) equally in both case. I think I would be more likely to pick the one that looked healthier. Now beauty and looking healthy do overlap. But if I had to choose between the person with the perfect balance of features and eyes and a not very attractive person who seemed healthier, I would go with the latter. Now let's equalize health, also. So, health, style, values and of course qualifications and personality (the vastly more important qualities for me) are all equal, might I choose the beautiful one. I might.

Is it not thto use all of the information that you have in order to make the best possible decision that you can?
Why is it better to have a beautiful carpenter? What information has that given me?

I suppose that we could take a CV, break it down into individual parts, assign each part how important it is (weight) and how good it is (quality), multiply the two values (weight times quality) and then add those numbers up to get the final of that CV. I cannot tell you the exact weight of CV photos (it's probably different for different jobs) but I can tell you that it is not zero or that it isn't as low as some insist it to be.
I don't know how close to zero it would be for me. Or how that compares to most people. I think because there is an overlap with health and beauty it gives me some information, but I am not sure what other information it gives me. Could you explain that part?

I am also unsure when it comes to friends. interestingly my friend did eventually become good looking, for the most part. I had a group of male friends lasting from 10 up. But in those first years we were not good looking, except one guy. One was skinny, two were fat. Bad skin on a number. Faces that one would not have guessed would later be handsome. Of course this is all anecdotal, but I find it hard to imagine and by high school this was confirmed, I would have done better if I had used beauty as a criterion. One of us, not me, was very good looking, the rest not. We connected around quirky intelligence, I guess. Perhaps creativity and curiosity. Maybe a greater tendency to be open about the full range of emotions. I don't think it benefits children to look for beauty except to the extent that beauty, because of the way it is overprioritized, correlates often with power. We did not have much power socially in school. Though we had at least as much outside or in general because we actually knew eachother better and our parents likely knew each other better than other young males. Finding the people you really connect to seems to me to trump beauty to the point where it is near zero in friendship.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3403
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: beauty

Postby Magnus Anderson » Thu Nov 19, 2020 8:30 am

KT wrote:Why is it better to have a beautiful carpenter? What information has that given me?


There is a set of abilities necessary in order to do the job (such as those of a carpenter) and then there are ways to estimate the extent to which any given person possesses such abilities (such as physical appearance.) Physical appearance is one of the ways to ascertain how qualified someone is. It's not a sufficient way but it's nonetheless a way.

Insofar there's a correlation between physical appearance and a set of abilities necessary in order to do the job, judgment by physical appearance is better than judgment by chance (e.g. by throwing a dice.)

If beautiful carpenters are more likely, even if only slightly, to do a good job, then beautiful carpenters are a better choice. (It might be, say, because beautiful people in general are healthier, more resilient, more trustworthy and so on.)

In some cases, it might not be exactly beauty that drives decisions but certain physical traits that are correlated with those abilities that are deemed necessary.

I would likely go for the one that I felt I liked more personally.


Right. But how would you feel who you like more if not based on how they look (given that the information you have about them is otherwise the same)? It would either be a random choice or a choice based on how they look. (And of course, if it is a choice based on how they look, it not need be based on how beautiful they are. This perhaps brings us to the idea of "different kinds of beauty" in the same way there are "different kinds of intelligence".)

I think I would be more likely to pick the one that looked healthier. Now beauty and looking healthy do overlap. But if I had to choose between the person with the perfect balance of features and eyes and a not very attractive person who seemed healthier, I would go with the latter. Now let's equalize health, also. So, health, style, values and of course qualifications and personality (the vastly more important qualities for me) are all equal, might I choose the beautiful one. I might.


There you go :D
"Let's keep the debate about poor people in the US specifically. It's the land of opportunity. So everyone has an opportunity. That means everyone can get money. So some people who don't have it just aren't using thier opportunities, and then out of those who are using them, then most squander what they gain through poor choices, which keeps them poor. It's no one else's fault. The end."

Mr. Reasonable
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4721
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: beauty

Postby Magnus Anderson » Thu Nov 19, 2020 8:34 am

Magnus wrote:You are wrong about the bolded.


iambiguous wrote:Ah, the Catch-22. You claim that I am wrong about bringing intellectual contraptions regarding beauty to bear on the beauty or lack thereof of a particular face, body or work of art. But you won't go there in order to substantiate the claim.


My claim is that you're wrong when you say that "this is precisely where [..] all discussions must end up".

This thread does not and should not go "there" where by "there" you mean "discussing whether some particular person is truly beautiful or not" because it's outside of its scope.

My claim is NOT that this or that person is or is not truly beautiful. I never made such a claim, so it makes no sense to ask me to substantiate it. How can someone substantiate a claim they never made?

Magnus wrote:You are also wrong when you say that what I said about beauty has nothing to do with reality.


iambiguous wrote:Same thing. What particular reality? It would be like have a discussing about war, but first agreeing not to include references to any actual wars historically.


"What particular reality?" is a meaningless question because there is only one reality; there are no multiple realities.

But perhaps what you're trying to ask here is "What portion of reality are you talking about, Magnus?"

The portion of reality I am talking about is the concept that is commonly associated with the word "beauty". That portion of reality IS the subject of this thread. (Not those OTHER portions of reality you want to talk about.)

Yes, it is an abstract concept unlike more concrete ones such as that of a particular person having particular feelings; but that does not mean it's a useless one. More importantly, it's precisely what this topic is about.

iambiguous wrote:Is there any possibility that I can bring you down out of the scholastic clouds?


A much better approach would be to ask me "Hey Magnus, can you do something for me?" Then I could ask, "Sure, what can I do for you?" And then you could ask "Can you prove to me that some particular person of your choice is either truly beautiful or truly ugly?" That would be a nice way to approach another person. And no, I can't do that :)

iambiguous wrote:I have come to conclude that, no, there is almost no likelihood that you will abandon your precious [and pristine] definitions and concepts.


I already told you that I cannot do what you're asking me to do.

And why should I abandon my definitions?

Why do you hate my definitions? What did they do to you?

iambiguous wrote:Farewell indeed. Though I do respect both your intelligence and your capacity to articulate it. So, sure, I'll take a look at your posts from time to time. You might actually note something that is closer to the way I pursue philosophy...given "I" interacting with others at the existential juncture that is identity, value judgments and political economy.


You might be a thread hijacker but I wish you to live another 100 years so that you can once and for all resolve your dasein dilemma.

Farewell, my friend.
"Let's keep the debate about poor people in the US specifically. It's the land of opportunity. So everyone has an opportunity. That means everyone can get money. So some people who don't have it just aren't using thier opportunities, and then out of those who are using them, then most squander what they gain through poor choices, which keeps them poor. It's no one else's fault. The end."

Mr. Reasonable
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4721
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: beauty

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Thu Nov 19, 2020 9:51 am

Magnus Anderson wrote:There is a set of abilities necessary in order to do the job (such as those of a carpenter) and then there are ways to estimate the extent to which any given person possesses such abilities (such as physical appearance.) Physical appearance is one of the ways to ascertain how qualified someone is. It's not a sufficient way but it's nonetheless a way.
Physical appearance is different from beauty. If they are dirty, look very weak (and this is carpentry building houses, say) I would include these in criteria. But not really 'beauty'. IOW I could have a fit looking, neat, ugly person and easily choose them over a beautiful person who did not seem strong. Again all other things being utterly equal, if I actually could decide that, it is possible I would choose the more attractive person instead of a coin flip.

If beautiful carpenters are more likely, even if only slightly, to do a good job, then beautiful carpenters are a better choice. (It might be, say, because beautiful people in general are healthier, more resilient, more trustworthy and so on.)
I don't think beautiful people are more trustworthy. They often get by on less. Attractive women often feel entitled and attractive men have been catching up on that also. Precisely because people overvalue beauty and weigh in beauty when I think it plays no role, I think this often ends up doing quite the opposite to their personalities. And this isn't jealousy, I'm considered very attractive in general.

In some cases, it might not be exactly beauty that drives decisions but certain physical traits that are correlated with those abilities that are deemed necessary.
yes, that seems more likely.

I would likely go for the one that I felt I liked more personally.


Right. But how would you feel who you like more if not based on how they look (given that the information you have about them is otherwise the same)?

I think I said but I can come at it different way. Uniqueness (just not negative uniqueness), is their smile real or fake (includes the eyes or not), what they wear (and it's not the money involved but rather certain fashion styles correlate with cultural attitudes), do their eyes have depth, and then physical attributes that might have to do with the job.

It would either be a random choice or a choice based on how they look. (And of course, if it is a choice based on how they look, it not need be based on how beautiful they are. This perhaps brings us to the idea of "different kinds of beauty" in the same way there are "different kinds of intelligence".)
Yes.

I think I would be more likely to pick the one that looked healthier. Now beauty and looking healthy do overlap. But if I had to choose between the person with the perfect balance of features and eyes and a not very attractive person who seemed healthier, I would go with the latter. Now let's equalize health, also. So, health, style, values and of course qualifications and personality (the vastly more important qualities for me) are all equal, might I choose the beautiful one. I might.


There you go :D
Sure, I am not saying it is not a factor at all, but I think it is very low. It would be a statistical anomaly, where I had two exact candidates for a job except for beauty. And as far as friends, I really don't think such a situation would ever arise, since I don't have to choose between friends. And over time personality and other factors would either keep both or cut one or cut both.

So, I am not completely disagreeing, but it seems to me the weight of beauty is extremely minimal for me except in romance/sex. It does overlap with fitness and health, but it's an overlap. And those words I would be much more likely to use since they better represent the set of qualities that matter to me with friends and colleagues.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3403
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: beauty

Postby Ecmandu » Thu Nov 19, 2020 4:56 pm

Magnus,

The phrase is as old as time: inner beauty.

Preferably someone wants inner and outer beauty (from their perspective). But woe to the person who only seeks outer beauty.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11025
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Previous

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users