Happy Atheist Forum

I was recently drawn into a debate with a close Christian friend about the argument from beauty. I have no idea how to answer her questions.

Her position: Why are things in nature beautiful? Why do we find them attractive/why are they attractive, as though they were designed for our enjoyment? Is there a scientific reason for flowers and animals etc to be pretty?

Any advice or suggestions on how to respond will be awesomely appreciated ^_^ I get the feeling this can spill over into a philosophical debate quite easily but I'm looking specifically for any scientific evidence to back up my response.

I would really like to hear her exact argument

1 Things in nature are beautiful
.
.
.
N Therefore, God exists


Care to fill the in the gaps?

Quote from: "SSY"I would really like to hear her exact argument

1 Things in nature are beautiful
.
.
.
N Therefore, God exists


Care to fill the in the gaps?

It's unlikely to be a deductive argument - I suppose you could make one similar the moral argument such as (loosely)

P1: Objective beauty exists only if God exists
P2: Objective beauty exists
C: God exists

but P1 and P2 are not obviously true.

More likely she was using an "inference to the best explanation" - in which case we would need to decide what makes one explanation better than another.

Quote from: "SSY"I would really like to hear her exact argument

1 Things in nature are beautiful
.
.
.
N Therefore, God exists


Care to fill the in the gaps?

She's at work at the moment but I'll Skype her later and ask her to flesh it out a bit more.

I think her argument is very simply along the lines of: nature is beautiful for us, rather than nature appears beautiful to us. If nature wasn't designed to be aesthetically pleasing for us then why is it beautiful at all? What is the scientific reason for pretty flowers and brightly coloured birds and fish? It is as if the beauty was put there for our enjoyment.

*shrug* I'll update you on more details in a couple of hours. She's a very sweet, young, naive thinker so I'd be very surprised if her argument has more scope than that though. She actually said to me once that everything probably has a scientific explanation... but she's still a staunch Christian.  

Quote from: "kelltrill"I was recently drawn into a debate with a close Christian friend about the argument from beauty. I have no idea how to answer her questions.

Her position: Why are things in nature beautiful? Why do we find them attractive/why are they attractive, as though they were designed for our enjoyment? Is there a scientific reason for flowers and animals etc to be pretty?

Any advice or suggestions on how to respond will be awesomely appreciated ^_^ I get the feeling this can spill over into a philosophical debate quite easily but I'm looking specifically for any scientific evidence to back up my response.

Hi

Beauty is an abstract human construct, it does not exist anywhere but in our minds, a flower has no concept of beauty. So why do humans consider some things beautiful and others not? Symmetry is one key element in many things generally considered beautiful. The roots of this preference are probably evolutionary in that body symmetry is an important indicator of good genetic stock. However politically correct one is about it lop sided faces are not generally considered attractive. Objects that are analogues of sexual attraction are also often considered beautiful, statues can be beautiful as can paintings.

Ugly objects often carry implications of death, danger and disfigurement. Consider a Bumble Bee and a Wasp. Physically there is not a lot to choose between them yet many consider a Bumble Bee attractive with its little hairy coat while Wasp are often disliked.

Objects we consider beautiful are generally directly beneficial to us of resemble something beneficial. There is a lot more to this but I suspect that what we consider beautiful are now, or have been, evolutionarily advantageous to us or bear a resemblance close enough to prompt a miss-firing of enjoyment.

Quote from: "Tank"Beauty is an abstract human construct, it does not exist anywhere but in our minds,

Can you support that assertion?

Quote from: "Logikos"

Quote from: "SSY"I would really like to hear her exact argument

1 Things in nature are beautiful
.
.
.
N Therefore, God exists


Care to fill the in the gaps?

It's unlikely to be a deductive argument - I suppose you could make one similar the moral argument such as (loosely)

P1: Objective beauty exists only if God exists
P2: Objective beauty exists
C: God exists

but P1 and P2 are not obviously true.

More likely she was using an "inference to the best explanation" - in which case we would need to decide what makes one explanation better than another.

You are right, P1 is incredibly weak, and objective beauty is also, super sketchy.

I would say an explanation that posits the fewest unnecessary entities is better than one which posits many unnecessary entities that themselves require many explanations. (edit, along with predictive capacity)

For my money, I think Tank has it broadly right, if people found trees and grass ugly, living in a forest or grassland would probably suck.

 Although, it would certainly be difficult to isolate the the cultural element of finding things beautiful, I find forests beautiful (partly) because I live in a city, I would be willing to bet that a caveman would find even a drab 1970s office block pretty enchanting.

Quote from: "Logikos"

Quote from: "Tank"Beauty is an abstract human construct, it does not exist anywhere but in our minds,

Can you support that assertion?

I'll have a go! Do you accept human language is a symbolic mechanism?

Quote from: "Tank"I'll have a go! Do you accept human language is a symbolic mechanism?

Probably (depending on what you mean by symbolic mechanism), but that doesn't necessarily mean that I think language is only a symbolic mechanism.

There is as much ugliness and plainness in nature as there is beauty. Why are only some things beautiful? What makes one thing more beautiful than another? Why does a thing appear beautiful to one person and not another? Just some thoughts:

Quote from: "wiki"Judgments of aesthetic value rely on our ability to discriminate at a sensory level. Aesthetics examines our affective domain response to an object or phenomenon. Immanuel Kant, writing in 1790, observes of a man "If he says that canary wine is agreeable he is quite content if someone else corrects his terms and reminds him to say instead: It is agreeable to me," because "Everyone has his own (sense of) taste". The case of "beauty" is different from mere "agreeableness" because, "If he proclaims something to be beautiful, then he requires the same liking from others; he then judges not just for himself but for everyone, and speaks of beauty as if it were a property of things."

QuoteFor Kant "enjoyment" is the result when pleasure arises from sensation, but judging something to be "beautiful" has a third requirement: sensation must give rise to pleasure by engaging our capacities of reflective contemplation. Judgments of beauty are sensory, emotional and intellectual all at once.

QuoteThe contemporary view of beauty is not based on innate qualities, but rather on cultural specifics and individual interpretations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesthetics
 Emphasis added

Also:

Quote from: "wiki"Aesthetic relativism is the philosophical view that the judgement of beauty  is relative  to individuals, cultures, time periods and contexts, and that there are no universal criteria of beauty. For example, statuettes like the Venus of Willendorf or the women in the paintings of Rubens would have been considered ideal forms of beauty when painted, but today may be regarded as fat, while contemporary standards of beauty (such as those that feature on the covers of contemporary fashion magazines) may have been considered less than ideal in Rubens's time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesthetic_relativism

Quote from: "Logikos"

Quote from: "Tank"I'll have a go! Do you accept human language is a symbolic mechanism?

Probably (depending on what you mean by symbolic mechanism), but that doesn't necessarily mean that I think language is only a symbolic mechanism.

I understand. I'm not trying to trick you I'm just establishing a common frame of reference if we can.

My use of symbolic in this context would be that when we use the word Cat, written or spoken, it is simply a linguistic representation of a real object. The object referred to as a Cat could equally be referred to as kočka if one were Czech. So we have at least two different linguistic symbols for one particular type of object.

Now a Cat can have existance, I could be referring to a singular real Cat, it could be a beautiful cat. Now while the object has an existance the concept of beauty does not have a physical existance. One can't have a bottle of beauty, it is an intangible concept, it is also abstract. The beauty of the cat it a refined quality, an 'abstraction' of one aspect of the cat.  So to go back to my assertion:-

"Beauty is an abstract human construct, it does not exist anywhere but in our minds,"

Beauty has no physical existance.
It is a human idea.
It is abstract.

As beauty has no physical existance, it is a human idea and abstract, it can only exist in the human mind.

How does that sound?

Quote from: "Tank"My use of symbolic in this context would be that when we use the word Cat, written or spoken, it is simply a linguistic representation of a real object. The object referred to as a Cat could equally be referred to as kočka if one were Czech. So we have at least two different linguistic symbols for one particular type of object.

That's all fine and dandy to me.

QuoteNow a Cat can have existance, I could be referring to a singular real Cat, it could be a beautiful cat. Now while the object has an existance the concept of beauty does not have a physical existance. One can't have a bottle of beauty, it is an intangible concept, it is also abstract. The beauty of the cat it a refined quality, an 'abstraction' of one aspect of the cat.

By saying the "concept of beauty" aren't you implicitly assuming your result?  Concepts are by most definitions mind-dependent abstract objects.  What you need to show is that the referent of "beauty" is only a concept.

It might be helpful to run in tandem the same argument you make for beauty being a concept but replacing "beauty" with "quantity".  Quantity cannot be "bottled" - should we therefore conclude that quantity is a concept, and why?

I think those who use the beauty in nature as an argument for god are willfully ignoring all the ugliness of nature...the disease, the hunger, the killing, the disasters...things like this:

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fagreenliving.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F10%2F1a39656a9fnaked-mole-rat-teaser.jpg&hash=81e6c9514c18138b5201b8bf8ce7a926b7117a23)

I present to you the Naked Mole Rat as proof that there are ugly things in nature.

Quote from: "Whitney"I present to you the Naked Mole Rat as proof that there are ugly things in nature.

I don't think anyone has claimed that there aren't.

Quote from: "Whitney"I think those who use the beauty in nature as an argument for god are willfully ignoring all the ugliness of nature...the disease, the hunger, the killing, the disasters...things like this:

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fagreenliving.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F10%2F1a39656a9fnaked-mole-rat-teaser.jpg&hash=81e6c9514c18138b5201b8bf8ce7a926b7117a23)

I present to you the Naked Mole Rat as proof that there are ugly things in nature.

That's so cute!!! I saw some at Bristol zoo a couple of weeks ago and they were all warm and pink and little and... well... cute!

Quote from: "Logikos"

Quote from: "Tank"My use of symbolic in this context would be that when we use the word Cat, written or spoken, it is simply a linguistic representation of a real object. The object referred to as a Cat could equally be referred to as kočka if one were Czech. So we have at least two different linguistic symbols for one particular type of object.

That's all fine and dandy to me.

QuoteNow a Cat can have existance, I could be referring to a singular real Cat, it could be a beautiful cat. Now while the object has an existance the concept of beauty does not have a physical existance. One can't have a bottle of beauty, it is an intangible concept, it is also abstract. The beauty of the cat it a refined quality, an 'abstraction' of one aspect of the cat.

By saying the "concept of beauty" aren't you implicitly assuming your result?  Concepts are by most definitions mind-dependent abstract objects.  What you need to show is that the referent of "beauty" is only a concept.

It might be helpful to run in tandem the same argument you make for beauty being a concept but replacing "beauty" with "quantity".  Quantity cannot be "bottled" - should we therefore conclude that quantity is a concept, and why?

Dumb question time. If beauty were not a concept what would/could it be?

Quote from: "Tank"Dumb question time. If beauty were not a concept what would/could it be?

A property (characteristic, attribute) of objects seems a worthy candidate.

Quote from: "Logikos"

Quote from: "Tank"Dumb question time. If beauty were not a concept what would/could it be?

A property (characteristic, attribute) of objects seems a worthy candidate.

Playing around with this. A property could be objectively measurable, in the sense of mass, which would be analogous the timing a sprinter. An ice dance could be measured for the property of 'artistic interpretation' which is a much more (totally?) subjective measure.

So I'm still feeling that beauty is a subjective measure and as such exists only in the mind of the observer.

How about this. Could an item be considered beautiful before it has been observed? I don't think it could. Putting aside the idea that all roses are beautiful therefore an unobserved rose is still beautiful. I think that an object could not be deemed beautiful if nobody has seen it and classified it as such. I would contend any definition of beauty has to be an external judgement (of the object) made by a sentient creature with an aesthetic sense (whatever that is).

Quote from: "Whitney"I think those who use the beauty in nature as an argument for god are willfully ignoring all the ugliness of nature...the disease, the hunger, the killing, the disasters...things like this:

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fagreenliving.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F10%2F1a39656a9fnaked-mole-rat-teaser.jpg&hash=81e6c9514c18138b5201b8bf8ce7a926b7117a23)

I present to you the Naked Mole Rat as proof that there are ugly things in nature.

On another forum, related to Oregon State Sports, my handle is NakedMoleRat. I got the nickname when I had my had shaved. A guy that my parents tailgate with said my head looked like a NakeMoleRat and it stuck.

Ha!

Hismikeness

Quote from: "Tank"Playing around with this. A property could be objectively measurable, in the sense of mass, which would be analogous [to] timing a sprinter. An ice dance could be measured for the property of 'artistic interpretation' which is a much more (totally?) subjective measure.

Is objectivity somehow connected to measurability?  I can't see any reason to think so.  I also can't see any reason why beauty couldn't have a objective measure, and there doesn't seem any reason to think that all measures have to be one-dimensional like mass or time either (eg. the property of being a complex number, where we can consider real and imaginary components).  So measurability seems a bit of a red herring to me (as does equating the beauty of an ice dance with artistry).

QuoteSo I'm still feeling that beauty is a subjective measure and as such exists only in the mind of the observer.

I feel that the government owe me a golden toothbrush for my stellar oral hygiene, but, alas, I fear that said toothbrush is not forthcoming.

QuoteHow about this. Could an item be considered beautiful before it has been observed? I don't think it could. Putting aside the idea that all roses are beautiful therefore an unobserved rose is still beautiful. I think that an object could not be deemed beautiful if nobody has seen it and classified it as such. I would contend any definition of beauty has to be an external judgement (of the object) made by a sentient creature with an aesthetic sense (whatever that is).

If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound?

Quote from: "Logikos"

Quote from: "Tank"Playing around with this. A property could be objectively measurable, in the sense of mass, which would be analogous [to] timing a sprinter. An ice dance could be measured for the property of 'artistic interpretation' which is a much more (totally?) subjective measure.

Is objectivity somehow connected to measurability?  I can't see any reason to think so.  

Objectivity is very much connected to measurability. A pair of scales has no mind and therefore while doing what is designed to do it is behaving in an objective manner.

Quote from: "Logikos"I also can't see any reason why beauty couldn't have a objective measure,

Fair enough. Explain the unit of measure (the Bute?) and how the instrumentality you would use to do the measurement would carry out the measurement.

Quote from: "Logikos"and there doesn't seem any reason to think that all measures have to be one-dimensional like mass or time either (eg. the property of being a complex number, where we can consider real and imaginary components).

Quite right. So please explain the multi dimensional metric you would use to objectively measure the aforementioned Bute.

 

Quote from: "Logikos"So measurability seems a bit of a red herring to me (as does equating the beauty of an ice dance with artistry).

Measurability is rather important as if you can't objectively measure something it does not exist as a physical entity or force. Love is a feeling, it is has no existance outside a mind. If measurement is subjective (as in the ice dance) then what is being measured only exists in the mind of the observer.

Quote from: "Logikos"

QuoteSo I'm still feeling that beauty is a subjective measure and as such exists only in the mind of the observer.

I feel that the government owe me a golden toothbrush for my stellar oral hygiene, but, alas, I fear that said toothbrush is not forthcoming.

That didn't really address my point.

Quote from: "Logikos"

QuoteHow about this. Could an item be considered beautiful before it has been observed? I don't think it could. Putting aside the idea that all roses are beautiful therefore an unobserved rose is still beautiful. I think that an object could not be deemed beautiful if nobody has seen it and classified it as such. I would contend any definition of beauty has to be an external judgement (of the object) made by a sentient creature with an aesthetic sense (whatever that is).

If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound?

Yes. The tree falling would still make the pressure waves that we interpret as sound. A microphone would detect the preasure waves. The physical effect would still be there. But as beauty can not be measured objectivly, only observed and subjectivly interpreted. A beautiful object that has never been observed would not be beautiful as it would not have effected the mind of an observer. The object has no intrisic beauty while a falling tree does have intrinsic energy (kinetic energy) transformed into preassure variations as it falls and hits the ground.

Quote from: "Logikos"Is objectivity somehow connected to measurability?  I can't see any reason to think so.

Can you think of a single objective property that cannot be measured, objectively, even in principle?

Quote from: "Tank"Objectivity is very much connected to measurability. A pair of scales has no mind and therefore while doing what is designed to do it is behaving in an objective manner.

Sure, measurability implies objectivity.  Is the converse true?  That seems dubious to me.  I am also doubtful whether "objective measurement" is possible at all - all measurement requires human input and interpretation of data.

QuoteFair enough. Explain the unit of measure (the Bute?) and how the instrumentality you would use to do the measurement would carry out the measurement.

Saying that "I don't see why it's not possible" does not mean "I can demonstrate that it is possible".  You asserted that it is not objectively measurable, and I doubted your assertion.

QuoteMeasurability is rather important as if you can't objectively measure something it does not exist as a physical entity or force. Love is a feeling, it is has no existance outside a mind. If measurement is subjective (as in the ice dance) then what is being measured only exists in the mind of the observer.

Seems like more assertions to me.  I see no reason to believe that objectivity implies objective measurability.

Quote

Quote from: "Logikos"

QuoteSo I'm still feeling that beauty is a subjective measure and as such exists only in the mind of the observer.

I feel that the government owe me a golden toothbrush for my stellar oral hygiene, but, alas, I fear that said toothbrush is not forthcoming.

That didn't really address my point.

My point was that you seemed to be basing your argument on a "feeling" that beauty is subjective.

QuoteYes. The tree falling would still make the pressure waves that we interpret as sound. A microphone would detect the preasure waves. The physical effect would still be there. But as beauty can not be measured objectivly, only observed and subjectivly interpreted. A beautiful object that has never been observed would not be beautiful as it would not have effected the mind of an observer. The object has no intrisic beauty while a falling tree does have intrinsic energy (kinetic energy) transformed into preassure variations as it falls and hits the ground.

OK: Tree makes sound - microphone records sound - human being listens to recording.
Why is that any different from: Flower is beautiful - camera captures beauty of flower - human being sees beauty of flower in photograph?
[I'm not being facetious (honest!) - I'd really like to know what it is about using the microphone that makes the measurement objective - it seems to me that it still depends on human interpretation of the data.]

Quote from: "SSY"Can you think of a single objective property that cannot be measured, objectively, even in principle?

The average accuracy of the set of all pieces of measuring equipment.

(EDIT: To be honest, I'm more interested in how you would go about working this out than whether this is a valid counterexample or not!)

Quote from: "Logikos"OK: Tree makes sound - microphone records sound - human being listens to recording.
Why is that any different from: Flower is beautiful - camera captures beauty of flower - human being sees beauty of flower in photograph?
[I'm not being facetious (honest!) - I'd really like to know what it is about using the microphone that makes the measurement objective - it seems to me that it still depends on human interpretation of the data.]

I think you're making a false comparison here.

We can say that sound is waves of energy, with which we can measure how loud a sound is, record sounds and the sound sounds the same to everyone with healthy ears when played back. What we can't measure is how enjoyable the sound would be to anyone.

What is beauty? How do we measure beauty? Is beauty the same for everyone with healthy eyes? What we can measure is how bright the image is, how much contrast it has, the focus and the amount of different colors.

Quote from: "Logikos"

Quote from: "SSY"Can you think of a single objective property that cannot be measured, objectively, even in principle?

The average accuracy of the set of all pieces of measuring equipment.

(EDIT: To be honest, I'm more interested in how you would go about working this out than whether this is a valid counterexample or not!)

All pieces of the measuring equipment or just those pieces that can affect the accuracy of the measurement?

Quote from: "Davin"I think you're making a false comparison here.

We can say that sound is waves of energy, with which we can measure how loud a sound is, record sounds and the sound sounds the same to everyone with healthy ears when played back. What we can't measure is how enjoyable the sound would be to anyone.

What is beauty? How do we measure beauty? Is beauty the same for everyone with healthy eyes? What we can measure is how bright the image is, how much contrast it has, the focus and the amount of different colors.

Why can't we say that if someone doesn't recognise the beauty of a flower (eg. the cherry blossom below) that they have a poorly functioning sense of beauty?

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegrowspot.com%2Fplant-pictures%2Fflowers%2Fcherry-blossom.jpg&hash=7976fbe344a7e3c58fcf68b4fc8c8ebccce8cb46)

Quote from: "Davin"All pieces of the measuring equipment or just those pieces that can affect the accuracy of the measurement?

I'm not sure I understand the relevance of the question?  

So because I would consider that picture pretty but not beautiful, I have a poorly functioning sense of beauty?  Why is it that you feel your opinion regarding what is beautiful and what isn't is more 'functional' than anyone else's?

Quote from: "Logikos"If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound?

http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=4583&p=60705&hilit=if+a+tree+falls#p60705

Quote from: "Logikos"

Quote from: "Davin"I think you're making a false comparison here.

We can say that sound is waves of energy, with which we can measure how loud a sound is, record sounds and the sound sounds the same to everyone with healthy ears when played back. What we can't measure is how enjoyable the sound would be to anyone.

What is beauty? How do we measure beauty? Is beauty the same for everyone with healthy eyes? What we can measure is how bright the image is, how much contrast it has, the focus and the amount of different colors.

Why can't we say that if someone doesn't recognise the beauty of a flower (eg. the cherry blossom below) that they have a poorly functioning sense of beauty?

[Some lame picture.]

How do you determine that someone has a poorly functioning sense of beauty? We can determine that some one has good or bad hearing when they can't hear in a certain range of decibels and frequencies. We can tell people have good or bad vision by testing it. We don't ask do you like the bottom row of 'E's? We see if they can tell which way the 'E's are facing. There are standards. What is are the standards for beauty?

Also, I really want these questions answered: What is beauty? How do we measure beauty? Is beauty the same for everyone with healthy eyes?

Quote from: "Logikos"I'm not sure I understand the relevance of the question?

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "SSY"Can you think of a single objective property that cannot be measured, objectively, even in principle?

Quote from: "Logikos"The average accuracy of the set of all pieces of measuring equipment.

(EDIT: To be honest, I'm more interested in how you would go about working this out than whether this is a valid counterexample or not!)

All pieces of the measuring equipment or just those pieces that can affect the accuracy of the measurement?

Maybe that will help.

Quote from: "pinkocommie"So because I would consider that picture pretty but not beautiful, I have a poorly functioning sense of beauty?  Why is it that you feel your opinion regarding what is beautiful and what isn't is more 'functional' than anyone else's?

I think we would have to have a deep discussion about the definitions of pretty and beautiful before I could go as far as to say that.  :D]

Quote from: "Logikos"OK: Tree makes sound - microphone records sound - human being listens to recording.
Why is that any different from: Flower is beautiful - camera captures beauty of flower - human being sees beauty of flower in photograph?
[I'm not being facetious (honest!) - I'd really like to know what it is about using the microphone that makes the measurement objective - it seems to me that it still depends on human interpretation of the data.]

Look at these flowers:

http://i163.photobucket.com/albums/t320 ... lowers.jpg (http://i163.photobucket.com/albums/t320/lilsleepygemini/Flowers.jpg)

Which flower is the most beautiful?

Which flower is the least beautiful?

Can you order the flowers in order of least beautiful to most beautiful?

If you ask 1 million girls who like flowers to order them from least to most beauty, will they produce consistent and accurate results?

Can you measure the beauty of these flowers?

If a boy wanted to know what flower to give to a girl to win her heart, would telling him to get any flower over 100 "Butes" make sense?

No, you could never do that.

Logikos, that is how we know beauty does not exist outside of one's mind. No one can agree on what is beautiful, most beautiful, least beautiful, not beautiful, etc. You can look at this world and see beauty, but that in no way makes this world beautiful.

Quote from: "Davin"How do you determine that someone has a poorly functioning sense of beauty? We can determine that some one has good or bad hearing when they can't hear in a certain range of decibels and frequencies. We can tell people have good or bad vision by testing it. We don't ask do you like the bottom row of 'E's? We see if they can tell which way the 'E's are facing. There are standards. What is are the standards for beauty?

I think we need to answer the questions below before we can try and do that (if it is possible...who knows?).

QuoteAlso, I really want these questions answered: What is beauty? How do we measure beauty? Is beauty the same for everyone with healthy eyes?

I think to start with we can say that beauty isn't restricted to visual beauty.  We have beautiful sounds, beautiful tastes and smells.  We have beautiful ideas, words, poems, stories.  What is it that unites these different things in their beauty?  I think it is certainly more than "these things make us feel nice inside" - there is something more to it than that.  But bugger me if I can nail it down to a definition.  I think it is very much like our intuitive understanding of goodness, which is equally impossible to define.  So I will have to go away and think about it quite hard and probably not come back with a very good answer.  Others probably have a better idea about what beauty is (even as a subjective value) than me...thoughts?

Quote from: "kelltrill"I was recently drawn into a debate with a close Christian friend about the argument from beauty. I have no idea how to answer her questions.

Her position: Why are things in nature beautiful? Why do we find them attractive/why are they attractive, as though they were designed for our enjoyment? Is there a scientific reason for flowers and animals etc to be pretty?

Any advice or suggestions on how to respond will be awesomely appreciated ^_^ I get the feeling this can spill over into a philosophical debate quite easily but I'm looking specifically for any scientific evidence to back up my response.

I think we should get back to the OP's question and stop hijacking this thread.

Quote from: "Ellainix"Look at these flowers:

http://i163.photobucket.com/albums/t320 ... lowers.jpg (http://i163.photobucket.com/albums/t320/lilsleepygemini/Flowers.jpg)

Which flower is the most beautiful?

Which flower is the least beautiful?

Can you order the flowers in order of least beautiful to most beautiful?

If you ask 1 million girls who like flowers to order them from least to most beauty, will they produce consistent and accurate results?

Can you measure the beauty of these flowers?

If a boy wanted to know what flower to give to a girl to win her heart, would telling him to get any flower over 100 "Butes" make sense?

No, you could never do that.

Logikos, that is how we know beauty does not exist outside of one's mind. No one can agree on what is beautiful, most beautiful, least beautiful, not beautiful, etc. You can look at this world and see beauty, but that in no way makes this world beautiful.

I think that a standard of objective beauty is going to have to be discrete - so objects are either beautiful or not beautiful, with no sliding scale.  I also think that beauty and "visual preference" are different things - with the latter being subjective by nature of it being a preference.  I think by any reasonable definition of beauty all those flowers would be beautiful - but the one the girl would personally prefer to look at is something the boy will have to work out himself.  

Quote from: "pinkocommie"I think we should get back to the OP's question and stop hijacking this thread.

Probably a good idea... apologies kelltrill.

Quote from: "Logikos"

Quote from: "pinkocommie"I think we should get back to the OP's question and stop hijacking this thread.

Probably a good idea... apologies kelltrill.

If you want to keep going with this, I'd just start a new thread in philosophy.  People seem interested in the conversation.

I really don't mind either way guys, but thanks for having my back, pinkocommie ^_^
If the nature of the answer to this question inevitably veers more towards the philosophical side then so be it, I'm just going to take a while to play catch up, that's all. Although if that's the case then perhaps it does deserve to be moved to the Philosophy section.

http://bit.ly/JkaR5; (http://bit.ly/JkaR5;) http://bit.ly/dnyCPX; (http://bit.ly/dnyCPX;) http://bit.ly/dagBdb (http://bit.ly/dagBdb)  Here are some interesting links I've been poring over today which relate to this discussion. I'm not overly opinionated on any of them, they're simply informative and interesting.

Oh, and if anyone was waiting with baited breath for my friend who initially posed this question to get back to me with a more succinct and methodical response, I'm afraid I haven't had a chance to broach the issue with her again. As soon as I know more though I'll be sure to update you.

Quote from: "Logikos"

Quote from: "pinkocommie"So because I would consider that picture pretty but not beautiful, I have a poorly functioning sense of beauty?  Why is it that you feel your opinion regarding what is beautiful and what isn't is more 'functional' than anyone else's?

I think we would have to have a deep discussion about the definitions of pretty and beautiful before I could go as far as to say that.  :D]

I must say I find the last comment here disappointing. If I'm wasting my time debating with you please tell me now.

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "Logikos"

Quote from: "pinkocommie"So because I would consider that picture pretty but not beautiful, I have a poorly functioning sense of beauty?  Why is it that you feel your opinion regarding what is beautiful and what isn't is more 'functional' than anyone else's?

I think we would have to have a deep discussion about the definitions of pretty and beautiful before I could go as far as to say that.  :D]

I must say I find the last comment here disappointing. If I'm wasting my time debating with you please tell me now.

If you are referring to my comment then perhaps I should clarify it a bit further, although I do not think it needs justification. When I said I had no strong opinion regarding the links I posted I was referring specifically to those links, and not to the argument as a whole, which I am obviously interested in since I started this debate in the first place.  
I have particularly enjoyed watching the debate develop between you and logikos, who appears to be your main sparring partner so far.

If you are referring to the last statement by logikos, I think it is more than appropriate for this debate. The key to a good debator is to explore all fields of the issue and probe possible weak spots. Sometimes it's necessary, whether you approve of arguing that way or not, simply to clarify and strengthen the debate. That's why logikos has been playing Devil's advocate. You are not wasting your time debating with anyone here, and I think everyone who has posted in this thread so far would agree.

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "Logikos"

Quote from: "pinkocommie"So because I would consider that picture pretty but not beautiful, I have a poorly functioning sense of beauty?  Why is it that you feel your opinion regarding what is beautiful and what isn't is more 'functional' than anyone else's?

I think we would have to have a deep discussion about the definitions of pretty and beautiful before I could go as far as to say that.  :D]

I must say I find the last comment here disappointing. If I'm wasting my time debating with you please tell me now.

Quote from: "kelltrill"If you are referring to my comment then perhaps I should clarify it a bit further, although I do not think it needs justification. When I said I had no strong opinion regarding the links I posted I was referring specifically to those links, and not to the argument as a whole, which I am obviously interested in since I started this debate in the first place.  
I have particularly enjoyed watching the debate develop between you and logikos, who appears to be your main sparring partner so far.

If you are referring to the last statement by logikos, I think it is more than appropriate for this debate. The key to a good debator is to explore all fields of the issue and probe possible weak spots. Sometimes it's necessary, whether you approve of arguing that way or not, simply to clarify and strengthen the debate. That's why logikos has been playing Devil's advocate. You are not wasting your time debating with anyone here, and I think everyone who has posted in this thread so far would agree.

Beg pardon for my lack of clarity. I was specifically referring to Logikos comment about playing devils advocate and specifically about making the announcement later rather than earlier. If somebody is going to play devils advocate I would prefer that they say so before doing it. Just a personal peccadillo.

Quote from: "Logikos"

Quote from: "pinkocommie"So because I would consider that picture pretty but not beautiful, I have a poorly functioning sense of beauty?  Why is it that you feel your opinion regarding what is beautiful and what isn't is more 'functional' than anyone else's?

I think we would have to have a deep discussion about the definitions of pretty and beautiful before I could go as far as to say that.  :D]

Wouldn't the need for a "deep discussion about the definitions of pretty and beautiful" be because beauty is subjective? If it wasn't we would all automaticly agree when something was pleasing to expierence.

Examples of the beauty of nature being subjective could be

To one man a random rock could be a dusty boring unremarkable stone but to a geologist it could be one of the most beautifull rocks he had ever seen with unusual stria and unique conduals and georgous crystalisation.

To many people flys are ugly, dirty, and disgusting. To an entomoligist it could be a rare beauty with jewel like carapace, gracefull flight and intriging mating rituals.

What about the beauty of a sun rise? A pilot could find beauty in a clear sky meaning wonderfull flying weather while a sailor could find a cloudy red sunrise a dark omen of foul weather to come.

What about plants to a horticulturist thier prize wining iris could be the finnest most beautiful colorlful, vibrant piece of perfection to someone else it could be "just another stupid flower"

Some people find little or nothing beautiful about nature prefering steal and glass and concrete as thier source for visual stimulation.

Beauty is subjective. This is a rather ancient wisdom or do you believe the saying "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" is a recent phrase? By that same token beauty in nature is subjective.


My 2 cents

Quote from: "Logikos"I think to start with we can say that beauty isn't restricted to visual beauty.  We have beautiful sounds, beautiful tastes and smells.  We have beautiful ideas, words, poems, stories.  What is it that unites these different things in their beauty?  I think it is certainly more than "these things make us feel nice inside" - there is something more to it than that.  But bugger me if I can nail it down to a definition.  I think it is very much like our intuitive understanding of goodness, which is equally impossible to define.  So I will have to go away and think about it quite hard and probably not come back with a very good answer.  Others probably have a better idea about what beauty is (even as a subjective value) than me...thoughts?

Yes, lots of thoughts. Beauty is subjective, the reason why I say it is, isn't just some kind of cop out. If I ask people passing by how many apples I'm holding, I would expect them to respond with the amount of apples I'm holding. However if I ask them how beautiful the apples are, I would expect various different responses because it's different to each person. Because the response will vary from person to person I don't see how it can be anything but subjective. I can say a person is wrong if they say three apples when I'm holding two apples, how can I say someone is wrong if they think the apples are beautiful or ugly? I don't think there is a way to determine someone is wrong or right for finding something attractive or unattractive. All I can say is I agree or disagree. Evidence right now points to beauty being a subjective value which is only important to the individual and there is no evidence at all that it can be objectively measured.

To say that there is an objective standard of beauty is to fool yourself:  take Renaissance projections of beauty vs today.  Are round women still considered beautiful by the masses; no!  Society even went through a crack whore phase where ultra skinny was beautiful (gag).

Some people think that country music is beautiful, others hate it.

Beautiful simply is a word we use to describe things we find pleasing or that society tells us we should find pleasing.

Now...Aesthetics is a whole other can of worms...

Quote from: "Logikos"I think that a standard of objective beauty is going to have to be discrete - so objects are either beautiful or not beautiful, with no sliding scale.

But no one can agree on what is beautiful and what is not.

QuoteI also think that beauty and "visual preference" are different things - with the latter being subjective by nature of it being a preference.  I think by any reasonable definition of beauty all those flowers would be beautiful - but the one the girl would personally prefer to look at is something the boy will have to work out himself.  

Good luck proving that beauty is not 100% "visual preference".

As the derail was so severe can we carry on with it? I was quite enjoying it myself  

Putting cultural interpretations of beauty aside, it seems to be that there are certain qualities in nature which we interpret as beautiful or aesthetically pleasing. based on what we evolved to appreciate for some reason or another.

Two examples:

Geometry - the golden ratio, symmetry, perfect shapes and elegant mathematical relations which architects use in designing beautiful and 'balanced' buildings.  

Music - I don't know enough about music to point out exactly what it is in theory that makes music beautiful and I know people have different tastes, but there I know enough to say that based on broad but defined parameters there is a difference between 'music' and 'noise'.

There is a very well structured ebook which, through a very realistic satire very subtlety demonstrates the holes in religion and particularly the afterlife. It has gone over the heads of many religious people who have read it as they thought it was actually true. They thereby completely miss the point. Anyway, everyone should check it out. Last time I saw it was free. google Doe's Account.

Quote from: "proofplease"There is a very well structured ebook which, through a very realistic satire very subtlety demonstrates the holes in religion and particularly the afterlife. It has gone over the heads of many religious people who have read it as they thought it was actually true. They thereby completely miss the point. Anyway, everyone should check it out. Last time I saw it was free. google Doe's Account.

what does this have to do with aesthetics...am i missing something?

Quote from: "Logikos"

Quote from: "Tank"Beauty is an abstract human construct, it does not exist anywhere but in our minds,

Can you support that assertion?

Modern art is a good indicator, personally I find many pieces of modern art shamelessly lazy in their(the artists) construction, however on trips to such galeries I hear many people gushing over these works as though they were seeing the Mona Lisa. It doesn't matter what each of us thinks but that we think different things is enough. A more concrete example could be the difference in people's taste in women, historically women were chosen for various caracteristics that would make them more likely to produce children. In the colonial days women with a large body mass were desirable since they would retain more heat, also the attraction to women with larger breasts could be explained by the assumption that these women could better nourish a baby. This scenario is not intended to be sexist but it is a fact that throughout history it has been men who chose their wife/mate depending on characteristics. Nowadays these needs have dissapeared and people can now choose a wife/mate according to their own personnal desires. Although it's also possible that beauty is subjective from generation to generation and just as moral values they can change according to the times.