@hue-man,
hue-man;82596 wrote:I came across this blog in which someone claimed that there is a universal standard for human beauty, and that human beauty is not relative. Of course there are relative notions of beauty that are relative to culture variations, but cultures are developed because of their relative isolation to other societies and cultures. And regardless of cultural preferences of beauty, people seem to recognize beautiful people regardless of their ethnic or cultural differences.
Scientists are claiming that human beauty is based on facial and bodily symmetry. The more symmetric and balanced someones features are, the more beautiful. Scientists even have a golden facial symmetry ratio for beauty: 1.618.
Of course, as philosophers we should know and keep in mind that beauty is a subjective notion, meaning that it isn't an actual feature of the external world; but what do you guys think? Do we now have a universal standard for human beauty that can be measured by science?
The Science of Beauty The World According to Xenocrates
USA WEEKEND Magazine
Yes, there are such things, but just that the symmetry is nonsens, only naive people belive in such thing.
If a woman has very narrow lips but still symmetric it does not fit a beauty definition of any common person, but big lips does indicate beauty, though not if they are huge like "butt lips".
If a woman has breast with different size, but still have nice curves are firm and within parameters of a fist size, many would still think of them as beautiful, contrary huge symmetrically pron boobs or sacking symmetrical bobs.
The actress Mimi Rogers has a notorious assymetical face, yet I consider her beautiful, because of her conteurs and proportions, not because of any symmetry.
---------------
Ancient greeks were obsessed with beauty, they have formulated many mathematically concepts of it.
How to paint pictures, sculptures, buildings ..etc.
Think it was "the golden ratio" also Fibbonachi (spelling) would define some math concepts of it.
