Are beauty, truth and goodness transcendentals?

I don't believe I said there was something wrong with the source.


The article states that it's not just symmetry, but faces which are an average of those in the population, which are found to be more beautiful. While Denzel Washington may have a symmetrical face, it does not seem to be average.

Linda
Strange. "Truth and Beauty" are the words I use to describe my outlook. And my perspective is dramatically different than this author's. Oh wait, I just looked at the source. Now I see why.

Strange. "Truth and Beauty" are the words I use to describe my outlook. And my perspective is dramatically different than this author's. Oh wait, I just looked at the source. Now I see why.

These are your words exactly. I may be misinterpreting what you meant, but this sounds like you have a problem with the source. If not, could you explain what you meant by it?

I know that the article also explained that average facial features tend to be seen as more attractive, I just wanted to address the facial symmetry part. Also, wouldn’t average facial features be subjective to a certain extent? Depending on one’s geographical location/race/ethnicity etc, two people would have two completely different ideas on it.

Also, wouldn’t average facial features be subjective to a certain extent? 

I've mentioned this several times in the past but keep coming back to it when I see discussions like this one. B. Alan Wallace, a buddhist, physicist and philosopher of science, wrote a book called The Taboo of Subjectivity  and that title alone, for me, says it all. There is a mindset among the scientifically and materialistically inclined to reduce everything to objective measurables. Subjective appreciation, shifting values, feelings, etc. are not objective yet they try to make them so. We are taught about the evolutionary advantages of pattern recognition and something like beauty is then reduced to a function of pattern recognition. Likewise feelings are reduced to the activity of chemicals - hormones, etc. - or neurological activity again, eventually, leading back to some steps during the evolution of the brain and body chemistry.

In short, as Wallace says right there in the book title, subjectivity is not to be tolerated. Have we had the happiness gene yet? There seems to be a gene for everything these days. I'm sure there must be a love hormone, probably tied to some survival advantage. 

This is from the abstract of a paper by Jahn and Dunne:

Over the greater portion of its long scholarly history, the particular form of human observation, reasoning, and technical deployment we properly term "science" has relied at least as much on subjective experience and inspiration as it has on objective experiments and theories. Only over the past few centuries has subjectivity been progressively excluded from the practice of science, leaving an essentially secular analytical paradigm. Quite recently, however, a compounding constellation of newly inexplicable physical evidence, coupled with a growing scholarly interest in the nature and capability of human consciousness, are beginning to suggest that this sterilization of science may have been excessive and could ultimately limit its epistemological reach and cultural relevance.

These are your words exactly. I may be misinterpreting what you meant, but this sounds like you have a problem with the source. If not, could you explain what you meant by it?

I meant what I said. I have a dramatically different perspective than the one that site promotes. I don't think that is a problem, per se (we are allowed to have a variety of perspectives...at least, that's my perspective). 

I know that the article also explained that average facial features tend to be seen as more attractive, I just wanted to address the facial symmetry part. Also, wouldn’t average facial features be subjective to a certain extent? Depending on one’s geographical location/race/ethnicity etc, two people would have two completely different ideas on it.

The population from which the average is formed will vary, of course, depending upon which population is relevant to the subject.  That doesn't mean we can't say anything about which faces will be regarded as beautiful within that population.

Linda

I meant what I said. I have a dramatically different perspective than the one that site promotes. I don't think that is a problem, per se (we are allowed to have a variety of perspectives...at least, that's my perspective). 

Ah, I see what you mean. You just disagree with the premise of the website. Thank you for the clarification!

The population from which the average is formed will vary, of course, depending upon which population is relevant to the subject.  That doesn't mean we can't say anything about which faces will be regarded as beautiful within that population.

Fair enough.

Every instinct in us seems to be built upon a fundamental instinct to escape from death and suffering and to move towards life, health and pleasure.  In a world with no natural predators and an abundance of food, survival  is no longer a big issue so we seek, and thus find, beauty and truth for their own sake because they give us pleasure and allow us to live life more abundantly.  They are the keys to the kingdom of heaven and are accessible by becoming "as a child" in one's outlook.