It is a well accepted notion that the female body represents the pinnacle of the beauty of human race. It has been shown that when various pictures of people were presented to the newborns, those of the females were always more favored than that of men.
I dare to counter this generally accepted idea at the risk of being accused of narcissism or a fondness in men. First of all, the concept of beauty, an aesthetic appreciation, is by all means abstract and should not be instinctive as judged by infants, who favor females just because in their eyes a female body is equivalent to a milk reservoir. The aesthetic value of an object is evaluated and appraised by the conscious and sensible observer, most of whom are from the other half of population, hence the beauty if any, is created because of the presence of the male and their appreciation. However, instead of a conscious and voluntary evaluation, this appreciation is more like a subconscious deduction from the concupiscience, rooted in an intent of fecundation, a fact well illustrated in the observation that one generally loses this appreciation, or appetite, immediately after the coitus, the will to sleep then stronger than that of barely looking at one's partner. The conclusion can be drawn that female body is thought to be beautiful only because its aesthetic value is determined by the male who desire it biologically from time to time. Consequently an old woman is considered less beautiful due to her lack of fertility and we discovered that the common features that constitute a beautiful female body, all come down to their suggestion of a better quality in orgasms (on the male side) and a higher probability of fertilization and stronger offsprings.
As aforementioned, the process of aesthetic evaluation is abstract and intellectual but instinctive or biological. Therefore, the beauty of women derived from the sex drive of the common males, is not a real 'beauty' and shall not be regarded as serious and lofty as we regard that of music and fine arts. The propriety of the prevalent gallantry and admiration toward the feminine, therefore, shall be put to a serious questioning. Instead of being faultily misogynous, men should admit their animality, accept it happily and turn their attention away from telling white lies to themselves regarding the beauty of women.
Thursday, March 16, 2006
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
Drivels
A question has been hanging over me for almost half a decade. Why are so many physics/math relations linear? Is linear more general than other relations, or is it merely simpler? Why is it more general? Is it simpler to our minds, or is it simpler generally? Why? Rather, how to define the concept of 'simple'?
This unavoidably falls back to Kant's concept of the unknownable noumenal world. I once wrote a brief paragraph arguing that mathematically speaking 'the hidden dimensions' would always prevent us from fully understanding the physical world. However, more carefully we ought to examine this further, as the idea of hidden dimension for example, was already a conceptualized representation within our minds. A restricted mind is not able to recognize the imposed restrictions yet he is also not able to imagine its existence or the manner in which it exists. For this reason helplessly we human being will have to, unwillingly, assume everything at hand true until they become no longer mendable. In all respect, individually or collectively, knowing that we don't know and/or we are not able to know does not help this fact at all.
Nietzsche speaks of 'a table of values' that hangs over every people and he believes that it is not the values that make people great but their will to realize these values. The master knows what is good then he defines what is bad. The slaves learn what is evil and then he believes in what is good. Morality or social norms so to speak are merely what defines us slaves and keeps us this way because they are mostly in forms of negations. Regardless of his obnoxious moral relativism, the notion of a firm and persistent execution of a positive value system nevertheless provides us some enlightenment away from the Angst associated with daily life.
Does it? Man set himself values and goals and strive to conceal his meaningless and boredom in the emptiness of his existence. The three aspects of his being, as a biological subject, a social member and a spiritual self, conflict and complicate his way of living. By reasoning the spiritual self found that the biological nature alone should define his value system yet it constantly tries to reject this fact because of its pride and realisitically speaking the implementation is also limited due to his social membership. Quivering between the definite animality and the impossible mentality, are we doomed?
There is still one solution to an easy life but perfection in mentality if we recede by one step. For the great they do not need approvals, they judge. Look at this judgement as a civilized biological instinct by accepting the fact that we have been altered, i.e. by incorporating the logic system and societal aspects of being into the biological nature. With a new broader definition of nature, as long as we are true to the instincts followed by the unequivocal logic (which is essential to keep the extended system self-consistent; I would always consider the biological value system self-consistent, but after the incorporation, work is needed to make the new set of rules not contradictory to each other), we can be at ease with ourselves.
This unavoidably falls back to Kant's concept of the unknownable noumenal world. I once wrote a brief paragraph arguing that mathematically speaking 'the hidden dimensions' would always prevent us from fully understanding the physical world. However, more carefully we ought to examine this further, as the idea of hidden dimension for example, was already a conceptualized representation within our minds. A restricted mind is not able to recognize the imposed restrictions yet he is also not able to imagine its existence or the manner in which it exists. For this reason helplessly we human being will have to, unwillingly, assume everything at hand true until they become no longer mendable. In all respect, individually or collectively, knowing that we don't know and/or we are not able to know does not help this fact at all.
Nietzsche speaks of 'a table of values' that hangs over every people and he believes that it is not the values that make people great but their will to realize these values. The master knows what is good then he defines what is bad. The slaves learn what is evil and then he believes in what is good. Morality or social norms so to speak are merely what defines us slaves and keeps us this way because they are mostly in forms of negations. Regardless of his obnoxious moral relativism, the notion of a firm and persistent execution of a positive value system nevertheless provides us some enlightenment away from the Angst associated with daily life.
Does it? Man set himself values and goals and strive to conceal his meaningless and boredom in the emptiness of his existence. The three aspects of his being, as a biological subject, a social member and a spiritual self, conflict and complicate his way of living. By reasoning the spiritual self found that the biological nature alone should define his value system yet it constantly tries to reject this fact because of its pride and realisitically speaking the implementation is also limited due to his social membership. Quivering between the definite animality and the impossible mentality, are we doomed?
There is still one solution to an easy life but perfection in mentality if we recede by one step. For the great they do not need approvals, they judge. Look at this judgement as a civilized biological instinct by accepting the fact that we have been altered, i.e. by incorporating the logic system and societal aspects of being into the biological nature. With a new broader definition of nature, as long as we are true to the instincts followed by the unequivocal logic (which is essential to keep the extended system self-consistent; I would always consider the biological value system self-consistent, but after the incorporation, work is needed to make the new set of rules not contradictory to each other), we can be at ease with ourselves.
