I wouldn't say bitter, at least not yet. The results of suffering from frustrations can manifest in quite a few different ways, some positive some negative.

Though let's put it like this, you came here projecting shame onto those who are pretty, including those insecure enough to buy a certain look. And you even tried pretending that "wisdom and integrity" wasn't the past few thousand years' obsession with "the good" since Plato, precisely because you're obsessing over beauty. To me this spells out that you have undigested internalizations. Undigested internalizations often turn into venom.

So you’re either not very studied in philosophy (not a bad thing), or if you are studied in philosophy you allowed this feeling to blind you. I'm an immoralist, I'll call it as I see it but not to employ shame or guilt. I invite you to read section 46 (XLVI) of Nietzsche's Thus Spoke Zarathustra the section is titled The Vision and the Enigma.

Read it as many times as it takes for the effect to dawn on you. Part one starts in a Skeptical tone which finishes in a Triumphant tone that gets one ready to attack the riddles of the Vision and the Enigma that Nietzsche presents in part 2. And who gives a damn if reality doesn't work the way in part 2 as Nietzsche details it in the Vision it's fictional story that symbolically speaks to intuition, not consciousness. In fact if you're already consciously aware of the effect because I told you, rather than you discovering the meanings of the Vision amd the Enigma for yourself, then I could completely ruin the effect for you.

So read it as many times as it takes.

https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/1998/pg1998-images.html#link2H_4_0053

Point is the whole framework of racial superiority is independent of actions, character and morals — boethius

Don't you think ethnocentrism is maybe a better term than racism for your thesis. Racism emerges more a symptom of thinking one's culture/ideology/class/religious identity is superior to another and then differentiating members by superficial physical features.

Ethnocentrism is the technical name for this view of things in which one's own group is the center of everything, and all others are scaled and rated with reference to it. — William G Sumner

We'd still treat others like crap if we we're all racially homogeneous by resorting other to means of questionable/unfair in-group out-group differentiation, even if that includes differentiation on the basis of actions, character and morals.

Don't you think ethnocentrism is maybe a better term than racism for your thesis. Racism emerges more a symptom of thinking one's culture/ideology/class/religious identity is superior to another and then differentiating members by superficial physical features. — Nils Loc

Ethnocentrism seems pretty vague and presumably can include healthy relationships to one's own and others ethnicity; certainly a plausible argument can be made that focusing on one's ethnicity (celebrating diversity) can be healthy. I am referring to what would be commonly understood and unhealthy ethnocentrism which is usual to call racism. Unless I am missing something in your comment.

Valuing beauty isn't just a Western thing. In Islamic societies, women in burqas and niqabs enhance their eyes and eyebrows. In such societies, men (patriarchy) heavily restrict female self-expression, enforced through draconian penalties. Still, women find ways to convey individuality, creativity, and even rebellion. African societies have long histories of beautification well before European influence.

Beauty can be a way to express individuality, creativity, technical expertise, and inner dignity. It is a practice, not just something you're born with. Even natural beauty, if not taken care of, will fade. Beauty consists of many hours of self-care and aesthetic refinement behind the scenes. It is an open secret that beautiful people are treated better.

Beauty isn't just a Western thing. Even in traditional Islamic societies, women in burqas and niqabs will enhance their eyes and eyebrows - often the only features visible to the public. — BitconnectCarlos

I'm confident the argument of the OP is not that beauty is a Western thing, but that there is a particular obsession with beauty in the West, far beyond other society's, past and present, and, more importantly, far beyond any plausibly healthy level of aesthetic appreciation.

The point is not denying things like beauty having evolved for the purposes of things like procreation, nor denying that other societies appreciate beauty.

I rewrote the post to say "valuing beauty isn't just a Western thing." Valuing beauty is a human universal. "Obsession" is really just a pejorative for "valuing," implying that the obsessor values the object too much. Anyone who values something can be accused of obsession.

Anyway, I'd loosely agree with Tzeentch: It's a symptom of modernity stemming from social media and the vast array of new treatments and products available.

the whole reason they wear all those layers is to protect their beauty... there's a reason why so many of the men in the middle east have boils and cysts it's because the dirt is baked into a powder by the sun this powder is finer than any sand and it easily clogs pores. People forgot the utility of the dress code for religious codes.

I rewrote the post to say "valuing beauty isn't just a Western thing." Valuing beauty is a human universal. — BitconnectCarlos

We agree here.

"Obsession" is really just a pejorative for "valuing," implying that the obsessor values the object too much. Anyone who values something can be accused of obsession. — BitconnectCarlos

That people can be accused of something without merit is not a defence in a different matter in which there is merit to the accusation.

Anyone who speaks can be accused of speaking too loudly. Anyone who eats can be accused of gluttony. Anyone alive, or dead for that matter, can be accused of murder; doesn't imply everyone is a murderer or then no one's a murder, but the merits of each case require consideration.

So in this case it is to be debated who exactly is obsessed with beauty, a whole culture, how other culture's compare etc.

Anyway, I'd loosely agree with Tzeentch: It's a symptom of modernity stemming from social media and the vast array of new treatments and products available. — BitconnectCarlos

Well then I think we are in agreement on the basic premise.

Beyond the connection to racism as the foundational psychological structure, an amplification of this beauty obsession I would argue (along with the advertising and other things) is also isolation within Western societies. The more you are isolated and without deep community connections, the more the interactions you do have are surface level and where your appearance has a disproportionate effect. Further amplifying this trend is that the more late stage capitalism progresses, the less there is even any expectation of what would have previously been called "character", resulting in appearances being even more determinative in the outcome of social interactions.

I'm fine with someone choosing to wear religious garb, but no one should ever be forced into it. In some countries, women face punishment for wearing secular clothes.

I don’t disagree with you there. Especially in this day and age where hygienic products can literally combat that more effectively than clothing!

So in this case it is to be debated who exactly is obsessed with beauty, a whole culture, how other culture's compare etc. — boethius

I'm not even sure it's fair to say the West is uniquely obsessed with beauty compared with the non-West. Perhaps if we took, e.g., an African tribe from centuries ago, we might find that their women spend many hours styling their hair, creating bead necklaces, and weaving beautiful clothing for themselves. Perhaps many of their women would fit in well in a city like LA or Miami, with its emphasis on fashion, self care, and transformation. Of course, not all of the US is like those cities. America is not one, but many -- as it surely was with non-Western groups. I draw from the past because I want my sample to be uninfluenced by the West.

Until I am given statistics about self-care/makeup/beauty trends across cultures, I'll be skeptical of a unique Western obsession with beauty. I'd be interested to know time spent, not so much money invested (which can be misleading.)

the more the interactions you do have are surface level and where your appearance has a disproportionate effect. — boethius

I would link this with globalization and technology giving us greater access to the world. IMO, both a good thing and a bad thing, but likely inevitable.

Anyone who speaks can be accused of speaking too loudly. Anyone who eats can be accused of gluttony. Anyone alive, or dead for that matter, can be accused of murder; doesn't imply everyone is a murderer or then no one's a murder, but the merits of each case require consideration.

Murder is binary: It either happened or didn't. With speech, I'd judge according to the norms of the group/culture. When it comes to beauty "obsession," even basic daily skincare could be considered "obsessive" for one who sees no need for it, or believes it is vanity. Skincare has become significantly more advanced over the past century, which is a positive development, as the health of one's skin is essential.

Beauty is a sign of fitness in evolutionary biology, so we if aren't limited to just the visual, it could extend to what attracts us to the deeper features of a person's character also. A person who is physically attractive, charming, competent, kind and knowledgeable is more beautiful than a conceited and self-absorbed or mentally ill gorgeous youth. The more aspects of beauty one retains, the more desirable one might be. Society stratifies along these lines, the elite match the elite and the rabble match the rabble, which perpetuate class subcultures and resentments between them.

A person's wealth (generation) is also a general measure of fitness, which has always played a huge role in culturally/biologically mediated mate choice. Watch Game of Thrones or Downton Abby or wild horses on the plains of Nebraska. The allure of muscle is a sign of the utility of muscle.

Deep beauty is as much a tyranny as superficial beauty, insofar as what is given is so often unfair in relation to what we naturally desire or are taught desire.

Beauty may be ultimately an expression and sign of power, or the promise/allure of the enhancement of one's power by association, whether it was dispensed by nature or achieved by merit.

You seem to address the beauty of people, as opposed to, e.g., works of art.

As to the former, I think it becomes a subject of philosophical discussion mostly in the case of older men and women; primarily men. They feel its loss or the loss of their ability to fully enjoy it, and dwell on it. It's a kind of romanticized lechery, perhaps. Ever read Thomas Mann's Death in Venice?

Two things. First, while some can try to appear "deeper" by declaring that in their opinion human "beauty" goes well beyond what an eye can see, that just makes communication difficult when the subject matter under discussion has multiple definitions.

Second, when there are modern techniques to create beauty through surgery, drugs, exercise, cosmetics, fashion and Photoshop, the increase in the commonality of beauty, makes the absence of beauty more functionally important (see: incel).

There is extreme pressure to over-sexualize and look perfect and plastic surgeries and all that. That's for the most part pretty bad.

However there seems to be a standard of beauty that most people share, with slight variations based on culture. But with these new technologies and supplements and all that, we're just abusing nature for mere aesthetic appreciation.

Not sure how good that is.

First, while some can try to appear "deeper" by declaring that in their opinion human "beauty" goes well beyond what an eye can see — LuckyR

Well, any combination of desirable traits can synergize with the image to make lust more potent.

One can suddenly desire a person by image alone and in the next minute, in the course of discovering new properties/traits, be disgusted or craving can be magnified by learning what they enjoy and their peculiar mannerisms.

What is strange about beauty is how such small features can magnify it. Like how a single earring, say the Christian cross, might be symbolic of an entire domain of meaning, and what kind of work that does in context of other signs of what a person might be like.

Say there are two gorgeous young men, of equal physical beauty, one wearing a Christian cross earring and one wearing a Swastika earring. Don't the meanings of those symbols in some cases go to work on whether or not we find them beautiful at a glance? But even the man wearing the Christian cross is subject to an investigation regarding what kind of Christian he is... Do fundamentalist Christian men, quick to prejudice and full of dogma, wear earrings? Our prejudicial response of disgust is a condition that modifies the object of beauty.

When a women gets buccal fat removal we may find it off putting. Plastic surgery, if we can tell it has been done, may invoke disgust if we think the person is visually less appealing than they were before. It does the opposite of what it intends, insofar as it might tell something of the internal state of the person, their insecurity/fear/concerns.

Body builders, of the the kind that followed Arnold Schwarzenegger lead, in maximizing mass of muscle are nowhere near as beautiful as Michael Angelo's David. But many might share the opposite opinion.

All kinds of behaviors/signs, insofar as they help us make an inference about character, go to work on whether or not we find a person attractive.

IMO you are absolutely correct on the subject matter you stipulated, namely: what makes us "find a person attractive". My point is that what I believe this thread is about, specifically visual beauty, is but one component of that complex equation. I don't believe it's as important as the OP does, but it does deserve it's own discussion.

the absence of beauty is never important honestly lol. Surgery makes them all look the same, that doesn't really equate to beauty.

Beauty is symmetry. Conformity. If you weren't put off by jagged rocks or something otherwise seemingly unpredictable, you likely died. If you weren't put off with someone who's face was deformed (often but of course not always a sign of genetic abnormality and likelihood of other unwellness), you likely didn't end up reproducing at much, if at all.

It's all the same sickness. Sorry, "reality" of the world.

Care to elaborate or provide some examples/proof, beyond just conclusions/opinions?

Beauty is... Conformity. — Outlander

If you weren't put off with someone who's face was deformed — Outlander

A deformity could become a culturally pressured/desirable modification, like with Chinese foot binding. It is a mutilation that goes beyond the superficial cosmetic, causing great pain and disability with the potential for other health problems. I wonder if in bed, uncovered, Chinese men of the time ever found these deformed feet to be a powerfully erotic sexual fetish. Or do the pretty shoes stay on?

It has been estimated that by the 19th century 40–50% of all Chinese women may have had bound feet, rising to almost 100% among upper-class Han Chinese women. — Wikipedia: Foot binding

One could imagine the tragedy of this handicap forcing itself downward through lower social classes, where a woman's ability to do domestic work is limited by pain. Say your peasant parents decide to bind your feet but then you are also still pressured to carry out daily duties suited to normal functioning feet. At least you can console yourself with the belief that your feet are either beautiful or sexy...

proof for my own personal opinions? I think that's baked into me spewing them out.

Beauty is the great stimulus to life affirmation that transfigures suffering into meaning. Without beauty there is only nihilism.

Beauty is subjective, not objective.

Well that's definitely a valid (if not fringe and unique) counter-example of such. I suppose not unlike some earlier culture's practice of neck elongation or lip rings, etc. and other forms of body modification.

One might argue foot binding is a form of beautification by minimization or (simplification), not unlike how the mind of most all persons may find a modern rounded smartphone more "attractive" than a blocky 90s model clunker. Perhaps this has roots in biology where the (male?) mind is attracted or otherwise especially observant of curves as they are often present in the desirable female form. That of course has little to no relation to foot binding, other than perhaps large feet on a female is generally seen as unattractive or perhaps even "mannish"? What do you think? Maybe or too far of a reach?

Beauty is subjective, not objective. — DifferentiatingEgg

True but I find it beyond plausible that mammalian brains have ingrained biological mechanisms that result in a universal (albeit large and scattered) pattern or tendency to prefer certain types and physical proportions of, not just faces, but anything observable in general. "Vastness" is not a physical quality in the way traditional beauty as far as objects are, but we are generally universally "taken away" by things such as overlooking a cliff or a wide valley. We may not call it "beautiful" in specific detail, but it certainly provokes a unique yet consistent response in the brain of not just humans but animals as well.

Are we not universally mesmerized by things such as a kaleidoscope? Do the vast majority of people find super models or such as "attractive"?

No, but you're right. My whole premise is a bit of an unintentional derail. Beauty is not the same thing as physical attractiveness. However, you and I would be in the minority as far as those who realize that, I'd wager. :wink:

So yeah, a definition I've given before, beauty being conformity to one's expectations (or perhaps simply what one is used to) is a subjective objectivity, of a sort. No? :confused:

to that, I'd say that the subjective has always been the objectivity of the subject in question.

I find asymmetry even in the human to be beautiful at times, especially when it's worn well. I even prefer it over symmetry as far as fashion details.
Example:
https://www.demobaza.com/pages/collections

I have a few pieces of art I enjoy wearing from this designer.

beautification by minimization or (simplification) — Outlander

I'm not so sure about foot binding in relation to this idea of simplicity/minimization but it certainly is very relevant/plausible. I think the kind of fitness that foot binding signals is as much the willingness to conform in service of organizational harmony, to participate in the culture, to tow the line. It takes resources/work to bind feet, in addition to everything else one needs to do in life.

I thought about trying to learn throw pottery. But slip caste cups and bowls, the kind you buy a the store, are so perfect and lightweight, the printed designs visually outstanding (Japanese bowls in particular). Potters' mugs seem to suffer from a kind of rustic bulkiness, both in clay content and glaze thickness, which makes them less comfortable to use and heavier.

So I prefer the simplicity/utility/refinement/lightness/consistency/design of industry over the average functional hand made pottery you might encounter. I enjoy what I see in excellent pottery but I don't want to keep that pottery. So why fire pots if I don't know what to do with them.

Another word to add to simplicity/minimization is organization/utility. Maybe they suggest the same thing. A simple thing is an organized thing, such that it remains familiar, stable, and thereby comfortably/predictably functional. A beautiful house is often a well organized one. A beautiful friend often resembles him/herself.

Beauty is not the same thing as physical attractiveness. — Outlander

Most people have a sense of this, if you were to ask them. But our sense for what is beautiful is still an artifact of natural selection, if not sexual selection, which I guess isn't saying much. Beauty is both about physical attractiveness and not about physical attractiveness.

It's also about comfort, enjoyment/pleasure and whatever else a philosopher might say about it. :flower: :chin:

Beauty is subjective, not objective. — DifferentiatingEgg

Maybe we could also introduce inter-subjectivity to this scheme, insofar that people can share a consensus about what things are beautiful or what things ought to be beautiful. If the world annihilates itself in time, if it is forever in flux, inaccessible in its momentary specificity or wholeness, then the world is never to be properly objectified. Objectivity is a transient and relative concern between a group of subjects, mapping a relevant territory among territories, as a means to many potential (unknown) ends.