« On the Absence of Dogmatism | Main | Beauty that Haunts »
March 14, 2005
Beauty: Skin-Deep, in the Eye of the Beholder and Valuable?
by Alexander Nehamas
Let me make some dogmatic remarks about beauty and subjectivity. We can discuss them in more detail on the air tomorrow.
There is such a thing as beauty that is only skin-deep. It is the beauty of appearance, what we call "looking good." It has little to do with personality, character, wit or morality, and that is because anything that applies to how things look is not a reliable guide to many of their other qualities.
The beauty of appearance -- what we can judge, say, by looking at a photograph of a face -- is something that psychologists have been investigating a lot recently. In general, they show people photographs of faces and ask them to rank them in terms of their beauty. Since these are digital photographs, it is possible to combine them into composite photographs. What seems to be the case is (1) the larger the composite photograph (the more features of individual faces it combines) the more people are likely to consider it beautiful and (2) there is remarkable agreement, both within and between different cultures, about which faces are more beautiful than which.
Several hypotheses have been offered to account for these phenomena, and it seems agreed that they have something to do with the likelihood of reproductive success. The more features a face combines, the more average it is. Now it is very counterintuitive to say that the average is what strikes us as beautiful (since the people or works of art we find beautiful usually stand out against their background), but it turns out that average members of groups are less likely to be subject to external evolutionary pressures and more likely to be healthy and survive in the long run. (That may suggest that even beauty that is skin-deep shows something about the nature of the person it characterizes.)
But the fact that there is significant agreement about such judgements (as well as the fact that it is explained in terms of evolutionary success) suggests, in turn, that BEAUTY THAT IS ONLY SKIN-DEEP IS NOT SIMPLY IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER.
Now, not only are these psychological results counterintuitive -- they also contradict another aspect of everyday experience. Most people in the known universe have, at some time or other, loved someone and most people in the known universe have, at some time or other, been loved by someone, though that is not always, unfortunately, the same person. But the point is (here I am being very dogmatic) that it is impossible to love someone or something that you do not find beautiful. And so, since most people in the world are not, by the evolutionary standards above (or even by the standards applicable to supermodels, male and female) beautiful, either most people in the world are deceived all the time or there is more to beauty, so to speak, than meets the eye.
We must be careful here, for the easy way out is to say that there is such a thing as "inner" or "psychological" beauty, to be contrasted with the beauty of appearance. But that is only easy, and nothing else -- in particular, it is not true. For even if you love someone on account of their character or wit or whatever, these features will manifest themselves in the appearance of the person in question: you will literally perceive them in their face, their posture, their voice and their behavior. That is, a person you love will not appear to you as they do to others who don't love them or as they appear to you when you are indifferent to them.
Such beauty is, unlike good looks of the sort psychologists investigate, very controversial, which is why we keep asking ourselves what our friends see in the people they love, but whom we can't stand. The sense in which there is more to beauty than meets the eye is not that it is "inner," but that it is not likely to meet many eyes. That is, beauty, generally considered, is a product of love and not, in general, its antecent cause. That's what locates it in the eye of the beholder. BUT BEAUTY THAT IS IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER IS NO LONGER ONLY SKIN-DEEP.
It is this beauty that I find philosophically interesting and important. It applies equally to people and things, particularly works of art. It certainly is valuable, although I am not sure its value is intrinsic, as Ken suggests (it may be -- I really am not sure). But its value, along with the value of all the "aesthetic" features that are associated with it, is very different from the moral values that seem to have acquired a monopoly over human life in philosophy and public discourse. Moral values, broadly speaking, depend on the similarities and connections that require us to treat each other impartially, fairly and equally. The values associated with beauty, by contrast, depend on the differences between various human beings and give preference to individuality, autonomy and personal style.
More tomorrow.
March 14, 2005 in Aesthetics, Guest Blogger, The Arts, Upcoming shows | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341cba3a53ef00d834743a1069e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Beauty: Skin-Deep, in the Eye of the Beholder and Valuable?:
Comments
You can also hear Prof. Nehamas speak at:
http://www.princeton.edu/WebMedia/special/
May 14, 2004 - Council of the Humanities
Modorator: Alexander Nehamas; Speakers: Composer Milton Babbitt, Artist Frank Stella, Poet C.K. Williams: "Beauty in Art, Music, Literature and Philosophy"
What connects aesthetics to ethics?
T.K. Seung proposed that the "Laws" completed Plato's project of synthesizing ethics, erotics, and politics and meeting the Calliclean challenge. Seung also proposes that philosophy is not merely the love of wisdom, but also friendship in wisdom.
Today the beauty of friendship is the first thing that comes to mind when I hear the word philosophy.
Posted by: Nick | Mar 16, 2005 6:13:46 AM
This was an interesting program and Alexander Nehamas's comments helped me clarify something I had kicking around in my mind. Namely, that the chesnut about "beauty is skin deep" while obviously true in some sense, is obviously not true in another sense. There is an objective beauty that pschologists can measure. But the deeper beauty is much more subjective and that is in the eye of the beholder.
Posted by: Paul Gibson | Mar 17, 2005 3:54:36 PM
Also, I see my local library has Nehamas's book The Art of Living. Will check out.
Posted by: Paul Gibson | Mar 17, 2005 4:57:58 PM
Beauty is the moment of recognition.
When you transcend from self to being the moment that is universal truth, the univeral truth of beauty.
Everything else is individual, cultural or biological, in other words up to interpretation.
It is not the object, it is not the anticipantion of the moment, it is not winning over others, it is the moment the vail is lifted.
The realization of the look in the eyes of a love one, the look of love for you, is not the beauty of them, or your perception, rather the beauty is the moment of realization.
The realization of finding a public phone booth when lost in the wilderness, the realization of the elegance of a mathematical proof, a fundamental truth, a realization of what is true is not the raw material, but the beauty is the moment itself.
Epiphany is beauty; beauty is epiphany.
God said to Albert, don't you see it.
Why yes! It seem so clear now, so elegant, so beauty, E=MC2.
Posted by: Tommy | Mar 18, 2005 10:35:23 AM
I have learned about this at school today!
Posted by: aadi | Mar 31, 2005 11:27:53 AM
Which is more important physical beauty or mental beauty? In Plato’s Symposium Alcibiades falls before Socrates in tears. He is enraged that Socrates does not love him for his physical beauty, the way he loves Socrates for his mental beauty. Socrates declares that it would be wrong for him to trade his mental beauty (gold) for mere physical beauty (brass).
Is this story the truth about beauty or is it nonsense. Which is valued more by the human race as a whole, physical beauty or mental beauty? Which type of beauty commands more power, respect, and reward? If physical beauty is loved more than physical beauty should it?
For many years I have agreed with Plato and held to the belief that physical beauty is lower than mental beauty. This idea also holds that physical beauty is admired by the majority of the human race, but that the majority of the human race does not have appreciation for higher forms of beauty such as courage/honor and reason/wisdom. But I have decided to attempt to push out all previous long held to memes about beauty and examine the whole topic anew.
What I have found is startling although it would not be accepted by philosophers who hold onto ancient beliefs about how beauty should be loved. What I have found is that physical beauty commands more power, respect, and love than mental beauty. For each unit of physical beauty there is more reward than for each unit of mental beauty.
I have also found that in the end what each human desires is in fact not mental beauty but physical beauty. People have taught their offspring that outside beauty does not matter, what matters is the beauty inside, but of course this is a lie. Whether you are apply for a job, whether you are trying to attract a mate outside beauty matters more than mental beauty. If fact I argue that appreciation and acquisition of physical beauty is linked more to survival that mental beauty.
What I also argue is that each unit of physical beauty brings more reward than each unit of mental beauty. Certainly we have been taught to admire the mental over the physical, but we know this is a lie. I am not arguing that mental beauty should not be admired, but that the acquisition and appreciation of physical beauty should be admired at the same level or even more than mental beauty-basically that Plato was wrong in assigning physical beauty a lower status than mental beauty. That the scholar should not look down on physical beauty, or state that they want nothing to do with it. One main reason is the power that physical beauty commands. Most physical beauty does not come natural it takes hard work, but I argue that the rewards for each unit of physical beauty are more than each unit of mental beauty.
I also argue that Plato was wrong or that he was lying to the reader. It was another noble lie. The admiration of the physical human form was not looked down at during Greek antiquity.
Posted by: Homer | Jul 19, 2005 1:48:48 AM
It seems our perception of our outer-world is determined through our inner-world. That is, our own inner-conceptions of the outer-world influence our own perceptions of the outer-appearance of that appearance; through our own inner-appearances of those outer-appearances. So I would disagree enough to say that the inner-beauty (mental) undermines the outer-beauty. In that, the inner-beauty has more influence to the appearance than appearance itself.
Posted by: kathryn | Jul 24, 2005 2:58:25 PM
Beauty is, like other untouchable, invisible and abstract words, a result of personal imiganition and perception that is applicable only to the concerned individual. Beauty is situational and will change from time to time.
Posted by: Zacharia Abdel Cadeer | Aug 26, 2005 6:47:06 PM
FEMININE physical beauty is recognized by all humankind.
Yet it has no absolutely fixed standard.
The savage sees as beauties contours and shapes which to us are hideous and distorted.
Semi-civilized man is apt to regard fat and weight as the chief beauty factors. Even civilized man varies in his individual estimates. Those accepted charms of form, face and figure, however, which appeal most to the majority of individuals, may be said to be the nearest approach to an exact standard of beauty we have.
Proportion, color, delicacy, type, symmetry, the flash of the eye, the sweetness of the smile, and a thousand other factors contribute to make a woman beautiful. Every woman has her special individual beauties; some women possess a number in combination. A lovely natural complexion, delicately-shaped hands, shapely feet and ankles, glorious hair, a noble and alluring figure, all lay a duty upon their possessorsthe duty of care and preservation. For beauty, physical as well as mental and moral, is a virtue. It is as essential to humanity as loyalty and truth. It is, or should be, the truth of the physical feminine being, expressed in its most
perfect terms.
Posted by: Geoff | Aug 28, 2005 1:03:58 AM
During my recent studies in beauty I learned that all beauty cannot be measured, in fact real beauty may not be measurable at all. There is intellectual beauty and sensuous (pleasurable) beauty; a beauty that is both intellectual and sensuous at the same time is preferable to one that is only sensuous. There is physical beauty and non physical beauty. Many people think that real beauty can be measured through proportion and symmetry, but there is beauty that cannot be measured-how can the beauty of light be measured etc? When a person looks at another and finds the other beautiful is it in fact the physical beauty that is attracting them or is it an invisible/non physical beauty that may or may not be represented by the physical beauty that is attracting them?
Posted by: Homer | Aug 28, 2005 2:54:10 AM
Wonderful discussion.
In terms of the arts, I've found that there was a time (when, for example, Hogarth wrot his treatise on beauty) when beauty was conceived of in purely visual terms, so that music didn't come into the discussion at all. Then there came a time when music was seen as the predominant art, the purely beautiful one, because it couldn't represent.
In terms of personal appeal, what kinds of voice do we hear as beautiful, as is that, too, the result of evolutionary pressures toward the average?
Posted by: Christopher | Aug 30, 2005 6:38:06 AM
While I agree with the main (first blog) that good looks are not simply in the eye of the beholder I caution him about the following statement "There is such a thing as beauty that is only skin-deep. It is the beauty of appearance, what we call "looking good." It has little to do with personality, character, wit or morality, and that is because anything that applies to how things look is not a reliable guide to many of their other qualities." There exist reasons to accept this statement as true from a practical and moral standpoint. Practical: we should not allow ourselves to be swindled by unscrupulous beauty queens or kings after assuming he/she has good character based on their good looks. Moral: why should we give good looking people any better treatment than anyone else? (assuming they had inner beauty based on outer beauty could cause this). I ask the reader to review the quoted statement from a scientific standpoint, believing what we know to be true rather than what we want to be true. Though I have heard the following argument from many places http://psychology.about.com/b/a/081532.htm?terms=beauty+psychology+social states it succinctly. The argument goes as follows. First we must accept the premise that people and more importantly children recieve different treatment from one another based upon their beauty. There are studies published which show that better looking people and children recieve kinder treatment when it comes to daily interactions, this stems from the presumption also confirmed by studies that we assign positive characteristics such as intelligence and good humour to good looking people subconsciously. So far what I have stated should be considered fact and should not be suprising. What may be suprising and which I personally scrutinize more carefully is that outer beauty actually IS a sign of inner beauty by way of self-fullfilling prophecy. That is that from an early age good looking people are treated more kindly and more respectfully and therefore in turn develop kinder and more respectful attitudes towards others. This is only to say that it is likely that people in general will treat others as they are treated themeselves in daily interactions. To those who say that good looking people are conceited I would argue that they simply have a healthy self esteem due to the way they have been treated. Why should good looking people be treated better than others? why should they have a higher self esteem than others? I urge the reader not to confuse fairness with reality, that is what's fair may not be what's true.
Posted by: Student | Aug 31, 2005 12:56:05 PM
There is a school of thought that physical beauty is a representation of an invisible inner beauty. The necessary connection is never explained.
Posted by: Homer | Aug 31, 2005 9:04:24 PM
HI IM DOING A SCHOOL DEBATE ON BEAUTY IS SKIN DEEP I FOUND YOUR SITE VERY HELPFUL AND WOULD VERY MUCH APPRECIATE IT IF YOU COULD EXPRESS YOUR OPINION A LITTLE MORE INDEPTHLY AS IT IS EXTREMELY HELPFUL
THANKS
Posted by: amanda | Sep 17, 2005 5:21:35 PM
Beauty is not skin deep; It includes bone structure.
Posted by: Maddie | Oct 6, 2005 10:43:59 PM
Thank you for putting what was in my head and in my heart down in words.
Posted by: Michelle | Jul 31, 2006 6:54:14 AM
This was an interesting read... I have to say that I have noticed within myself over the years and in many of my colleagues what I term the Solomon syndrome. That beauty often comes with what you know, especially if you value your life and the things that life has taught you. I find that the more things I learn about in the world, the more ability I have to appreciate what they represent.
Beauty is proportionately balanced to perceived value. The more things you value, the more beauty you are exposed to on a daily basis.
In some ways this explains why we often don't see the beauty in someone that we do not know well. It also expains why some people are drawn to physical beauty while others are indifferent or repulsed by it on account of the value they have assigned it in their lives.
So if you accept the story, pity poor King Solomon, who probably never realized that all the wisdom he received would make it so difficult for him to have just one wife from just one culture...
Posted by: Jacob | Aug 5, 2006 1:50:50 PM
i have a big presentation about this subject..fortunately i found u guys...i thank you guys...
i also agree with what u said... =)
Posted by: mikhael | Nov 16, 2006 3:50:07 PM
As an adult,parent and grand parent, I beleive every word said and read about "Beauty is only skin deep. It was also interesting to know that my 13 years old grand daughter has to write an essay on the same topic and she had written some very interesting facts about it and to recognize that this is not a myth about inner beauty but a fact that people perceive things and people the way they see them and not the way they are from the inside.
Posted by: Ianthe Quintyne | Jan 5, 2007 5:21:32 PM
Hi,
Sorry, so late to this thread but i came across this excellent discussion when researching the meanings of beauty and it's prescence in art.
So, my issue is this. You say beauty, objective beauty, is skin deep and already categorised by scientists as a kind of average.
Now if we were visited by aliens (looking quite different from ourselves) and they told the world to line up...and they would select the most beautiful...then it would be the most beautiful in their eyes yes? Surely they would make the choice of the most beautiful on their own criteria...and it would not be the person/nnes that WE think is/are beautiful.
So doesnt that mean, taking the concept of human beauty, that even shallow beauty is subjective given no past reference?
Posted by: Richard Huxley | Feb 27, 2007 3:04:27 AM
I see no reason not to continue this conversation over the course of several years… the Web is beautiful in that regard. ;) Anyway, I found this by googling something-or-other, and I must say I'm extremely gratified that someone else has recognized these paradoxes in how we behave, and how they lead to (in my opinion, anyway) a certain tragedy: namely, that so long as there is general human agreement over what is and isn't beautiful, driven perhaps by basic evolutionary aesthetic principles, people will treat one other differently for it, despite the (literal) superficiality of doing so.
Merely saying, "Oh, sure, but that's not the kind of beauty that matters" is only brushing aside the deeper questions. Why do we even have the word "beautiful" for people, and hence the idea? How can you possibly have a person termed "beautiful" (or even less equivalents like "pretty" and "cute") without simultaneously elevating that person and disparaging others for a trait that none of us are directly reasonable for (unlike, say, kindness or intelligence)? It overlaps into the territory of a lot of big scary questions, like the problem of evil, and because of this, it might be safest to ignore them altogether instead of driving ourselves insane. But that's just me ;)
Posted by: Lenoxus | Apr 5, 2007 5:50:01 PM
I'm confused...I thought the concept "Beauty is only skin-deep" ... meant that beauty is more than physical good looks...but it means that beauty is only limited to the skin?... Why isn't the world fair? I don't understand the way we live..why we live like this? This is all so confusing. Everyting contradicts itself...Is like everything that the people taugh us is what we want to hear? They don't tell us how it really is and I hate that!!!...I really like this page,for me it was really interesting and it maked me realized that I was wrong in a lot of stuff or right?...But I still don't understand...Mostly of us just look for skin-deep beauty...and it's said that's wrong..now here it says that it's the more important one?...then..we are all are a wrong kind of huminity? Or we aren't wrong,this is just how we supose to be!?? So we're right cause' we're wrong and we're supose to be this way? Humans are the most complicated create of all...I'm still trying to understand the way we live...how we deal with people..what we look for...why...Complex world...we may never understand,maybe we're not supose to...but then,why do God gave us minds to think and wtv?...To me ...it's all so complicated...
Posted by: | Sep 25, 2007 7:24:12 PM
