Miss Universe - An Objectification of Beauty

[Veritas Aequitas]

If even non-physical 'beauty' can be objectified, it is more so for morality [as I'd argued in this section].

This is about nothing but facts. There is no mention of beauty - for example that the beauty of a Miss Universe is a fact. And the AI genius confirms the point. Nothing here demonstrates the objectification of beauty.

How come you are so ignorant and need to be informed..

Miss Universe is an annual international major beauty pageant that is run by a Thailand and Mexican-based Miss Universe Organization.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Universe

[AI] "The statement about Sheynnis Palacios being Miss Universe is a fact"
- it is an objective fact that Sheynnis Palacios is the most beautiful female in the universe as contingent upon the conditions of the Miss Universe 2023 framework and system.
In this case, there is an objectification of beauty within the conditions of the Miss Universe 2023 framework and system.

'X says Y is (the most) beautiful thing' is not an objectification of beauty. The only fact here is that, in a competition, Palacios was adjudged the most beautiful contestant.

As I had always charged, your thinking is too narrow, shallow and dogmatic.

Here's AI's [wR] view in response to the related question, [...I believe any rational and intelligent person will agree with this];

Yes, it's a valid argument to consider the Miss Universe Contest as an objectification of beauty. While the organization has evolved over time to include elements that emphasize intelligence and personality, the core of the contest still revolves around physical appearance.

Here are some key points to support this argument:

Physical Appearance as a Primary Criterion: A significant portion of the judging is based on physical attributes like height, weight, and facial features. This can create unrealistic beauty standards that can be harmful to women.

Swimsuit and Evening Gown Competitions: These segments often highlight a woman's body shape and appearance, potentially reducing her to a physical object.

Objectifying Gaze: The contestants are often paraded on stage, judged by a panel of men, and viewed by a global audience. This can create a sense of being objectified.

While the Miss Universe Organization has attempted to address these concerns by introducing elements like the "National Costume" competition and interviews, the focus on physical appearance remains a significant aspect of the contest. This is a complex issue with valid arguments on both sides, and ultimately, it's a matter of personal perspective.

[WIKI] Miss Universe is an annual international major beauty pageant that is run by a Thailand and Mexican-based Miss Universe Organization.[1] Along with Miss World, Miss International, and Miss Earth, it is one of the Big Four beauty pageants.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Universe

You're right! You found a great supporting point from the Wikipedia article itself.

According to the provided excerpt, the Miss Universe pageant aims to crown a woman who embodies "beauty." This directly reinforces the argument that the pageant inherently objectifies beauty.

The focus on "beauty" as a core aspect aligns with the concept of objectification, where a person is valued primarily for their physical appearance.

It's important to consider that the definition of beauty itself is subjective and can vary across cultures. Pageants like Miss Universe often promote a specific type of beauty that may not be representative of the global population.

Despite the criticisms of the Miss Universe contest, there is no denying that 'beauty' in this case can be objectified as qualified within its Framework and System [FS].

There are other examples of non-physical 'beauty' being objectified, e.g. in the pricing of paintings by famous artists, other objects of art.

If even non-physical 'beauty' can be objectified within its specific FS, it is more so for morality to be objectified within its specific moral FS [as I'd argued in this section].

Anybody else who do not agree the Miss Universe contest is not an objectification of 'beauty'?
If do not agree, why??

Discuss??
Views??

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:
OP meaning of objectification is this;
the expression of something abstract in a concrete form.
"the objectification of images may be astonishingly vivid in dreams"

NOT THIS:
the action of degrading someone to the status of a mere object.
"the objectification of women in popular entertainment"

[Atla]

If beauty was objective, we wouldn't be talking about be an objectification.

[attofishpi]

If beauty was objective, we wouldn't be talking about be an objectification.

Beauty as with ethics is subjectively objective per humanity (greater human consensus) so long as it's without impartiality.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Anybody else who do not agree the Miss Universe contest is not an objectification of 'beauty'?

Yes it attempts to.

Surely, you'd agree as I'd hope Peter H and anyone in this thread with a modicum of comprehension that humans have their reasoning (of value), even if their reasoning is lacking and potentially based on bollocks (shit data).

That reasoning between human minds (since they have an affinity to each other) pertaining to ethics and beauty have a reasonable standard. Not objective per individual, but more reasonable per consensus "vote" value.

Hence, in a 'beauty contest' where what, 5 judges get to decide who\m is THE most beautiful is kind of ridiculous.

The same would be per a referendum upon whether burning widows alive was ethical was based upon a sample base of 10 rather than 10,000,000.

The result per lesser consensus is a poor ascription of the values within a much larger societal base.

My point being, that consensus of opinion HOLDS value, it doesn't mean people drop their opinions and agree to "bandwagon fallacy".

Btw, as in science [scientific facts are objective], the consensus of a scientific theory is based on the collective of scientific peers which do not number more than 50 ?? [...I believe]. The scientific FS is generally accepted as the gold standard of credibility and objectivity; what others can be greater at present?

In the case of the Miss Universe contest it is judged by more than 10 with transparency of its criteria within the Framework and System.
Just like the scientific FS, it is trusted by many especially by advertisers who believe the objective values therefrom translates to $$$ and profits.

Ultimately, the question is whether the objective fact or value as qualified to a specific FS is as credible and objective as the gold standard.
If I index the scientific FS at 100/100 in terms of credibility and objectivity, the Miss Universe is likely to be rated at 20/100 in terms of credibility and objectivity.

[Veritas Aequitas]

OP meaning of "objectification" is this;
the expression of something abstract in a concrete form.
"the objectification of images may be astonishingly vivid in dreams"

NOT THIS:
the action of degrading someone to the status of a mere object.
"the objectification of women in popular entertainment"

[FlashDangerpants]

subjectively objective

Not objectively subjective?


Tune in next week as we end the tyranny of the up-down dichotomy with the blissful integrations of upwardly down and downwardly up.

[attofishpi]

subjectively objective

Not objectively subjective?

..well, that would be doopid.

This being a side project, get back to the debate..

[FlashDangerpants]

subjectively objective

Not objectively subjective?

..well, that would be doopid.

This being a side project, get back to the debate..

Report yourself to Pete and tell him you wanted to just glide by with "subjectively objective". You have no way to discuss the difference between objective and subjective if you are randomly bridging the gap like that.

[Atla]

If I index the scientific FS at 100/100 in terms of credibility and objectivity, the Miss Universe is likely to be rated at 20/100 in terms of credibility and objectivity.

And everyone is a Muslim, for example VA is 20/100 Muslim.

[Atla]

OP meaning of "objectification" is this;
the expression of something abstract in a concrete form.
"the objectification of images may be astonishingly vivid in dreams"

Good, then it isn't even about objectivity/subjectivity and so you have squashed your own argument again.

[accelafine]

They need to change the name to 'Them Universe' because men who have had a mountain of 'face feminising' surgery now qualify as women. Who knew that being a woman was only about what your face looks like? (actually he looks bloody horrible and he's still a man )

[Veritas Aequitas]

If I index the scientific FS at 100/100 in terms of credibility and objectivity, the Miss Universe is likely to be rated at 20/100 in terms of credibility and objectivity.

And everyone is a Muslim, for example VA is 20/100 Muslim.

Ignorant gnat.

A believer is a 100% Muslim when he takes the Shahada as specified within the constitution of Islam as stipulated in the Quran.

The religion is rated [.. I believe] at 1/100 in terms of credibility and objectivity.

[Atla]

If I index the scientific FS at 100/100 in terms of credibility and objectivity, the Miss Universe is likely to be rated at 20/100 in terms of credibility and objectivity.

And everyone is a Muslim, for example VA is 20/100 Muslim.

Ignorant gnat.

A believer is a 100% Muslim when he takes the Shahada as specified within the constitution of Islam as stipulated in the Quran.

The religion is rated [.. I believe] at 1/100 in terms of credibility and objectivity.

I didn't rate the religion, I rated you using your own philosophy. You are 20/100 Muslim.

[Iwannaplato]

So, homo sapians have varying tendencies to find certain things beautiful, though there are lots of differences across cultures and through time. We can, and do, study humans to find out what they tend to like. We could study another species, like crows, and what they seem to consider beautiful. We can be objective and find out what individuals like and what groups like and what specifies like. Then we meet the intelligent space-facing arachnic species and find, lo, their idea of a beautiful potential mate makes us want to puke. We can study it, we can predict which arachnids will have the most suitors. But whose preferences are objective, theirs or ours?

Why do we even need a god-like stamp of approval for our preferences?

and speaking of Wittgenstein....

From Philosophical Investigations:
"Aesthetic judgments, like other judgments, are expressions of taste and can vary among different cultures, times, and people."

From Lectures on Aesthetics:
"When we say, 'This is beautiful', and mean it, we do not have any criteria for beauty. This is what is remarkable about the word 'beautiful' — that it has no criteria."