2007-10-06 16:21:55 · 9 answers · asked by Kate 2 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Diamonds, Beethoven's Fur Elise, Rachmaninoff's Vocalise, Gold and Silver ornamentation...scenes in nature..sacred spaces and art.
These are things that would be considered universally beautiful. Yet, I agree with Kant that Beauty and taste will always remain Subjective to some extent.
2007-10-06 17:55:50 · answer #1 · answered by elguapo_marco_2008@sbcglobal.net 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Depending on the context, the subjective quality of beauty becomes manifested as objective largely in the arts. The example I'm thinking of is "The Picture of Dorian Grey", where evil is given an attractive face while its' true image rots in a canvas reflection.
2007-10-06 16:54:04 · answer #2 · answered by Duchamp 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Researchers have concluded that, distasteful as modern society might find it, beauty is a bit more universal than once thought. Turns out that Darwinian forces have predisposed men to find beautiful those attributes in women that seem likely to lead to healthy offspring. A previous answer mentioned bilateral symmetry - this is one such trait. Another? Wide hips (for safer births). I'll not belabor the obvious point about lactation.
2007-10-06 17:18:32 · answer #3 · answered by jgshurts 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Take a look at some of the pets people keep. There are people with an absolute phobia of spiders and others who breed tarantulas and can tell you in great detail of the beauty of the particular species they breed and why they are better than any other.
Or snakes. Some people shudder at the mention of them and can't even bear to look at them, while others find their markings beautiful and will carry one around wrapped around their neck and shoulders and be happy to tell you of how beautiful it is at great length.
I myself have fish tanks and keep apple snails and bristle nose plecos which I find beautiful but others think are creepy and gross. It's all objective. My mother always thought my ferret was a furry rat and would sit with her feet curled up when she was loose in the house, but to me she was adorable and my sweet baby and I loved her dearly.
2007-10-06 16:57:59 · answer #4 · answered by Ghost Shrimp Fan 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Studies have shown that most people look for and like bilateral symmetry (regardless of race, colour or size) so there is at least an element of beauty being objective.
However I still think that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
2007-10-06 16:32:49 · answer #5 · answered by megalomaniac 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Miss Universe pageants. Weird huh? It's because all of the women there are already beautiful, they just look for the person who also has beauty within - intelligence.
2007-10-06 16:38:32 · answer #6 · answered by LinusVirus>:) 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Micheal Angello! Otherwise beauty in essence has to be subjectuive
2007-10-06 20:18:50 · answer #7 · answered by Dr. Girishkumar TS 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the fact that what one sees a beauty another may not..... like haircolor..... liking freckles....... skin tone....... also taking into account the person's personality.... someone can be physically attractive but if they have a bad personality/demenor i wouldn't find them as 'pretty'/ good looking
2007-10-06 16:31:45 · answer #8 · answered by Caitlin P 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Charleze Theron.
Why the thumbs down? Are you telling me that their is a person on this planet who doesn't consider her beautiful?
2007-10-06 16:27:22 · answer #9 · answered by soppy.bollocks 4 · 0⤊ 3⤋