From a Christian standpoint, is there such thing as objective beauty...

From a Christian standpoint, is there such thing as objective beauty? Can we say that some bodies are more aesthetic than others? Or is there some truth to the "pretty at every size" movement?

Attached: DavidMichelangelo_Fotor-e1458216251253.jpg (2900x2466, 1.01M)

Other urls found in this thread:

news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/08/080818-body-symmetry.html
catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=5257
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Also, is there a way to pursue physical beauty without falling in the pitfalls of pride and lust?

Let me essplain what I learned from Tolstoy and Plato. Objective beauty exists (God's creation is beautiful for one, as written in the genesis). However, the beautiful isn't the same thing as good, both have nothing to do with each other (demons are God's creations and therefore by default they are beautiful, but they aren't good). Remember how the devil seduced Tartini with their beautiful music? Beauty can be evil and sinful.

And regarding aesthetics, aesthetics are purely subjective matter. Fat people can be subjectively aesthetic, but they're not good for they bring health complications. So aesthetics and beauty are very similar, but not always the same. From what I understand is beauty is a concept understood by God while aesthetics is a concept understood by man. Beauty is something of a divine greatness and perfection while aesthetics only cater to carnal and mental pleasure. What men do understand is the concept of good. So, beauty, good, and aesthetics, I think they're three similar yet very different things that are, more often than not, contradictory to each other.


No such thing as physical beauty, there are only physical aesthetics and physical health (health = good).

Well in things like art yes. With orthodoxy at least, that's why orthodoxy holds and maintains its traditions when it comes to writing our icons. But personally even before i found orthodoxy, i always thought new age 21st century art/architecture was hideous. I remember being at the Pittsburgh art museum with my family, and in the section where they have all the stuff that's new age, like once you start getting up into the 80s you notice this slow decline in beauty, by the time i got up to i think it was like 2014 was the most they had, the time i was there. I kept thinking, dude this is dumb the art dated from the 1800s/ 1900s and prior was more interesting. But that's what happens when you lose your metaphysical aspect in culture it becomes self evident.

Attached: 21st century art.jpg (700x462, 166.85K)

Well apparently the more symmetrical someone's face/body is, the more likely they are to be perceived as "attractive" on average. So yes, objective beauty to an extent exists, though people certainly still have different tastes in what they like in a person.

news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/08/080818-body-symmetry.html

That's like your opinion bro. That metallic/crystal guy looks awesome. See? This is why aesthetics are completely subjective.


More likely maybe, but there are no absolutes here.

There exists a provable subset of beauty in that which relates to the body as an extension of the mind.

Consider:

An overweight person. The extension of their mind in this case relates to their gluttony.

A fit person. The extension of their mind relates to discipline and will power.

Along this method of reasoning we could prove that there is a mapping between mental virtue and physical results. It is mostly natural that the virtuous tends toward a beautiful or glorious reaction while the inverse of this tends towards a disgusted or off putting one.

This is in essence the subset of provable objective beauty. For aspects of beauty that are the result of genetics the subject transverses a large tree of possibilities. We may say that someone was born with a defect that harmed their beauty which we gauge by the converged average of the result of the local gene pool. But it is not necessarily provable that they are ugly, rather they are the divergence from normal. Yet, you could still say in some cases this leads to a favorable result.

Another aspect of beauty resides in the external creations of man. Art, architecture, and prose are extensions of his mind, and can veil virtue, culture, or natural order. Or at least we would reasonably say that this would compose the criteria by which the beauty of the work was to be judged.

In most senses, including that which is naturally shrouded by the moral order God has ordained, we may be posed to say that all beauty is in fact objective. The ruler is carefully marked but human judges have shaky hands.

Attached: 167453.jpg (3840x2160, 466.97K)

What you're saying is a sense of aesthetics that is born out of evolutionary traits. We admire healthy bodies because being healthy gives us better chance at survival. It's not beauty as known by God, it's just aesthetics.

Sure we do. And that's quite true. However, that's only a side effect of the main cause.

Healthy bodies don't grow on trees, they are they the result of some virtue. Be it self control, discipline, determination, or perseverance.

Which is why my main point is that beauty resides in the unseen things, we merely look to the external representations as proof of the internal ones.

Unless you don't find the results of self-control or discipline beautiful, which I have never seen coming out of anyone's mouth in my entire life.

But what about the people that are unhealthy and ugly not because of their lifestyle choices?