Philosophy Now Forum

Why we have the tendency to beautiful things, beautiful mate for example, knowing the fact that it does not have any survival value from evolutionary perspective?

We have a tendency towards beautiful things means that there is something beautiful in us and others, and so from an evolutionary perspective too it would be alright. Otherwise is it ugliness has survival value? No. "Beauty is only skin deep," does not mean that we should not have appreciation for beauty, it only means that we need substance too to substantiate that beauty so it is not just skin deep. What I am saying is that, let's say in the film industry actors and actresses thinking they are so much because of looks they have, that is not enough, you also need character with it or it all seems very superfluous.

bahman wrote:Why we have the tendency to beautiful things, beautiful mate for example, knowing the fact that it does not have any survival value from evolutionary perspective?

Beauty does indeed on balance communicate symmetry and other characteristics indicative of health and fitness.

Some say "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" which implies that beauty is a purely subjective or culturally derived valuation. I don't think that is true. I think beauty is an emotion and derives from the attraction/aversion aspect of reality which runs deep into the heart of nature.

bahman wrote:Why we have the tendency to beautiful things, beautiful mate for example, knowing the fact that it does not have any survival value from evolutionary perspective?

Attraction to beauty is as objectively natural as a sunflower turning to the sun. Cross-cultural studies have shown that folks, as bilaterally symmetrical humans, identify symmetrical faces as beautiful. Stillness is the symmetry of forces. The movement to balance (stillness) is the movement of the universe, from atomic to galactic. Thus, attention on beauty places awareness upon the point where elemental forces pause in balanced symmetry. From stillness, the force of energetic motion merges to change, from micro to macro and every thing in between. Living organisms are attracted to the stillness of symmetry for its quality as the emergent point of energy, which is a natural and simple attraction to life and other forces when delusion doesn’t cloud the view.

What’s fascinating is that internally, we are not bi-laterally symmetrical. This raises the question, why on the outside, and not on the inside?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHNSmlZ9Rwo

OuterLimits wrote:

bahman wrote: Why we have the tendency to beautiful things, beautiful mate for example, knowing the fact that it does not have any survival value from evolutionary perspective?

Beauty does indeed on balance communicate symmetry and other characteristics indicative of health and fitness.

What do you mean?

prothero wrote: Some say "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" which implies that beauty is a purely subjective or culturally derived valuation. I don't think that is true. I think beauty is an emotion and derives from the attraction/aversion aspect of reality which runs deep into the heart of nature.

How beauty could manifest itself to something which we experience if it has a deep root into the heart of nature?

bahman wrote:

prothero wrote: Some say "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" which implies that beauty is a purely subjective or culturally derived valuation. I don't think that is true. I think beauty is an emotion and derives from the attraction/aversion aspect of reality which runs deep into the heart of nature.

How beauty could manifest itself to something which we experience if it has a deep root into the heart of nature?

Lesser animals than us - with nothing to say about "beauty" - favor similar traits that humans do when they express sentiments about beauty. Symmetry, lack of infections or disfigurements (which reduce symmetry), clear skin, shining eyes, graceful movements - all communicate fitness. Whether it is "like" something to be the animal or human who is watching and choosing the beautiful mate? Science remains mute.

bahman wrote:Why we have the tendency to beautiful things...

That is, I believe, a tautology. In other words: why we are attracted to attractive things?

Conde Lucanor wrote:

bahman wrote:Why we have the tendency to beautiful things...

That is, I believe, a tautology. In other words: why we are attracted to attractive things?

And it's still true.

Beauty is usually perceived as being healthy and fit for reproduction, so it does have a survival benefit.

thedoc wrote:

Conde Lucanor wrote:

bahman wrote:Why we have the tendency to beautiful things...

That is, I believe, a tautology. In other words: why we are attracted to attractive things?

And it's still true.

Beauty is usually perceived as being healthy and fit for reproduction, so it does have a survival benefit.

What survival benefit has a Piet Mondrian's painting?

Conde Lucanor wrote: What survival benefit has a Piet Mondrian's painting?

What does a painting have to do with a persons appearance?

thedoc wrote:

Conde Lucanor wrote: What survival benefit has a Piet Mondrian's painting?

What does a painting have to do with a persons appearance?

From where did you get the idea that beauty is an attribute exclusive of people? The OP asks about "attractive things".

Conde Lucanor wrote:

thedoc wrote:

Conde Lucanor wrote: What survival benefit has a Piet Mondrian's painting?

What does a painting have to do with a persons appearance?

From where did you get the idea that beauty is an attribute exclusive of people? The OP asks about "attractive things".

The OP is "Beauty" which is a human quality assigned to things, the thread was addressing beauty's ability to attract a mate and that is what I was addressing. If you want to go in another direction, do so, I never said that beauty was an exclusive attribute of people or animals, it's just one attribute that can be applied to people and animals.

thedoc wrote:
The OP is "Beauty" which is a human quality assigned to things, the thread was addressing beauty's ability to attract a mate and that is what I was addressing.

Will grant you that the OP talked about attracting mates and it leaves that line of argument open, but it was mentioned as an example, a case, inside a broader concept: being attracted to things. Things include inanimate objects, concepts, people, etc., which is what I was addressing when I mentioned paintings. It follows that the particular cases of beauty (like beauty in the biological domain) are not at the core of the problem of beauty.

thedoc wrote:If you want to go in another direction, do so, I never said that beauty was an exclusive attribute of people or animals, it's just one attribute that can be applied to people and animals.

And things like a Piet Mondrian painting, which has no "survival benefit".