On the Beauty Standard and Consumerism

Radical left communities take as an axiom the following statement: “If you think that any aspect of your body is unattractive, you should ask yourself what products that sentiment was engineered to sell.” This is not the case. If you feel ugly, it reflects a low self esteem rather than some sort of societal norm that is perpetuated by consumerist tendencies.

The argument here is not whether beauty sells. It does. The argument is that the above statement is fallacious—it puts the cart before the horse. Before a beauty product can be pedaled, there must be a demand for it. Therefore, feeling unattractive is not a result of advertisements; advertisements are a result of people feeling unattractive. If a huckster can make one believe that they are ugly, then that person is vulnerable and thus has a low self esteem.

Media, which no doubt has created a beauty standard, can be blamed for the mainstream views of beauty. The mainstream is equally to blame for accepting these values blindly. Beauty is an inner truth. The Nike of Samothrace is beautiful.




You'll notice that it doesn't matter that the Nike of Samothrace is missing her head, neck, and arms. She's not Sports-Illustrated-Cover-Girl thin. Something about the overall aesthetic speaks to the viewer. It could be that the statue participates in the Platonic form of beauty.



Again, an example of the Platonic form of beauty in Modigliani's Portrait of a Woman. The (pseudo) radical perception of the beauty standard is cynical. The criticism of the beauty standard is unfounded. No one is indoctrinated to believe that certain things are beautiful. The mainstream is just too stupid to reflect on what they believe to be beautiful.

Within the radical community there is a shaming of those who, for example, shave their legs or wear make up. It's hypocritical and cryptofascist. A laissez-faire approach to aesthetics is truly radical.

On the Sikh Temple Shooting in Wisconsin.

A substantial amount of leftists seem to believe that gun control is the key to stopping these shootings. That is cryptofascism. Leftists should be demanding an end to political polarization, an end to racism and lack of cultural sensitivity, an end to the media's desensitization to pain and the devaluation of life.

A bald white man shoots up a temple and it’s about gun rights? No. This is about a lack of cultural awareness. In any shooting the reason for it is never “she/he had a gun.” That’s the easy answer. Society doesn’t want to face its own cultural ineptness, its own stupidity, so it blames inanimate objects.

A cure for HIV/AIDS.

The avert.org website claims that "there is no cure for AIDS or HIV infection."

um yeah there is

Here is the US Patent for a cure for HIV/AIDS.

Subsequent to the filing of the aforementioned patent, further testing revealed complete 100% destruction of the AIDS virus in vitro at 20 PPM, and the fact that said devices were harmless when ingested and inhaled, being non-toxic.

This has been around since 1994.

In Defense of Schopenhauer

Another mistake as to my literary ancestry is made whenever I violate the romantic convention that all women are angels when they are not devils; that they are better looking than men; that their part in courtship is entirely passive; and that the human female form is the most beautiful object in nature. Schopenhauer wrote a splenetic essay which, as it is neither polite nor profound, was probably intended to knock this nonsense violently on the head. —George Bernard Shaw ¹

The pervasive opinion which dominates philosophical discourse regarding German Romantic philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer can be summed up in statements such as “Schopenhauer is a disgusting, outdated idiot” and “Schopenhauer is a crazy old dude who thought women were naturally subservient.”² Unfortunately, it seems that these views are quite correct on the surface. On the contrary, I admire Schopenhauer’s profound insight and wisdom—wisdom which is neither outdated nor misogynistic. It is a difficult task to defend Schopenhauer against common opinion, but it is nonetheless a worthwhile endeavor.

Schopenhauer's essay "On Women" could be best described as straight-faced satire, the very same comedic tone employed by Jonathan Swift in his work "A Modest Proposal." A common response to this is something along the lines of “Swift’s essay is clearly satirical because cannibalism is not a modest solution to famine.” No such response exists for Schopenhauer’s essay. At the same time, the above argument does not take into consideration the fact that Swift almost lost patronage for writing the essay. “A Modest Proposal” is therefore not overtly satirical, it is the standard for straight-faced satire. Considering the above, there still remains the possibility that Schopenhauer wrote seriously on women, yet the fact remains that while his essay fits the mold for a serious discussion on women, it just as easily fits the mold for satire.

Schopenhauer often cites English literature in his works, and every so often throws in some English phrases for good measure. This would allow us to conclude that Schopenhauer was quite capable of having read “A Modest Proposal.” He may have read something about it, or come across humor very similar to that of Jonathon Swift’s. Schopenhauer also cites works in French, and quotes Greek passages, all in their original language, which shows his willingness to learn languages other than English.

The importance of Schopenhauer’s linguistic abilities lies within the fact that Schopenhauer’s father was a desperate Anglophile. Accordingly, his father would have preferred that Schopenhauer be born in England, but his mother refused to stay in the countryside. Thus, Schopenhauer was born in Germany. The implications here are either that Schopenhauer disliked his mother because he would have rather been born in England (which would make him an Anglophile, though not completely as he is willing to speak languages other than English and German), or Schopenhauer would have disliked his mother because of her insubordination to his father, or perhaps even both.

Let us consider the first possibility mentioned above. Schopenhauer’s dislike of nationalism is evident in this quote: “Every nation ridicules other nations, and all are right.” As for racism, in the Payne translation of On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason, Schopenhauer makes reference to the conquistadors plundering the Americas: “[motivation] gives rise to all that makes man’s life so rich, artificial, and terrible that in the West where his skin has turned white and whither, he has not been able to bring out the old, true, profound, and original religions of his first fatherland, he no longer recognizes his brother. On the contrary, he imagines that the animals are something fundamentally different and, to strengthen this idea, calls them beasts or brutes…” This quote can be found in section 26 of On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason. Schopenhauer’s hatred for his mother is therefore a result of something other than her insubordination and unwillingness to live by the gender roles of the period.³

The premise for the conclusion that Schopenhauer is not misogynistic largely rests in the lack of evidence.⁴ Schopenhauer was a neglected philosopher, and as such, we fail to understand him thoroughly. An average philosophical encounter with Schopenhauer is one which takes into consideration only those works which are produced en masse. For Schopenhauer’s works to be produced en masse, they must be interesting and marketable.⁵ The public, however, does not have the same grasp of his ideas when they read but a few short essays. This is why the public opinion (as public as it gets with philosophy) is incorrect and shortsighted.

---

^{1. This quote is an excerpt from the preface to George Bernard Shaw’s Major Barbara ^}

^{2. These are quotes from an online comrade who, after much discourse, remained unpersuaded with my arguments. ^}

^{3. I did not discuss the latter possibility in full because it is well known that Schopenhauer hated his mother’s extroverted personality which clashed with his introverted personality. ^}

^{4. There is a bit of difficulty here as there is more evidence against Schopenhauer, yet the evidence remains insubstantial and is indirectly assessed in the second paragraph: Schopenhauer’s “the Art of Controversy” is clearly comedic in tone. This tone, when compared to Schopenhauer’s essay “On Women” is quite the opposite. Regardless, we must consider that there is only one tone in which to write straight-faced satire. ^}

^{5. A copy of Studies in Pessimism is about $11. Or free if you find it online. A copy of The Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason is about $40. ^}

Hi guys. This is my blog about philosophy & life & stuff. Ummm yeah. I'm glad you're here!

You can find me over at twitter.com/amiablechaos. Also, don't forget to follow!

DISCLAIMER: The opinions presented in this blog are those of the author (hi guys) and do not represent the views of any companies or persons the author is associated with.