Why do we like beauty?

[Voboy]

I was just writing about this the other day: to me, there's often a disconnect between "beauty" (defined as fulfilling society's beauty myth in the sort of way that lands one on the cover of Cosmopolitan) and "sexiness."

I look at many objectively beautiful women and I seldom have an urge to fuck them. By contrast, I often meet women in life who, despite their lack of classically-proportioned good looks, strike me as urgently sexy.

Not sure if that adds anything to the discussion. But.

 

[GuiltyCowboy]

So it seems to me that the question is simply “why do we like stuff at all.

Yeah, that’s the spirit of my question - boiling it down to its essence - but I think we can apply the question specifically to beauty.

To me, this is beautiful:

exp(πi) + 1 = 0​

YMMV

My miles varied!

Though I do think pi makes a pretty shape.

In all seriousness, though, I think we can distinguish between something that is pleasing and something that’s beautiful.

Though of course that risks sending down the usual rabbit whole of trying to define the meaning of a word, phrase etc.

 

[BeechLeaf]

Of course you can try to separate out physical 'beautiful' from more abstract things like amazing, awe-inspiring, impressive... but there is some (obscure) reason why mathematicians reach for 'beautiful' for such a fundamental, far-reaching connexion. We really mean it: it is not just impressive, which many other things are, but it affects us like a beautiful person, or the Cat's Eye Nebula. There is a joy in contemplation. I don't know what it is - I can't offer a sensible analysis - but other things like 'awe' seem like attributes of, or reactions to, a more fundamental property of beauty. We recognize it and we react accordingly, and feel bettered by it.

 

[KittyOfSteele]

Was it interesting or boring? Any worthwhile insights?

I've been aware in the past of women describing men as being beautiful in a way that suggests that they value that beauty in a subtly different way than if it was me describing a beautiful woman. Like there's something useless or redundant to it: it's nice and sometimes even breath-taking but, in the end, so what? It's even faintly damning. Not that it's damning that they're only beautiful (ie that they're dumb as well) but that the beauty itself is somehow damning.

Like all philosophy, it depends on the one who's teaching it. It's been sixteen years already, but worthwile insights is that beauty comes largely from a combination of different elements. These can be beautiful elements, ugly elements, or neither. If you take noise, for instance, it has absolutely no logic to it, but if we organize it, well, you can get things like the famous opening of Pink Floyd's Money from Dark Side of the Moon. Things like structure can actually play a role in what makes something beautiful and what doesn't. In illustration, the composition of an image is a big deal too. Some are layed out like an X, others like a T, and each one conveys a different message. Same goes with the color palette, and stuff. Pretty much nothing is random, even those accidents have a reason of their brilliance.

I can't vouch for how one gender differs from the other through writing because I don't understand gender, but beauty itself being damning, IIRC, in other times it was an allegory for temptation. In current times, I don't know. There's been an assault on all things beautiful, to the point it is almost making me believe in a deity that only exists in my D&D campaign setting.

I don't know if this gets you closer to an answer.

 

[Seurat]

I was going to put this in the 'Nature vs. Nurture' argument category and watch people duke it out. It is a philosophical conundrum that people discuss endlessly, usually in the art vs. sublime philosophical context. In this instance, I would say it is a 'nature and nurture' actually. There are certainly things that are hardwired into our brains, and all brains vary, but there is also a definite component of our upbringing which adds to what we think of as attractive, which encompasses what we think of as 'beauty'. What an anglo might find particularly appealing may be completely different from what an asian or african might. Eventually it boils down to a chiken-or-the-egg question, and you won't be able to definitively figure things out. Makes for interesting discussions though, as long as people realize there is no definitive answer.

 

[ElectricBlue]

I look at many objectively beautiful women and I seldom have an urge to fuck them. By contrast, I often meet women in life who, despite their lack of classically-proportioned good looks, strike me as urgently sexy.

This, so many times, this!

 

[EmilyMiller]

Of course you can try to separate out physical 'beautiful' from more abstract things like amazing, awe-inspiring, impressive... but there is some (obscure) reason why mathematicians reach for 'beautiful' for such a fundamental, far-reaching connexion. We really mean it: it is not just impressive, which many other things are, but it affects us like a beautiful person, or the Cat's Eye Nebula. There is a joy in contemplation. I don't know what it is - I can't offer a sensible analysis - but other things like 'awe' seem like attributes of, or reactions to, a more fundamental property of beauty. We recognize it and we react accordingly, and feel bettered by it.

I’m not a mathematician. I don’t even have a minor in it. Guess there’s some truth in the dumb blonde stereotype. But I’ve always been attracted to the subject (and it’s always refused my advances). I remain interested to this day. Let’s just say I’m kinda numerate… for a biologist .

I’m pretty sound with statistics, which I use at work, but it’s more number theory that enchants me.

 

[EmilyMiller]

I look at many objectively beautiful women and I seldom have an urge to fuck them. By contrast, I often meet women in life who, despite their lack of classically-proportioned good looks, strike me as urgently sexy.

There are exceptions. My SO and I each have l our hall pass lists (not seriously, it’s all fun). But monogamy can take a hike if either of these ladies want an FFM.





Or maybe an FFFM

 

[GuiltyCowboy]

Animal brains equate certain physical standards to fitness to procreate. Which is why when you see a beautiful person you also tend to think about sex. Because beauty is literally secondary sexual characteristics.

I was once in a lift with just Natalie Portman and her dog and I know this sounds mean but I actually remember her dog more than I remember her.

She was extraordinarily beautiful (Natalie, I’m talking about) but she didn’t make me think about sex.

I firmly believe that physically beautiful humans don’t necessarily make other humans horny.

 

[XerXesXu]

Sexual attraction and Asexual (Aesthetic, Gustatory, and Olfactory) attraction: do they overlap, do they confuse.

I feel an open-source paper for arViz coming on. I bespoke review copies of CMoS and Hart’s yesterday; I’ll get all the formatting right. (See above – no final ?)

I have a padded silk blindfold I use to sleep, at night, while my wife watches movies, listen to music, does household chores, and sings to the dog. Using my blindfold, I can ‘compose’ a dataset, as I learned at university, and publish findings totally aligned with my preconceived beliefs.

It’ll be an arVix classic.

 

[GuiltyCowboy]

I’ve just read an extraordinarily pretentious essay on this subject which seems to suggest that beauty is ‘the invariably disappointing and painful substitute’ for what we really desire, which is ‘the brilliance of being’.

And beauty is ‘invariably disappointing’ because, though we wish it was eternal, it never is…but, for a moment at least, beauty lets us forget death.

So, long story short: we like beauty because it distracts us from death and the passage of time. So it stops time. And we want to stop time. Something like that.

 

[EmilyMiller]

I’ve just read an extraordinarily pretentious essay on this subject which seems to suggest that beauty is ‘the invariably disappointing and painful substitute’ for what we really desire, which is ‘the brilliance of being’.

And beauty is ‘invariably disappointing’ because, though we wish it was eternal, it never is…but, for a moment at least, beauty lets us forget death.

So, long story short: we like beauty because it distracts us from death and the passage of time. So it stops time. And we want to stop time. Something like that.

Sounds like BS to me.

 

[liliput1]

View attachment 2642176

THIS, is the Bad Place!

 

[liliput1]

for a moment at least, beauty lets us forget death.

So, long story short: we like beauty because it distracts us from death and the passage of time. So it stops time. And we want to stop time. Something like that.

That is a very, very Western interpretation.

https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Wabi-sabi

There's an old story about cleaning a Japanese garden. It's not a legend, more an allegory because it practically defines the aesthetic. In the fall, the gardeners sweep up all the leaves and debris in the garden. Then one of the gardeners shakes one of the trees so that a handful of leaves drift to the ground. Now the cleaning is done.

I eventually got over my notion that flowers should stay on the plant so that they can be beautiful for as long as possible. Beautiful for whom? Flowers are fleeting. You enjoy them because they will be gone soon. So put them where you can see them.

(nowadays I leave the flowers for the insects, and 90% of my take are ones that are in the way, or part of a prune)

 

[ElectricBlue]

I’ve just read an extraordinarily pretentious essay on this subject which seems to suggest that beauty is ‘the invariably disappointing and painful substitute’ for what we really desire, which is ‘the brilliance of being’.

And beauty is ‘invariably disappointing’ because, though we wish it was eternal, it never is…but, for a moment at least, beauty lets us forget death.

So, long story short: we like beauty because it distracts us from death and the passage of time. So it stops time. And we want to stop time. Something like that.

I really like the Japanese concept of wabi sabi, where the beauty is in the flaw or the imperfection. Repairing a simple pot with gold, for example.

 

[SmilingLez]

I firmly believe that physically beautiful humans don’t necessarily make other humans horny.

100% agree

 

[liliput1]

I really like the Japanese concept of wabi sabi, where the beauty is in the flaw or the imperfection. Repairing a simple pot with gold, for example.

View attachment 2642312

Jinx! One two three you owe me a Coke.

 

[liliput1]

I was once in a lift with just Natalie Portman and her dog and I know this sounds mean but I actually remember her dog more than I remember her.

She was extraordinarily beautiful (Natalie, I’m talking about) but she didn’t make me think about sex.

I firmly believe that physically beautiful humans don’t necessarily make other humans horny.

This is the imprecision of words. She's certainly very pretty. But beautiful? Gorgeous? I don't use the words as synonyms and I'm not alone in that.

 

[ElectricBlue]

Jinx! One two three you owe me a Coke.

Great minds! I took extra minutes to find the pic, otherwise we'd have had pretty much simultaneous posts.

 

[RetroFan]

I think some of it is hard wiring. We're programmed to find certain things attractive. I feel that way myself based on personal experience, but also based on reading.

Agree there, its a natural instinct to pass on the best genetics to our offspring to ensure long-term survival of the human race.

 

[liliput1]

I think some of it is hard wiring. We're programmed to find certain things attractive. I feel that way myself based on personal experience, but also based on reading.

I suspect a lot of the distinct morphology of human 'races' is due to some of that programming being nurture rather than nature. Probably way way back at the dawn of time, there was a great hunter named Grog and everyone wanted to be like him, and by the time he was a granddad he'd become some local standard of handsomeness. Every one of his grandchildren and anyone who just sort of looked similar had lots of success and grandchildren of their own. Twenty generations later nobody remembers why everyone in that region has prominent noses or sallow skin.

 

[nice90sguy]

"Beauty" is one of those words that makes me recall the tedious Greek philosophy lectures and reading I had to do as part of my AI (!) degree.

I ended up falling in with Austin's claim that "Beauty", like "Goodness", is not really a thing. If it can be applied to Euler's equation and Michelle Pfeiffer, it's a pretty useless word.

 

[Voboy]

I really like the Japanese concept of wabi sabi, where the beauty is in the flaw or the imperfection. Repairing a simple pot with gold, for example.

View attachment 2642312

I love it too. I once fixed a shattered guitar headstock like that. It was one of the weird '70s Ovations, all plastic and composites, and the broken part wasn't structural. So I mixed up some metallic epoxy and went for it.

 

[GuiltyCowboy]

I really like the Japanese concept of wabi sabi, where the beauty is in the flaw or the imperfection. Repairing a simple pot with gold, for example.

View attachment 2642312

I like to think one can also say the same about humans. I think it was Diana Vreeland who said that your flaws are your most important assets.

 

[GuiltyCowboy]

This is the imprecision of words. She's certainly very pretty. But beautiful? Gorgeous? I don't use the words as synonyms and I'm not alone in that.

What’s the distinction between beautiful and pretty for you? I don’t disagree that there’s a nuance but, at the same time, I think it’s tough to argue that Natalie Portman is not beautiful.