Mystification, beauty and science

HAS THE MYSTIQUE OF BEAUTY BEEN DESTROYED BY SCIENTIFIC DEVELOPMENT?

JOE MARVIN (LOWER SIXTH)

With religious belief being questioned and contradicted with a barrage of new scientific developments, many people are left wondering if there is anything that separates us from the other animals that inhabit our world. If a rapidly growing number of people no longer consider us to be built in God’s image and we are instead just a product of evolution, then what

evidence is there to suggest we are superior or at the very least unique within the animal kingdom?

When faced with this question, perhaps the most obvious response is to look at a human’s mental capabilities. Even the most militant atheists, such as Richard Dawkins, have admitted that they have struggled with the concept of human flourishing. Human flourishing can be described as anything that goes beyond the need to survive. Throughout human history, even before the rapid spread of Christianity and the belief in ‘imago dei’, it has been what separates us from our primitive ancestors, with the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle coining the term ‘eudaimonia’ which he believed was the secret to happiness. Out of all aspects of human flourishing, the appreciation of beauty is one of the most mystifying and satisfying ideas because it appears impossible to define why we find things beautiful, yet there are things such as the ‘Mona Lisa’ or even the colour of somebody’s hair that are almost universally appreciated. So as more and more seemingly unanswerable questions have been conquered by scientific progress:

Well, science once again looks to have solved the dilemma. To explore how the appreciation of beauty is linked to natural selection and evolution I will first explore its effect in the animal kingdom. Let’s use the male peacock as our case study. Their burdensome and extravagant tails seem to conflict with the Darwinian idea of evolution as they doesn’t seem to be advantageous for the bird's survival.

Will the fascination of beauty be able to withstand the onslaught of science?

However, there is a branch of evolution called sexual selection which indicates that, as the extravagant feathers are so effective in attracting females to mate with, the peacocks gain more from keeping the beautiful tails compared to having a slightly more useful tail. Therefore, what first can appear unnecessarily beautiful have in actual fact evolved in such a way that maximises their beauty for the purposes of survival.

Although we have established there is a link between beauty and evolution, the question as to why these things are deemed beautiful still remains. We know that some characteristics are effective because they are beautiful but does this mean everything that has purpose should be deemed beautiful?

Sure, we can all appreciate the usefulness of a good healthy set of lungs, but there are very few people who have that feeling of deep fulfilment and appreciation when staring at a picture of the human anatomy.

Furthermore, biologist Richard Prum published a book in 2017 called The Evolution of Beauty and the key finding in his research is that evolution does not always have to be beneficial. So if effectiveness isn’t the benchmark of beauty and the measure of beauty for each animal is arbitrary, then has

scientific development actually unearthed anything useful about the

concept of beauty? This conclusion can be extremely unsatisfactory for many people as it feels like we have all the pieces to solve the puzzle of beauty yet hundreds of biologists, psychologists and philosophers have tackled the problem of what is beauty and why are things beautiful, yet no one has been able to answer both questions adequately.

In essence, Prum’s idea is that somewhere along the line of evolution animals developed arbitrary preferences about who they mated with and over the generations evolution pushed these preferences to the extreme. This theory is called runaway selection. Sometimes these adaptations can be beautiful like the peacock, but Prum states "birds are

beautiful because they find themselves

beautiful", and for every beautiful peacock there’s a less elegant blobfish with a standard of beauty that doesn’t align with the human perception of beauty.

And although this results in a frustrating article to write, it is quite fitting that

beauty is yet to be fully comprehended and arguably we live in a better world for it.

If we knew the exact reasons behind why certain paintings or sculptures or even certain people evoked these wide ranges of feelings then perhaps it

would ruin the uniqueness of these emotions.

This isn’t to say that science might never figure out the complexities of our responses to beauty because, like I mentioned earlier, all the pieces are there.

It’s not unrealistic to foresee a future where scientists will work out how all the chemicals and electrical impulses control our brain, and no doubt unlock the key to the human psyche and pinpoint the exact reason we believe things to be beautiful.

Until then, we can find solace in the idea that perhaps the unknown

aspect of beauty enhances our

appreciation. I’ll use the analogy of a magician to demonstrate this point.

When a magician is performing a trick, you know that they are trying to deceive you. However, the enjoyment comes from understanding that what you’re watching must have a logical explanation but nevertheless leaves you totally bamboozled. If we were to understand how each trick works then the excitement and wonder would be lost.

Similarly, if your appreciation of beauty can be scrutinised and rationalised then there is an intangible quality that is removed and the process becomes as formulaic as 1+1=2. So in conclusion, I haven’t unearthed the secret to beauty and it doesn’t look like science will crack the code anytime soon, which arguably only adds to the mystique of how and why we appreciate beauty. So maybe the question isn’t when will science reveal the science behind aesthetic appreciation, but instead: