Beauty is a kind of value judgment. As a value judgment, the standard of man’s life ultimately dictates the standard of beauty. More particularly, the objective standard of beauty is the physical nature of man qua man. The metaphysically given standard of beauty includes limited ranges of symmetry, proportions, hair colors, etc., all of which are identifiable with the nature of man qua man, and, ultimately, correlated to man’s life as the standard of value. Among other things, visible manifestations of good health contribute to a judgment of beauty, whereas visible manifestations of ill health detract, because these are directed to the requirements of man’s life.
What dictates the limited ranges? Ultimately, man’s life qua man. For example, being relatively big or tall for a man can be considered a good attribute, but being too tall can shorten a man’s life, and be considered bad. It should be understood, of course, that the standards for beauty are somewhat different for man qua man and woman qua woman, but the same principle and ultimate standard applies.
The measurement of these kinds of values, including beauty, is teleological, according to the objective standard of man’s life.
The less relevant a physical characterisitc is to success in man's life qua man, the less relevant it is to objective beauty. For example, blondes may be a bit more popular, but this is far down the telelolgical scale of physical attributes directed to success in life, which means it can become a matter of personal, even subjective preference.
BTW, no projection is needed regarding your animosity here, J. Nicky, for example, immediately noted it regarding your opening post. Animosity, including ad hominem, bursts and oozes from your opening post and others on this thread. Nevertheless, I hope you and others may find my post helpful, and I would value any mutually respectful and civil discussion.
softwareNerd, at least there is always a "public need" for a new moving company offering a lower price. Unless the moving company offers its services for too low a price, which would be anti-trust. Unless it is an advertiser-supported moving company, which offers its services for "free"; which would be "unfair competition" (a la Google offering its map service for free in France). You can't win for losing.
Although dated November 5, 2010, Dr. Peikoff just published a public statement on his website, including regarding the issue of damning McCaskey to hell.
http://www.peikoff.c...i-board-member/
Although dated November 5, 2010, Dr. Peikoff just published a public statement on his website, including regarding the issue of damning McCaskey to hell.
http://www.peikoff.c...i-board-member/
Old Toad got a reaction from JASKN in Hsieh's Own-Goal on the Subject of Beauty and Objectivity
Old Toad got a reaction from softwareNerd in Reblogged: Licensing vs. Freedom of Speech
Old Toad got a reaction from Grames in The Logical Leap by David Harriman
Old Toad got a reaction from dream_weaver in The Logical Leap by David Harriman
Old Toad got a reaction from MisterSwig in An Open Letter To Craig Biddle