Physical Attraction To The Opposite Sex

Aesthetics Beauty
41

I do.  Harmonious with what ?

…

You have been calling immoral the very real fact that physical characteristics can be isolated and judged beautiful as apart from character. Judging a human feature as beautiful is in fact isolating this feature and observing the harmony of the constitutive elements of this feature. There is no “character” in the judgement. Many of your other comments are based on the falsehood that physical looks can’t be isolated and judged beautiful without reference to character, that to do so is to advocate a mind-body dichotomy, to advocate the concept of intrinsic value. This is an arbitrary assertion with no basis in reality. As such, my contributions with reference to your point of view end here.

42

Suppose you are single, you walk into a room and see a strikingly beautiful girl.  Automatically you project certain positive qualities about her.  Do you need to validate these judgments before taking action?  That would be absurd.  Rather you take the appropriate action: Go talk to her.  It is at that point you can judge the validity of your original estimate.

That is exactly what I’m talking about, and more – so I don’t think we are as far apart on this topic as you seem to think. If your value-judgements turned out to be wrong, i.e. you found her strikingly beautiful and then found out she was a moronic buffoon, then do something about your erroneous value-judgements. You should be aiming to train your subconscious to identify by an emotional response – the emotional response that a woman is “strikingly beautiful”, for example – the people who do posses the qualities of character you wish to seek out in others. You should want to involve your whole being in that process, not merely follow your existing subconscious summations, whatever they are, simply because you are either too lazy or too incapable of doing that level of introspection – and then shrug off the frustration when they lead you astray, taking no corrective action, and doomed to repeat the misidentification and waste of time with the same poorly trained subconscious.

I’m not saying there is a sharp line between automatized value-judgments and judgments of pure physical attractiveness.  They are intertwined to a great degree.

They are more than merely “intertwined”, they are one and the same thing. All judgements of “pure physical attractiveness” are in fact value-judgements, whether you like it or not. It is not a baseless claim; it stems from the idea of tabula rasa.

I, as well as most rational men I would imagine, have no “preferences” of a purely physical nature that cannot be connected directly to some fact of reality which holds important meaning for me. This would have unnecessarily limited my available selection of mates, for one thing. Long straight black hair is beautiful, and wavy blonde hair is beautiful as well, so long as both are worn in a feminine way. I have no preference for one over the other. There are specific physical attributes for which I do hold what you would probably call a “purely physical” preference, but I know that they are not purely physical. Unfortunately for this discussion, the concretes in this area are too personal for me to share, so I won’t be doing that.

43

No, it actually can be inferred from the novel that he didn’t “validate his projection.”  Perhaps even that he never intended to.  From when he was leaving the quarry and Dominique:

Does this sound like a man that had validated his projection by “tying it down to premesis,” a man that introspected about why he should sleep with her, considering thinking of her astonished him?

It sounds like a man who has done exactly what I said – implicitly. The fact is, he did think of her and he was astonished. Ayn Rand did not choose the word “seemed” lightly here. Certainly it was of great importance that he would be thinking of her now, or she wouldn’t have written about it.

Even if I’m wrong about this, its not as if The Fountainhead is a manual describing the ideal relationship. They go years being in love without being together, Dominique marries someone else… the ways in which their lives develop is far from ideal, but this too served a purpose in the book.

And on top of it all, Roark is hardly morally perfect. John Galt is the only morally perfect character Ayn Rand created – everyone else made some moral error or other.

44

physical characteristics can be isolated and judged beautiful as apart from character.

For what purpose?

When evaluating another human being in any way, you are looking for the potential value to your own life. That is the purpose of valuation. There is no such thing as valuation for valuation’s sake.

What added value to one’s life is gained by looking at another human being – an existent one can only gain value from in some sort of social or political context – a relationship of some kind – and identifying physical characteristics apart from the character with which one would interact in a relationship? How will this process improve the happiness in your life?

Nada.

45

And on top of it all, Roark is hardly morally perfect.  John Galt is the only morally perfect character Ayn Rand created – everyone else made some moral error or other.

Absolutely false. Ayn Rand was explicit on this point. Galt, Francisco, and Ragnar were all perfectly moral.

46

John Galt is the only morally perfect character Ayn Rand created – everyone else made some moral error or other.

I don’t think you should be expressing with certainty what Ayn Rand did or did not do as far as her characters are concerned, considering your rationalization with regard to Roark, and your failure to understand the difference between errors of knowledge and moral wrongs. All the heroes in the novels are morally perfect, the “imperfections” you ascribe immorality to are actually errors in knowledge.

47

Absolutely false.  Ayn Rand was explicit on this point.  Galt, Francisco, and Ragnar were all perfectly moral.

If that is correct, then I appreciate the correction. Note, however, that Roark is still not included in the list.

To be honest I had forgotten about Ragnar as he seemed to be a very minor, background character. Upon reflection I can imagine that Francisco did not make any errors in the novel, either.

48

I don’t think you should be expressing with certainty what Ayn Rand did ordid not do as far as her characters are concerned, considering your rationalization with regard to Roark, and your failure to understand the difference between errors of knowledge and moral wrongs. All the heroes in the novels are morally perfect, the rest made mistakes of knowledge.

Right back at ya, minus that last erroneous sentence.

49

Again, there is a major difference between errors rooted in knowledge, and moral wrongs.

50

…minus that last erroneous sentence.

Well then, you would have to refute the following:

Learn to distinguish the difference between errors of knowledge and breaches of morality.  An error of knowledge is not a moral flaw, provided you are willing to correct it; only a mystic would judge human beings by the standard of an impossible, automatic omniscience.  But a breach of morality is the conscious choice of an action you know to be evil, or a willful evasion of knowledge, a suspension of sight and of thought.  That which you do not know, is not a moral charge against you; but that which you refuse to know, is an account of infamy growing in your soul.  Make every allowance for errors of knowledge; do not forgive or accept any breach of morality.  Give the benefit of the doubt to those who seek to know..

Based on this, I claim Eddie, Reardon, Dagny, Francisco, Galt, Ragnar, Roark, Dominique, were are morally perfect, because if they ever acted wrongly, it was because they were engaged in errors of knowledge, not immorality.

51

…its not as if The Fountainhead is a manual describing the ideal relationship.

I never claimed it was. My point was to show that your view is inconsistent with a major Objectivist hero’s actions.

52

When evaluating another human being in any way, you are looking for the potential value to your own life.  That is the purpose of valuation.  There is no such thing as valuation for valuation’s sake.

I don’t even know what these means. Evaluation is the appraisal of something, the determination of the value of something, presupposing the answer to the question “of value to whom” (to the evaluator). In life, I am a valuer, and I value beauty, which is harmony. I value seeing this, whether in nature or in the man-made. The sight of beauty is a value. In this sense, evaluation is the commitment to thinking. Why would I refuse to evaluate the feature of a human being simply because I must know that somehow that feature has to benefit me in some other way than simply the image of beauty it provides me with?

53

^^^^^

Great post.

54

Why would I refuse to evaluate the feature of a human being simply because I must know that somehow that feature has to benefit me in some other way than simply the image of beauty it provides me with?

Why would you evaluate a feature of a human being simply to valuate it for its “harmony” (to something nebulous and fuzzy, apparently) and for no other purpose? What value does this add to your life? How does it make you a happier man?

To determine that something has beauty is to say that it has some value to your life. There is no other purpose for doing so. Unless you care to introspect on the nature of this “harmony” and name its subject, we won’t go any farther.

55

Let me put this a different way. Finding something beautiful is a valuation of its worth to one’s life. If that is true, then the beauty is not itself the value, but the method of valuation.

If beauty itself were the value, then beauty could not be a valuation. Either beauty presupposes a valuation, or a valuation is made presupposing beauty. You can’t have it both ways.

56

What is the purpose of valuing the sight of an immaculate horse? What is the purpose of valuing the sight of a setting sun on a beach? What is the purpose of valuing the sight of a clear nightsky full of stars? Why do I find these sights beautiful and value them? Do they (the vision, sight, whatever) provide me with some other value beyond the sight they provide me with? What value does the sight itself provide me with? Beauty, since beauty is a value. Why? Because it is a reflection of what I value in myself – consistency, non-contradictory constituents that fit into an integrated whole. That we can isolate features and judge as beautiful things that have no relation to the character of a human does not necessarily mean that we advocate fuzzyness or intrinsicism or mind-body dichotomy.

In the simplest terms possible: harmony is the non-contradictory fitting of constituent parts of the object being judged as harmonious. Objects that can qualify as harmonious are not limited to those rooted in the cognitive realm. What purpose does judging non-character based objects as beautiful serve? Identifying yet another example of what I value myself in life – integration, non-contradiction, consistency. Just as friends and loved-ones are valued because they reflect what we ourselves value, so do I value the image of consistency in nature or in the man-made. Again, constituent parts do not have to be cognitive in nature in order for the whole to be judged as beautiful.

Now, our posts to this point are sufficient for any reader to judge for themselves who’s view is consistent with reality. As such, this is the final word on the issue between you and I. I will not hesitate to delete any post that does nothing more than restate the unsubstantiated, arbitrary assertion that to judge something not cognitive in root as beautiful and to value its sight is wrong, mindless, purposeless, intrinsic, etc.

57

What is the purpose of valuing the sight of an immaculate horse?  What is the purpose of valuing the sight of a setting sun on a beach?  What is the purpose of valuing the sight of a clear nightsky full of stars?  Why do I find these sights beautiful and value them?  Do they (the vision, sight, whatever) provide me with some other value beyond the sight they provide me with?  What value does the sight itself provide me with?  Beauty, since beauty is a value.

No. These other objects have no character as a human has character. They cannot be judged for something they do not have. And yes, they can still be judged as beautiful, because of the values they do possess and grant to a man’s life. But beauty itself is not a value, it is a value-judgement.

But why you would want to equivocate between non-humans and humans in the realm of value-judgement I cannot surmise.

Your thinking is this area is where the term “objectifying women” comes from. Here, let me mail order you a gorgeous blow-up doll – if realistic it should be just as “beautiful” as any real woman you know.

In the simplest terms possible: harmony is the non-contradictory fitting of constituent parts of the object being judged as harmonious.

Insufficient. To take music as an example, a “harmony” is when two instruments or signers complement each others notes with notes from the same scale, but not the same notes. There is no harmony without {a} the scale, and {b} the first instrument. Then and only there is there something to harmonize to.

What purpose does judging non-character based objects as beautiful serve?

Non-character based objects add value to man’s life, just as character based ones do. The problem I see is judging a character-based object as if its character were somehow a separate value from its physical body, when in fact you cannot have one without the other.

Again, constituent parts do not have to be cognitive in nature in order for the whole to be judged as beautiful.

Of course not. But if the object does possess a consciousness, then its consciousness should not be excluded from the subconscious integrations resulting in the end value-judgement.

What I mean is this: a woman can have a beautiful face or a beautiful body, but that does not make her beautiful.

As such, this is the final word on the issue between you and I.  I will not hesitate to delete any post that does nothing more than restate the unsubstantiated, arbitrary assertion that to judge something not cognitive in root as beautiful and to value its sight is wrong, mindless, purposeless, intrinsic, etc.

It is unsubstantiated and arbitrary to say that a woman does possess character? It is unsubstatiated and arbitrary to say that a value-judgement is an integration of many facts of reality, and that the exclusion of any of those facts leads one’s subconscious to incorrect conclusions? It is not wrong to view a woman who may have a beautiful body and declare the woman to be beautiful? If so, I gladly depart.

58

All I meant was that things that are beautifal are of value, not that the value-judgement itself is what is of value. The value beautiful things provide one with is the reflection of what one values.

Harmony as I described is perfectly consistent when applied to music. The constituent parts (parts played by specific instrument or what not), for them to be non-contradictory, have to follow specific rules, which are the ones you outlined. That I did not define the specific rules does not make my description inapplicable.

I never said that when judging a human one can seperate the inherently character-based constituents of the human. These constitutents of a human have to be in non-contradicton with what it is to be human, which is inherently character-based. In the case of people one doesn’t know, assessement of beauty to them involves a projection, this has already been discussed. And further, yes, one should validate this projection to the degree that one expects to act on it.

My basic point is that there’s nothing wrong with judging someone as beautiful if it involves a projection, say, like when judging someone on a magazine cover or on some random picture. Are we to abstain from judgement if we do not know first hand the person’s character?

Further, are there not specific features of a human that aren’t cognitive in nature? Would you call mindless a physician that calls beautiful the sight of a live 3-D video feed of someone’s heart beating? His admiration of how consistent and non-contradictory its operation is would be mindless? My point is that there are human features that aren’t character-based, and to the extent that they aren’t, one can judge the beauty of them just fine without considering character, which it isn’t dependent on.

I don’t think we disagree, actually, it’s just that there have been massive misinterpretations of the implications of statements. So that I’m clear, I don’t advocate the view that features which are, by identity, inherently character-based, can be judged as beautiful without consideration of character. Further, when the person’s character isn’t verified, the assessement invovles a projection. Even further, quite another question is to what extent should one validate this projection, which I say is dependent on the extent to which one intends on acting on this projection.

59

My basic point is that there’s nothing wrong with judging someone as beautiful if it involves a projection, say, on a magazine cover or based on some random picture.  Are we to abstain from judgement if we do not know first hand the person’s character?

What purpose does the projection serve? For me, if I view some particular person and they have some physically beautiful feature, I can select it and identify the specific feature and connect that to the facts of reality which cause me to value it – in other words, put it in its proper place. If I were to lust after them or judge them to be a beautiful person, or act differently towards them because of it even without (or despite!) knowing their character, I would be mindless to not introspect on that and root out the error so that the next time I would not make it.

Actually, I don’t think we’re too far off from agreement, either.

The point I want to make is that one’s value-judgements have a purpose, and to act on them and shrug off errors as DPW suggested without corresponding introspection to identify the source of the error and reprogram the subconscious is to idle cognitively and not try to improve oneself. Make no mistake: to judge something as valuable and then find out later it is not valuable as previously judged means an error has been made. It is an even graver error to not do something about it.

60

Let me add this rather large hint to those readers trying to figure out what facts of reality give rise to the valuation of a particular woman’s body as being beautiful or not.

A lot of it has to do with overall health. A healthy woman is a beautiful woman, an unhealthy woman is not. A healthy woman makes a more valuable mate, both in terms of adding value to the partnership and in terms of child-bearing ability. Child-bearing ability is itself also a fact of reality that contributes to beauty – for example, wide hips are better suited for birthing.

That should get you started :smiley: