Identical outfits

WHAT IS BEAUTY?

“Beauty (n) – combination of qualities as shape, proportion, colour, in human face or form; an exceptionally good specimen.” (Oxford Concise Dictionary)

: “I grew up a typical, classical ‘beauty.'” (isoceles kramer, Nov. 24, 10:17AM)

All the comments on this thread presupose what the nature of beauty is but none attempt to directly address the question, “What is beauty?” Fortunately, the concept of beauty falls under the category of “aesthetics,” the fourth category of philosophy (the others being ontology, the nature of ultimate reality; epistemology, the nature of knowledge & truth; and ethics, the nature of the good, justice). So, Montrealman will apply his analytical intelligence and attempt a preliminary examination of the concept, particularly as it relates to beautiful women.

The first thing we can say is that beauty IS a female quality. Men, unless they are very feminine, can at best be said to be “handsome” but not “beautiful.” A beautiful man” is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms.

The second thing we can say is that beauty has objective existence. This negates the view that beauty lies wholly “in the eye of the beholder” or that beauty “comes from within” which are simply variations of the view that beauty is simply a subjective assessment of the observer. The history of beauty and beautiful women says otherwise since the consensus as to what makes a beautiful woman beautiful goes well beyond an accidental or contingent consensus.

The third thing that can be said is that beauty consists in the possession of positive qualities. A negative conception of beauty, one that beauty consists simply in the absence of imperfections, appears to be a vacuous concept of beauty. A woman may, for example, have no imperfections yet still not be considered beautiful. This is where things get difficult.

The definition given above refers to a “combination of qualities” which does seem to imply a subjective element to the assessment of beauty. Such combinations are obviously the products of individuals and so are not simply objective “givens.” Similarly, one could ask as to what constitutes “proportion” or an “exceptionally good specimen?”

So it seems that there is a twofold aspect of beauty, the objective qualities themselves and the subjective assessment of those qualities by an observer. Beauty, then, is a female attribute that lies somewhere between the two but the pendulum would seem to swing more to the former – the objective qualities – than the latter – subjective assessments.

Maybe isoceles kramer can throw more light on this.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

ISOSCELES_KRAMER’S ANDROPHOBIA

: “See pretty girls learn pretty quickly that is we shove our tits in various faces, eventually one of those faces will ask if they can buy our booze.”

Isosceles_Kramer (Nov. 24, 1019:AM)

“Misogyny,” the male hatred of the female, is a commonly known phenomenon which has its roots in a reaction against what is perceived as being “controlled” by the female. There might be certain grounds for this going all the way back to the male infant’s dependency on the mother and continuing on into adult life but it then becomes a response to what is perceived as “androphobia,” the female hatred of the male. Unlike misogyny, however, androphobia does not have its roots in the perception of being controlled by the male – at least not in liberal Western societies – as it does in “contempt” for the male. But where does this contempt come from?

The way the reproductive waltz is choreographed places the male in the role of the pursuer of the female. This places him at an immediate disadvantage since his advances may often be rejected. She is in the cat-bird seat, in the position of controller. He, on the other hand, is vulnerable. The female immediately sees this with the result that the rejcted male becomes an object of pity, even contempt in her eyes. This is called “androphobia” and is most common in beautiful women who, naturally, are pursued the most.

As we already know, isosceles is a beautiful woman as she has told us – she might also possess “wisdom” but has not yet shown this to be the case – and therefore displays the classic androphobic symptoms of contempt for the male. She is at the bar. The pursuing males (the “faces”) cluster around her. She knows that if she “shoves her tits” in one of those “faces” he will ask to buy her booze. The contemptible pig! Can’t he control his lust?

Of course, what she doesn’t mention is the reason she is in the bar in the first place. It is to play her androphobic games. After all, that’s the way androphobes get their kicks.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

RSVPs

: Troondon4 (Nov. 26, 9:49PM)

1. Circular Reasoning:

“One tends not to see good-looking homeless people. Not because attractive people are superior but because if they suffer negative life-changing events like drug abuse or mental illness, I believe someone in their life will try to help them and prevent the total crash.”

Troon seems to be walking the tight-rope between political correctness – “attractive people” are not superior because, um, no one in the world of political correctness is “superior” – and the role their attractiveness plays in preventing a “total crash” – someone in their life will try to help them and prevent it. But – we’re only talking about the role of physical attractiveness here – the obvious question is just why would someone try to help them? Why, they would try to help them because they’re, um, attractive. So it’s back to square one.

2. Incoherence:

“So we know what beautiful is in its pragmatic sense.”

What does that mean? Must beauty have a “pragmatic sense” in order to count as beauty? Can someone possess beauty without reference to its “use value?” Does utilitarianism have anything to do AT ALL with beauty? Troon’s philosophical presuppositions – politcal correctness and a utilitarian pragmatism so far – are beginning to show.

3. Vacuous Assumptions:

“There is a universal beauty in both men and women
in the symmetry of the face no matter the race or culture studies have shown.”

What, exactly, is the nature of this concept of “universal beauty?” What is its content? “Symmetry” is obviously a component of beauty but it is only one among many. Surely it is possible to have symmetrical features and yet not be beautiful. Of course, there is the further question: CAN “culture studies” reveal the nature of beauty? To do so it must enter into the aesthetic framework of those cultures the studies purport demonstrate, a claim that “multiculturalists” such as Troon must, if he is to remain consistent, deny. In any case, the results of such “cultural studies” are themselves vacuous.

4. The Dog’s Breakfast:

“The brain and the heart of the (beautiful) person completes the package and determines how successful they will be.”

First Troon has returns to his unexamined utilitarian pragmatism – note the use of the term “package” which determines “how successful they will be.” For Troon, like Madison Avenue flacks generally, it’s all about “success” which, of course, is undefined. Then Troon turns to more of his vacuous assumptions, this time about the “brain and the heart” of the beautiful person but doesn’t reveal just what these qualities might look like or, for that matter, if they are even relevant given that we are just talking about physical beauty. Try to stay on topic Troon.

Anyone seen isosceles_kramer?

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

RSVPs

: Troondon4 (Nov. 27,9:26PM)

You’re right about my wanting to talk about the “concept of beauty” and I_K’s “androphobia” since both presuppose your “trying to get a handle on I_K’s post about the burden of atractiveness.” In other words, her “burden of attractiveness” – in respect to which other posters clearly reject – is a psychological condition which is inexplicable independently of that concept on the one hand while, simultaneously, it is intertwined with her androphobia on the other. In other words Troon, her “burden” and her “androphobia” are interdependent psychological phenomena.

Your explanation of the “pragmatic sense of beauty” as the “measurable part of it” indicates that you have confounded pragmatism with empiricism. Pragmatism, sometimes called utilitarianism, is the view that something is of value only if it has a use in obtaining something else. Empiricism, on the other hand, reduces to the claim that something which cannot be objectively measured – which cannot be “verified” – has no reality. Troon, you are an empiricist but the difficulty is that the “verifiablity principle” is itself empirically unverifiable and so empiricism is self-refuting and falls into incoherence.

Your empiricism carries over into your “golden Ratio of symmetry” which, as is usually the case with empirical definitions, is circular. The “golden Ratio” maintains that there is a “certain symmetry that is found in the face of those people considered most attractive” but, of course, those people who are considered most attractive possess – wait for it – the “golden Ratio of symmetry.” The definition, in other words, is merely verbal and circular.

(9:41PM) – Troon, your empiricism surfaces even in respect to your comment on where to find isosceles_kramer – in the “top three commentators.” But Troon, that is irrelevant and worthy of a “so what” reply. I want to discuss matters of SUBSTANCE with isosceles here on “Identical Outfits” and not just her numerical ranking among the commentators which, as we all know, means precisely nothing since a “comment” can consist of nothing more than a cartoon and often not even that.

That will be $10.00, Troon.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

RSVPs

Once again the posts were scrambled so that one had to go over the entire thread (!) to pick out those of November 28, only two of which were worthy of a reply. An exhausting exercise but one Montrealman took up in the interests of advancing at least a minimal level of reflection among the posters on the aptly-named “Bitch.”

: Donairious (12:59PM). I agree that my post was marvellous but it would help if you identified the date and time since, as I say, the posts were scrambled and I had no idea of the one you were referring to. Do try next time. But thanks anyway.

: Xenophilia (10:53AM) – Things were not so cheery with Xeno’s post who, in her usual androphobic fashion, took issue with my views but, also as usual, failed utterly to unhorse those views.

Her “thesis” (if you want to call it that) is that I have failed to prove my “claim of superior knowledge” since my “lack of higher-order thinking” is evidenced in my replies to her and to Troon. Her thesis can, of course, be dismissed immediately since I have nowhere made such a claim and defy her to demonstrate otherwise. This might appear to be a minor point except that a failed hypothesis vitiates any evidence brought in its support. Let’s look at that “evidence” now.

She begins with the odd question as to why the expression “eye candy” is “threatening” to me. Well, that’s an easy one. It isn’t threatening to me at all but my point, which she clearly missed, related to the androphobic subtext the expression had when offered to Troon. What was that subtext? It was, “Here you contemptible pig, here’s something you might get off on.” That’s called androphobia.

Next she drones on about the “mathematical component of beauty” which, once again and not suprisingly, missed my point which was – are you able to grasp it? – that (1) it was irrelevant to the current issue of the discussion of the concept of female beauty (anything can have a “mathematical component” to it), (2) it was simply an empty circular assertion (read my previous relevant post over), and finally (3) it was just another misguided empiricist attempt to reduce all meaning (including beauty) to purportedly objective measurement.

I realize that you will have difficulty with this Xeno, but I have put it as simply and briefly as possible. I suggest you review my posts again, reflect uopn them, and submit a further post if you are up to it.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!