Is there a universal standard for beauty?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Sun 13 Sep, 2009 07:35 pm
Caroline;90016 wrote:
What you don't find the opposite sex attractive?

Lets not completely hijack the thread off topic, but I was speaking of an idea as to why one is attracted to the opposite sex, using an idea that I mentioned earlier in that post: the opposite sex could be attractive not because it immediately pleases our eye (after all, not all visually pleasing objects are sexually stimulating to look at), but because the concept of sex is brought to our mind from looking at it. Does that make any sense (even if it's wrong)?

But to answer your question, I do find the opposite sex attractive.
Reply Sun 13 Sep, 2009 07:38 pm
Yeah I get what you mean, so what, I don't see anything wrong with it but only as long as your not hurting or harming anybody else in that I think it's natural but some people are not, if you get what I mean, there is a line I guess.
Reply Tue 15 Sep, 2009 08:59 pm

Images of an ethereal nature tend to have a universality in their beauty--they evoke the 'spirituality' we feel inside of us. That which is unreal in this sense often looks more appealing than the real >>>hence man's tendency towards Idealism.

It is the reason the shape of the female form is the pinnacle of beauty. Its curvature is ethereal, it's like the ghost of men's minds made flesh.
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 06:14 am
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

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.

Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 05/22/2024 at 04:08:02