# Resolved: Beauty is Not in the Eye of the Beholder **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 25, 2009, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-beauty-is-not-in-the-eye-of-the-beholder/487365 "2009-02-25T14:50:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2009, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-beauty-is-not-in-the-eye-of-the-beholder/487365/61 "2009-03-03T18:30:19Z")
I am not sure what “completely” is meant to add to the statement. I don’t believe there is _any_ component of beauty that is objective. None. Without qualification. I am sure there are intersubjective standards of beauty. There must be, if “beauty” as a word has any meaning. Some of these standards are most likely founded in our biology, much more in our social and cultural training. The exact foundation of beauty is an interesting question and I believe “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” is a bit trite to promote as some kind of discourse on the phenomenon of finding something beautiful. Universal accord on a human perceptual phenomenon does not reify that phenomenon. Beauty, as far as I can tell, is in no way objective. It is at least partially subjective. It is at least partially intersubjective. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2009, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-beauty-is-not-in-the-eye-of-the-beholder/487365/62 "2009-03-03T18:49:58Z")
> [@erislover](#): > > I am sure there are intersubjective standards of beauty. There must be, if “beauty” as a word has any meaning. Some of these standards are most likely founded in our biology, much more in our social and cultural training. The exact foundation of beauty is an interesting question and I believe “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” is a bit trite to promote as some kind of discourse on the phenomenon of finding something beautiful. Hmm, it seems if we have any disagreement, it is purely semantic. Calling anything subjective, even “intersubjective” gives me the chills because many people interpret that to mean arbitrary. But of course subjective should really just mean that beauty is not “out there” and to this of course I agree: a beautiful woman is objectively no prettier than a sea slug. But to virtually all Homo sapiens there are instincts that mean we’ll almost certainly prefer looking at humans to sea slugs. ---
**Author:** ![Blaster\_Master](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/cab0a1/32.png) [@Blaster\_Master](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blaster_Master)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2009, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-beauty-is-not-in-the-eye-of-the-beholder/487365/63 "2009-03-03T18:52:44Z")
> [@MichaelQReilly](#): > > I can grok this. I think you’ve ultimately argued what I was trying to say, just way better than I did. Mostly, yes, but I think the part that struck me was the qualifier of “Among beautiful things…”. Using the logic I did, it’s possible that someone that is relatively near the middle of the beauty spectrum is considered quite beautiful to one person and quite ugly to another person simply because of the wide amount of variation on some of the more subjective traits. I think the key point is that the phrase is generally meant to imply that beauty is totally subjective and unquantifiable, which is demonstratably not true for the vast majority in some extreme cases. If it were totally subjective, then there wouldn’t exist some traits that have higher correlation than random which nearly perfect correlation (like with symmetry) almost certainly is. At the same time, it’s also possible that someone may value specific characteristics that have low correlation more than others that have high correlation resulting in a significant difference from the universal beauty continuum. So, really, I think the appropriate lesson to be taken from the phrase is simply that just because something is/isn’t beautiful to you doesn’t mean it is/isn’t beautiful to someone else. The more beautiful (or more ugly) they are, the less likely you’ll disagree since they’re more likely to contain more of the highly correlated characteristics the farther up (or down) the continuum you go, but it isn’t by any means guaranteed. Or maybe that’s just a much wordier version of your rewrite? ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2009, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-beauty-is-not-in-the-eye-of-the-beholder/487365/64 "2009-03-03T18:59:04Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > But of course subjective should really just mean that beauty is not “out there” and to this of course I agree: a beautiful woman is objectively no prettier than a sea slug. But to virtually all Homo sapiens there are instincts that mean we’ll almost certainly prefer looking at humans to sea slugs. True. It may be, as others have mentioned, that humans prefer symmetry. Is this because a symmetric face is good to us, or because we like symmetry, e.g., a cube, or regular polygon? (Would this make a regular polygon “beautiful”?) I think we are just beginning to scratch the surface with regards to shared qualities of the genus _Homo_ and the future looks to be chock full of interesting research. ---
**Author:** ![Ruminator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Ruminator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruminator)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2009, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-beauty-is-not-in-the-eye-of-the-beholder/487365/65 "2009-03-03T19:03:46Z")
> [@erislover](#): > > I don’t believe there is _any_ component of beauty that is objective. None. Without qualification. > > I am sure there are intersubjective standards of beauty. There must be, if “beauty” as a word has any meaning. > > Beauty, as far as I can tell, is in no way objective. It is at least partially subjective. It is at least partially intersubjective. Ok, I think I understand where you’re coming from… you’re using a absolute mathematical definition of “beauty.” At this level, this makes sense but I think this perspective of Plato-what-is-the-Ultimate-Truth is academic overkill for this thread. One could also say that when people see the world with their eyes, they never see its actual present state. It’s always in the “past”. When I look at a tree out my window that’s 20 meters away, I’m actually seeing the way it looked 0.000000067 seconds ago. I never see it exactly NOW at this PRESENT POINT IN TIME. Even if I closed the distance by touching my nose to the tree bark, I’d still not see the tree as it is NOW. The concept of NOW is imprecise and incorrect regarding vision. All my vision is perceiving the past. This means that whenever any human anywhere says “I see it’s raining right now”, they are LYING or WRONG because the laws of physics says it’s impossible to see anything RIGHT NOW. Ok, so all of that explanation is mathematically correct. Does all that scientific “truth” contribute to the conversation or is it just academic obfuscation? Do you really think the OP is wanting to discuss metaphysical absolutes about “beauty”? ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2009, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-beauty-is-not-in-the-eye-of-the-beholder/487365/66 "2009-03-04T02:59:37Z")
I have no idea at what level the OP wishes to discuss the question. I was put off by the use of the word “objective”, and I am frustrated by the conclusion that because we broadly agree on a few cases of “beautiful v. ugly” that it must therefore be innate, and not “in the eye of the beholder.” I think it is in the eye of the beholder. I think we also share eyes. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2009, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-beauty-is-not-in-the-eye-of-the-beholder/487365/67 "2009-03-04T03:06:25Z")
> [@Ruminator](#): > > Ok, I think I understand where you’re coming from… you’re using a absolute mathematical definition of “beauty.” At this level, this makes sense but I think this perspective of Plato-what-is-the-Ultimate-Truth is academic overkill for this thread. I’m not even at this level, though. Most of my posts have been rather ordinary: of course we share ideas about beauty; how else would we know what beauty means if we didn’t? > [@](#): > > One could also say that when people see the world with their eyes, they never see its actual present state. Some have, sure. Not me. > [@](#): > > It’s always in the “past”. When I look at a tree out my window that’s 20 meters away, I’m actually seeing the way it looked 0.000000067 seconds ago. I never see it exactly NOW at this PRESENT POINT IN TIME. Even if I closed the distance by touching my nose to the tree bark, I’d still not see the tree as it is NOW. The concept of NOW is imprecise and incorrect regarding vision. All my vision is perceiving the past. I’m not being nitpicky. I’m talking about the ordinary sense of objective (“having reality independent of the mind”), and how it wholly fails to apply. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-beauty-is-not-in-the-eye-of-the-beholder/487365.md?page=3)