What is Beauty?

Have you ever thought of a thing, person or scene you consider beautiful? I am sure you have. I have too. You see Beauty is also a synthetic conception of human minds, but it grows from a different seed than the previous idea we considered: Perfection. Can beauty be a negative idea based on what is not ugly? I think not. That is a meaningless way to arrive at beauty. Clearly, to define what is not ugly, you need to know what is beautiful. So, what is it?

Beauty is again as I described in the essay on Perfection a synthetic human creation. It doesn’t exist in reality. But, what is it that we human beings find beautiful objectively? Unlike Perfection this is much more difficult to explain this. I don’t claim to have the answer either. Nevertheless, I’ll try to depict why I think there is no universal basis to our contrived concept of Beauty. But, I will go further and ask but not answer this question:

Why do we perceive and then conceptualize an idea of beauty? This question really begs for an answer.

I’ll start with mathematical ideas to see beauty. Which should be no surprise to readers of my essays, as a mathematician, I must begin with what I know best. I’ve often listened to my mathematician colleagues describe their ideas of mathematical beauty. Here are few.

Symmetry is often remarked as being a state of beauty in math. So, a number system that has opposites that mirror one another is considered a balanced and complete system under some operations. For integers, take -1 it has +1 and all other integers have their counterparts the will equal 0 when operated upon by the binary +. This idea is considered a form of beauty. Any set that is embedded in itself and still yields elements within its set is another form of beauty in set theory math. In the reverse, any system that can create infinitely many output sets from its own set if we apply a new operation, e.g. √-1 and defining it as i. This spawned set is considered beautiful. So, real numbers can spawn complex numbers by adjustment of the rules, as an example. To take another look, self-same systems that create infinitely similar systems are considered beautiful. Here I am referring to Julia sets that create visually attractive images in fractal theory. Infinities at the small and large level are again considered beautiful constructions. Okay enough mathematics, how about beauty that involves unique things?

A football quarterback makes a pass from the 1 yard line of his team’s goal line and a wide receiver catches it on the 1 yard line at the other end of the field and subsequently scores a touchdown. The crowd gasps and roars its approval. Commentators remark how this has never been down before. The next day the sportscasters are ranting about the beautiful pass reception that was made in the football game yesterday. It’s beautiful precisely because it has never occurred before! Then again, a murderer that is the first to kill a large number of people certainly is not beautiful. This deviate is unique no doubt, but not hailed as the beautiful murderer. Thus, uniqueness is not always a source of our vision of Beauty. Then, there is our inclination to find beauty in the human form. We even have an industry dedicated to this pursuit: modeling. It too is as subjective and irrational as seeing beauty in uniqueness or symmetry. Yet, we do instinctively have a notion of beauty as species. I know when I see a pretty woman the physical affect upon me is tremendous. Still, there is no objective basis to measure this reaction by. Could it be that we are genetically specified to acquire this sense from our evolutionary heritage? Let’s look at this idea.

There is an argument that can be made from evolution. Those that have the elements of robust health and physical prowess are selected for and over many, many such aspects and others like unblemished facial features, or non-disfigured bodies, symmetrically well-formed body features, etc. lead to adoration for these qualities. But, this argument doesn’t objectively explain our proclivity for a conception of Beauty in general. It may well explain why it occurred in our species, but not its external truth. It can’t because no such external truth exists. Actually, it really doesn’t account for it within evolutionary theory. Ugly animals have predominated and flourished like vultures, sloths, dogs (yeah I don’t like dogs, so consider them ugly), or hideous forms of crawling creatures are all not beautiful, we must remember. So, nature doesn’t necessarily select for beautiful creatures.

In the face of these reflections, I again must ask: What is Beauty? It is clear no such thing exists in the objective external world to our minds. It is another constructed concept made real only by our cultures and the mindsets that accrue from them.

The larger question is: Why do we have this concept or perceive it at all? You see, while Beauty doesn’t exist as say atmosphere does, I don’t deny it exist as an object of our minds. Beauty can be applied to music, art, natural landscapes, galaxial formations, etc. But it is still a construction of our human minds and non-existent in objective reality. It is an almost indefinable result of our mental development. In this respect Beauty is a notion that exists for us. The desire to attain it, or experience it, or become a part of it may be misdirecting our energies in a fruitless pursuit, but it endures. This is a saddening thought too, since so many try so hard to be beautiful as it’s conceived in their cultures. This can be said especially of women.

In the end, I can find no definitive way to explain why this concept has grown up in human society, other than to recognize it does occur universally across all cultures. As the famous English playwright Bill Shakespeare taught, it’s also subjective.

Ken Wais

2/23/11

Ken Wais