Beauty and Darwin: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of the Arts » Beauty and Darwin » Beauty and Darwin

Beauty and Darwin
A Darwinian interpretation of beauty

Page: 1 2 3 4

Beauty and Darwin

Arkady
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 29, 2009

Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 444

Posted 09/12/09 - 09:00 PM:	#21
unenlightened wrote: Steven is mistaken. It might be a useful defense for bananas, say, to evolve birth control chemicals, but the response would be far more likely for females to evolve a distaste for them, than a fear. Yes, it's possible that "distaste" may be more likely than actual fear. But the point of Pinker's was just to say that we'd evolve some sort of aversive reaction to birth control pills because they drastically reduce reproductive fitness (for obvious reasons). unenlightened wrote: As to glasses - given glasses, myopia is not much of a limitation. I agree that myopia is not the worst trait a person can have. However, from the viewpoint of genetic fitness, ceteris paribus it would be better to mate with a non-myopic person (especially in our ancestral environment the savanna which is wide-open and allows for long-distance viewing). unenlightened wrote: For sure there are limitations, and built-in likes and dislikes, but if a sword-swallower can overcome the gagging reflex, I think ideas of beauty are likewise susceptible to modification - there is certainly no gene for a shoe-fetish or a taste for Salvador Dali's paintings. I agree...but we are talking specifically about interpersonal attraction.
"Sit down before fact like a little child, and be prepared to give up every preconceived notion. Follow humbly wherever and to whatever abyss Nature leads, or you shall learn nothing." -T.H. Huxley

nyana
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 11, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 16

Posted 09/12/09 - 10:07 PM:	#22
Arkady wrote: Well...first, "evolutionary aesthetics" as it's sometimes called is not entirely (perhaps not at all) the brainchild of Dennett. Secondly, it may well be that evolution has ingrained conceptions of beauty in our mind, but it doesn't follow that there must be the same conceptions as applied to, say, women and landscapes. There could be one set of criteria for why we find certain women beautiful (e.g. signs of youthfulness/fertility) and why we find certain landscapes beautiful (e.g. affords natural resources, protection from predators, etc). There needn't be a single explanation for both. Oops, I should not have suggested that this view is an innovation of Dennett. Who first came up with the idea? I agree with you in that there "needn't be a single explanation for both," but the problem is your reasons as to why I might find a landscape beautiful do not apply to specific landscapes that I find beautiful: this is the heart of my criticism. I cannot see evolution providing any explanation as to why I find the Grand Canyon beautiful. It's dry, extremely hot, isolated, a good many predators, and lacks in natural resources. Anyone who has watched Man vs. Wild knows that such a landscape is extremely difficult to survive in and contains many things evolution has taught us to fear: heights, poisonous and carnivorous animals, etc.
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield. - Tennyson

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island

Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 3304

Posted 09/13/09 - 05:40 AM:	#23
Canyons can have advantages. It is a source of water, a possible line of defence against enemies, (assuming they are on the other side). I grew up loving high deserts because that is where I spent much of my childhood, (White Sands, New Mexico was my backyard). There is a childhood association with security, (there were predators, but you could see them coming, not much could hide). Sunsets might seem attractive because of the sudden burst of color which we associate with food and resources. Why the Grand Canyon and not, say, Snake River or Glen Canyon or some large canyon in another country? They are also pretty spectacular -- but asking that question might uncover cultural/social biases. You might find the Grand Canyon beautiful because of the warm association with national pride, (if you were American), or social identity in that you have heard about it being beautiful for so long. If the thought of it being turned into a landfill offends you -- that is an indication that you have some personal identity with it or the value of the resources it would destroy. All these would be examples of "memes", (a term coined by your good friend Richard Dawkins).
Ethics is the measuring of morality. Morality is the measuring of good. Good is the measuring of benefit. Benefit is the measure of values.

Arkady
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 29, 2009

Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 444

Posted 09/13/09 - 06:51 AM:	#24
nyana wrote: Oops, I should not have suggested that this view is an innovation of Dennett. Who first came up with the idea? I agree with you in that there "needn't be a single explanation for both," but the problem is your reasons as to why I might find a landscape beautiful do not apply to specific landscapes that I find beautiful: this is the heart of my criticism. I cannot see evolution providing any explanation as to why I find the Grand Canyon beautiful. It's dry, extremely hot, isolated, a good many predators, and lacks in natural resources. Anyone who has watched Man vs. Wild knows that such a landscape is extremely difficult to survive in and contains many things evolution has taught us to fear: heights, poisonous and carnivorous animals, etc. Why must your preference for particular landscapes have an evolutionary explanation, any more so than your preference for particular movies? Your liking of deserts may be more a result of ontogeny (personal development) than phylogeny (a trait passed down from ancestors).
"Sit down before fact like a little child, and be prepared to give up every preconceived notion. Follow humbly wherever and to whatever abyss Nature leads, or you shall learn nothing." -T.H. Huxley

unenlightened
everything is...

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales

Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 3286

Posted 09/13/09 - 08:03 PM:	#25
Well let's play the evolutionary speculative game... Snakes evolve an interspecial colour language to say 'don't try to eat me, I'm poisonous' and some nonpoisonous snakes evolve to lyingly imitate them. Peaches evolve a rosey glow to say 'eat me, I'm ripe', and female humans evolve a similar look to say something similar. Perhaps there is a language of nature that makes sunsets appear sexy and tasty. Smoothness and symmetry 'mean' health in food and mate; cliffs mean shelter, green means growth and abundant herbivores - will this sort of simple code suffice as a foundation of an aesthetic upon which cultural tradition can build according to local circumstance? Edit: do you suppose we have an ape-like instinct to make the bedrooms upstairs?
...most of our actions are the result of the past, or according to a future ideal. That's not action, that is just conformity. J Krishnamurti "Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought." John Cowper Powys

ciceronianus
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 20, 2008
Location: USA

Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1023

Last Blog: Trials in which "Failure is not an option"

Posted 09/15/09 - 09:05 AM:	#26
Evolution, schmevolution. Seriously, was sexual attraction the only basis on which Dennet made his claims regarding "beauty"? If so, it doesn't seem like much of a thesis.
"Let us not pretend to doubt in philosophy what we do not doubt in our hearts."--C.S. Peirce "There is nothing so absurd but some philosopher has said it."--Marcus Tullius Cicero "Philosophy recovers itself when it ceases to be a device for dealing with the problems of philosophers and becomes a method, cultivated by philosophers, for dealing with the problems of men."--John Dewey

ms anthropist
successful failure

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 11, 2006
Location: on the highest horse

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 378

Posted 09/15/09 - 09:44 AM:	#27
The genetical variation between different ethnities is minimal, in fact, I think we are only one chromosome away from being monkeys. Although, that might explain why Italian men get laid, it makes one wonder about the prevalence of taste diversity within such little genetical variation. Also, why is it that as Globalisation advances we are becoming increasingly alike in lifestyle and preferences? Is the global genetic makeup less diverse now than before the advance of new media? if not, it seems that aesthetic preferences are the result of cultural indocrination.

ciceronianus
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 20, 2008
Location: USA

Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1023

Last Blog: Trials in which "Failure is not an option"

Posted 09/15/09 - 11:21 AM:	#28
ms anthropist wrote: that might explain why Italian men get laid Watch it. Would you substitute "black" for Italian? If not, why not?
"Let us not pretend to doubt in philosophy what we do not doubt in our hearts."--C.S. Peirce "There is nothing so absurd but some philosopher has said it."--Marcus Tullius Cicero "Philosophy recovers itself when it ceases to be a device for dealing with the problems of philosophers and becomes a method, cultivated by philosophers, for dealing with the problems of men."--John Dewey

ms anthropist
successful failure

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 11, 2006
Location: on the highest horse

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 378

Posted 09/15/09 - 12:07 PM:	#29
Because having Italian family members I can make the joke. Even the women have beards! If I were black or I had black blood maybe I'd make a joke about that. It seems that laughing about oneself is allowed. No offense, but when was the last time you were in the beach in Italy? Most Black man I've known had less bodily hair than Italians and most monkeys I've seen are hairy as hell, so perhaps Italian are closer to monkeys than Africans. We all come from monkeys, it is not a big deal. I think monkeys are quite sweet and with a bit of waxing they look less Italian. Edited by ms anthropist on 09/16/09 - 01:09 AM. Reason: typos

ciceronianus
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 20, 2008
Location: USA

Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1023

Last Blog: Trials in which "Failure is not an option"

Posted 09/15/09 - 12:34 PM:	#30
ms anthropist wrote: Because having Italian family members I can make the joke. Even the women have beards! If I were black or I had black blood maybe I'd make a joke about that. It seems that laughing about oneself is aloud. No offense, but when was the last time you were in the beach in Italy? Most Black man I've known had less bodily hair than Italians and most monkeys I've seen are hairy as hell, so perhaps Italian are closer to monkeys than Africans. We all come from monkeys, is not a big deal. I think monkeys are quite sweet and with a bit of waxing they look less Italian. Ah, well, that makes it all better, then. Do you have any Polish or Jewish family members?
"Let us not pretend to doubt in philosophy what we do not doubt in our hearts."--C.S. Peirce "There is nothing so absurd but some philosopher has said it."--Marcus Tullius Cicero "Philosophy recovers itself when it ceases to be a device for dealing with the problems of philosophers and becomes a method, cultivated by philosophers, for dealing with the problems of men."--John Dewey

Page: 1 2 3 4

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.