Why not, if the idea of 'beauty' clearly varies from person to person, culture to culture, time period to time period, etc? That there is some absolute measure of 'beauty' is a claim that needs to be proven, because relative beauty that exists 'in the eye of the beholder' is quite apparent.

In western culture, for example, 150 years ago, women were seen to be more 'beautiful' if they were somewhat plump (well-fed but not fat) and pale in skin tone. Now, what is 'beautiful' for a woman in our culture is to be tanned and skinny. Of course there are a host of other things involved when determining if another person is 'beautiful' or attractive or not, including evolved psychological responses, facial expressions, tone of voice, social status etc...

It's also interesting that we talk of 'beauty' when referring to pleasurable sights and sounds, such as a painting or musical performance. But the other senses somehow do not convey 'beauty'...people typically do not say that a touch, smell, or taste is beautiful. What is it about sights and sounds that can be beautiful? Is beauty even something that can be logically determined, or do we just 'sense' beauty immediately when it hits us...because in my experience, it is the latter.

I don't know what you mean by "beliefs", but a lot of people believe that ETA's don't exist, and a lot of believe they do.
In the second place, you are begging the question, by assuming that it is not a fact that Beethoven's last quartets are beautiful. To say something is a fact is to say that it is true. And it is certainly true that the last quartets are beautiful. And most musical experts agree with me.

I
But it might be that the thought of sex is what is pleasing, not the opposite sex, thus relating us back to the concept example.
Just ideas.

I personally find that hard to believe.

I mean belief in aliens and God is relative. But God being, in fact, real and aliens being, in fact, real are not, even if we don't know whether or not they are, in fact, real.

They may be beautiful, or they may not be.
That's why I'm asking what you're defining beauty as.
I've been thinking of beauty as something pleasurable to the senses, usually the sense of sight but possibly that if hearing and maybe even smell, touch, and taste.

If there is an objective beauty (which there isn't) it would have to exist in something outside of normal reality, because when we see a painting of a familiar object, we can infer beauty from the concept behind the painting (for example, a baby could be beautiful because the thought of innocence or new life, not because it is aesthetically pleasing). Thus objective beauty must be found in abstract art, something outside of normal existence, something that can just entrance the eye (psychedelics + psychedelic art is an example).

I guess from a Darwinian standpoint the opposite sex must be objectively attractive, for how else would we reproduce? But it might be that the thought of sex is what is pleasing, not the opposite sex, thus relating us back to the concept example.

Just ideas.

The question is whether or not there is a universal standard of beauty (facial symmetry) that all human adhere to due to evolutionary psychology?

I don't think so. Let's face it, we are a consumer driven society and their are people who like to make money by fixing up people:

1) Teeth
2) Breasts
3) Eyes
4) Lips
5) Legs
6) Butt
7) Ears
8) Height

etc.

So, they fund some study that makes women think that they need to have some elective surgery or some sort. It is a giant business! There are all kinds of studies on this market, how to increase and penetrate this market. It is a great source of income.

Rich

OK, richrf, seriously, your proposition is a conspiracy theory. There's no evidence to claim that the studies that have been done on opinions of beauty are linked to the plastic surgery industry.

I have no ties to the plastic surgery industry, and I agree that people with symmetrical and ethnically balanced features are most attractive to me, and most people I ask agree as well. It doesn't mean that you should go and have plastic surgery if one eye is slightly smaller than the other.

Well, I have been around the block a few times, and I know when to put on my cynical hat.

I remember the days before deodorants. When everyone smelled fine and then all of a sudden there is a barrage of commercials on TV suggesting that there are these nasty smells caused by bacteria that have to be dealt with!

And then, there was a time when maybe one out of a thousands kids would have orthodontics (braces). Once tooth-decay began to become less of a problem, all of a sudden every kid needed braces and there was all kinds of dental insurance to pay for the braces.

The rest is history: breasts, eyes, cheeks, ears, legs, butts, height. You name it and they can fix it. So, now we have a scientific study that says women are more appealing if they are symmetrical. Great. :perplexed:

Next up is men are more appealing if .... Whoops, more email ads!

Rich

Wow . . . you're arguing against deodorant now?! This sounds like a personal problem.

The study doesn't just say that women are found to be more beautiful if their features are symmetrical, it says men as well. Why are you making this into a female thing? You're taking this study way too personally.

Science of Sex Appeal: The Beauty of Symmetry : Video : Discovery Channel Channel

Well, of course belief is relative. Different individuals, and different cultures, vary in beliefs. But I didn't think we were talking about what is believed, but what is true regardless of what is believed. The fact that different societies have differing beliefs about the nature of disease is one thing. But that doesn't mean that the nature of disease in different in different societies. When we call something "beautiful" we are praising it for having certain characteristics or features that ought to give pleasure to those who apprehend it, when those people understand and appreciate what they are apprehending. So, that people do not feel pleasure when they apprehend the object of beauty just means that they are unable to appreciate the object given their present state of knowledge or sensibility.

Well, I have been around the block a few times, and I know when to put on my cynical hat.

I remember the days before deodorants. When everyone smelled fine and then all of a sudden there is a barrage of commercials on TV suggesting that there are these nasty smells caused by bacteria that have to be dealt with!

And then, there was a time when maybe one out of a thousands kids would have orthodontics (braces). Once tooth-decay began to become less of a problem, all of a sudden every kid needed braces and there was all kinds of dental insurance to pay for the braces.

The rest is history: breasts, eyes, cheeks, ears, legs, butts, height. You name it and they can fix it. So, now we have a scientific study that says women are more appealing if they are symmetrical. Great. :perplexed:

Next up is men are more appealing if .... Whoops, more email ads!

Rich

But all that is anecdotal evidence. "For instance is not an argument".

Why is it that we can't ever really have much of a discussion of beauty before the inevitable 'boobs' and 'pleasure' comes in? I love 'em as much as the next guy, but... it's a bit embarrassing. :p

And unless you give some sort of rational as to why it is hard to believe your statement has just as much authority as mine.

Also note the "might" in the original statement, thus making it so that I wasn't declaring a truth, just some random thought I had.

What you don't find the opposite sex attractive?