Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
The problem is that it is generally not very clear what a “natural construction” is in the case of concepts. Depending on the definition of this cadaver, it may turn out that all concepts are artificial constructions, or all are natural.
But you can put the question a little differently. Is “beauty” a necessary concept? And in this perspective, the answer is simple – “beauty” is a necessary concept in thinking, ethics and aesthetics are fundamental aspects of human existence. You can't be human and not label everything around you as “desirable” and “undesirable,” and beauty is just that sort of”desirable.”
Initially, beauty is not an artificial construct and can not be in principle. An “artificial construct (animate or inanimate) of beauty” is an object that has qualities that cause the subject to enjoy.
An artificial structure?
I assume you mean that it is something subjective, “man-made”, which has no objective existence outside the consciousness of people. And in this case, I will answer dialectically – ” Yes and no.” As mentioned in the answer above, the concept of natural (physical) beauty, as well as artistic beauty, is historical, varies from epoch to epoch, and differs among different peoples, social classes, and even professional circles, not to mention individual preferences. In this sense, beauty is just another social construct. But does the idea of beauty arise from nothing? Here I will give a textbook example from the dissertation of N. G. Chernyshevsky, where this complexity of the phenomenon is displayed, about the difference in ideas about beauty among Russian peasants and representatives of secular circles. If for the former the attributes of it are portly, in turn, the latter cultivate languid morbidity, and this difference is based on the difference in lifestyles, different socio-economic conditions of existence, which are objective.
Peasant labor life considers the ideal signs that meet its requirements-portness, gaiety, physical strength, in turn, in secular circles, painful fragility, effeminacy is a sign that its bearer is well-off, free from physical labor.
For a more detailed answer, I refer you to the work of G. A. Zavalko “Philosophical Problems of Aesthetics”, where at the very beginning the complex, dialectical nature of beauty is revealed, that it is both an” artificial construct ” generated by subjective perception and something objectively available to be in reality.
Definitely yes.
The concept and standards of beauty are often an invention of capitalism and patriarchy to control people and their wallets. Let me explain why.
Beauty standards drive a person into the framework, and if he does not fit these standards, he becomes uncomfortable in his body, he loses his zest and self-confidence, and it is easier to manage insecure people, and such a person can be forced to do anything at all.
And now, this complex person is looking for getting rid of his supposedly imperfect appearance. And finds it on the shelves of stores and in various beauty salons. And he will spend a lot of money on all sorts of expensive creams, masks, corsets, diet food, lip augmentation, rhinoplasty and mammoplasty, stomach resection and other self-care products, filling the pockets of the bourgeoisie with his money.
So yes, beauty is an artificial and oppressive construct.