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

ms anthropist
successful failure

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

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 378

Posted 09/16/09 - 01:13 AM:	#31
I am afraid not, Only Basque, Italian and Brasilian. But my partner is a Scotish environmentalist, so I am becoming increasingly frugal. Is that close to Jewish? () Edited by ms anthropist on 09/16/09 - 01:19 AM. Reason: lossing my marbles and mixing up all words!

Capillarian
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 07, 2009

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 16

Posted 10/11/09 - 08:36 AM:	#32
I read this thread thinking it was referring to beauty in art, and not in prospective sexual partners. I've read one evolutionary theory as to why women might find musicians attractive. It's to do with ancestral music being very rhythmic. An ability to a) keep a beat, and b) bang on a drum using parts of your body would have entailed a healthy mental faculty and decent physical attributes. Furthermore, any monkey who had the time to find and eat food, sleep, and still have time to muck about with a bit of wood and some animal skin was obviously doing well for him/herself. I can see how that might have been genetically passed on, but where does appreciation for music and art, in general, come from? I can't think of a single evolutionary advantage of finding beauty in the Sistine Chapel ceiling, or in Led Zeppelin, or in Rachmaninoff's third piano concerto. Could it be something to do with social cohesion? I feel most connected to music I find beautiful, and the argument that social cohesion confers an evolutionary advantage is well established.

jsidelko
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 08, 2009

Total Topics: 30
Total Posts: 271

Posted 10/11/09 - 09:25 AM:	#33
Of course our brains are hardwired to be attracted to women who are healthy baby makers, e.g., the right size breasts and hips, etc. Evolution also involves deceptive changes in which less than ideal women are disguised to look sexually and aesthetically beautiful. Sexual selection will sometimes fool animals, both males and females, into picking mates that have fake attributes. Strip away all of the cosmetics, perfumes, designer clothes and hair styles and the beautiful women look rather dumpy.
thanatos

RealityIsAnAnagramOfTryALie
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 21, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 11

Posted 11/21/09 - 11:10 PM:	#34
Arkady wrote: I think that beauty is partly in the genes of the beholder (or, to be more precise, in the genes of the population of which the beholder is a part). While nurture can modify nature in this regard (perhaps even more so than most other traits), I think this is not without limits. Steven Pinker once wrote that if birth control pills grew on trees in our ancestral environment, we'd be terrified of them (or at least the females among us would be). I happen to find glasses sexy on a woman, but if you think about it, glasses would almost certainly be construed as distasteful if we evolved in an environment in which people wore glasses. Why? Because it's essentially advertising a physical and oft-genetically inherited limitation (i.e. myopia) right on our faces! Mating with myopic people would be disfavored by natural selection relative to mating with non-myopic individuals, and thus any visible signals of myopia would be a turn-off. I think that beauty is partly in the genes of the beholder (or, to be more precise, in the genes of the population of which the beholder is a part). While nurture can modify nature in this regard (perhaps even more so than most other traits), I think this is not without limits. But the genes determine which aspects we believe are beautiful of society's views. As does your nurture, however your nurture is also dependent on your nature. If I had the exact same life as you but with my genes I would be different. Well then it wouldn't be the exact same life... Remember that evolution is macro and works as a group, but adaptations are, intrinsically, at an individual level.

Arkady
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 29, 2009

Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 444

Posted 11/22/09 - 06:18 AM:	#35
RealityIsAnAnagramOfTryALie wrote: But the genes determine which aspects we believe are beautiful of society's views. As does your nurture, however your nurture is also dependent on your nature. If I had the exact same life as you but with my genes I would be different. Well then it wouldn't be the exact same life... I don't accept the notion that our conceptions of what constitutes an attractive mate are determined solely by "society's views" or nurture. Of course fashions and trends change over time, and a 25-year-old woman in a beehive hairdo would likely be a turn-off, but as I said, this cultural flexibility is not without limits. Standards of facial attractiveness are remarkably similar across cultures and likely have a number of biological correlates indicating genetic quality (e.g. facial symmetry as a sign of a healthy developmental process). RealityIsAnAnagramOfTryALie wrote: Remember that evolution is macro and works as a group, but adaptations are, intrinsically, at an individual level. Adaptations and selection do work on individuals, but it is only when the trait in question has spread throughout the population do we consider "evolution" to have occurred. Speaking of the evolution of a single individual is nonsensical.
"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

Page: 1 2 3 4

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