OPINION

OPINION | MIKE MASTERSON: What is ‘beauty’?


Among my favorite courses at the University of Central Arkansas in 1970 was a Philosophy 101 class with Dr. Patrick Murray, who later would leave academia to become an Episcopal priest.

He was a gentle, brilliant man perfectly suited to lead both congregations and students in matters metaphysical. Dr. Murray made me actually reflect on life for the first time as a young adult, the mark of a born teacher.

One lecture in particular forever etched in my tiny brain was the hour he spent exploring what in the human psyche distinguishes what our species universally considers beautiful from what isn't, and why.

What is it within us as we view the world that causes most humans to generally agree butterflies are more beautiful than grasshoppers? Why are so many repelled by a walking stick bug with its jagged shape? Why was Paul Newman's face universally considered more handsome than Karl Malden's? Why are roses and cardinals widely considered beautiful but dandelions and buzzards not so much?

Why do humans hold beauty pageants? What is it about anything that makes us see it as beautiful and others plain or ugly?

We come into this strange world as clean slates, yet apparently pre-programmed with some hidden (a priori) concept about the difference between what we observe as appealing or ugly, most often based on the appearance of its most superficial layer.

What's involved in determining such a marked difference at first glance? Is it symmetry, balance, hair color, larger eyes, sexual appeal? All of those? Why is it inherent in our nature to even distinguish between them?

Humans definitely are prone to make such determinations based on initial impressions. We're likely to enter a room and spot a person whose appearance instantly strikes us and others around us as highly appealing (some might call it infatuation) while another standing beside them doesn't reflect the same outward appeal.

Yet our closest friend might find the one standing beside them attractive. So as individuals we can, and do, distinguish as to our preferences, especially as we gain deeper insight with maturity.

In that respect, beauty over time often does come to exist in the eye of the beholder, becoming a discerning and emotional and intellectual attraction toward someone beyond their outer layer.

Yet there are undeniable universal traits that supposedly define classical beauty in humans to the point where we hold "beauty" pageants designed to crown those we traditionally consider the most attractive.

Defining deeper forms of what is beautiful beyond the superficial makes things a tad tricky and confusing.

The ancient Greeks believed beauty wasn't a matter of personal taste. Aristotle said it could be physically measured. In "Metaphysics" he wrote that he saw the primary forms of what we consider beauty as being order, symmetry and definiteness, which, he added, the math demonstrates to a special degree.

In other words, if spacing is balanced on a person's face, a plant, insect or whatever, we tend to see them as more attractive. Hence, most of our species naturally appreciates large, perfectly spaced eyes, a symmetric and right-sized nose, prominent jawline, all framed by flowing hair.

Yet again, I'm back to why we're wired that way. When, where and why did we learn those particular aspects even matter in our perception of others?

The same is true for the human body and why some people have one most others enjoy ogling, even envying, and others not so much.

When it comes to so-called "beautiful people," one rub for me has always been who the person is beneath their outermost layer.

We've all known those who, while initially appearing most attractive outside, became far from it when we looked beneath the hood. Some of the most devious and manipulative people I've known (male and female) continually to successfully use their universally pleasing appearance to serve their own agendas.

Human animals as a whole can learn pretty quickly how all too often what initially seems to be beautiful winds up, as we mature, becoming unattractive.

Conversely, as the years have passed, I've found some who wouldn't universally be considered beautiful on the outside are, in fact, the most beautiful of all when intangible qualities such as kindness, personality, sincerity, mutual respect, loyalty, a sense of humor and intelligence are considered.

The thinking folks among us realize most meaningful relationships that endure aren't constructed on outward beauty but the depth beneath a fellow human's outermost layer. Sometimes for many that revelation can take a while.

Now go out into the world and treat everyone you meet exactly like you want them to treat you (regardless of how their nose is arranged on their face).

Mike Masterson is a longtime Arkansas journalist, was editor of three Arkansas dailies and headed the master's journalism program at Ohio State University. Email him at [email protected].


Upcoming Events