Tuesday, December 06, 2016

Is Beauty Incompatible With Spirituality And Practicality?

A major claim in feminism is that beauty is only culturally dependent or taste-dependent. This claim is refuted by feminists' own behavior. If they really believed that, they would be attacking all women, beautiful or not beautiful. Instead they only attack beautiful women. This means that feminists, like everyone else, know what beauty is and what it is not, and their claims on this matter are a pack of lies.

If beauty were only culturally dependent, then why do so many white men find Asian women attractive? If beauty were only culturally dependent, then why do people around the world agree that Ukrainian women are the most beautiful women in the world? There was once a colonist in the Caribbean who spoke about the leader of an indigenous tribe presenting him with a very beautiful woman. That woman was not white; she was of Caribbean extraction. If beauty were only culturally dependent, then he would not have thought such a thing.

I knew someone on the Internet who kept writing about a woman that he had been in love with. Someone attacked him for being with her because she was beautiful. Really. Is being beautiful incompatible with having other good qualities? Is being beautiful exclusive of being a good person? I see no reason at all why beauty should correlate, positively or negatively, with good personal qualities or anything of the sort. Some will have both inner beauty and outer beauty; some will have one or the other; and some will have neither.

I was once called a sham on the Internet because I was with a beautiful woman. The woman claiming this was claiming to be spiritual; but she came from the position of hatred. The ironic thing is that the kind of women whom people like that attack do not bear them ill will. Many of these women are highly spiritual. There is absolutely nothing incompatible between beauty and spirituality. Indeed the artistic type of women tend to be both beautiful and spiritual; and it is completely wrong that these women, possessing as they do of both physical beauty and inner beauty, be attacked by women who obviously have neither inner beauty nor outer beauty.

Loving such women – and standing up for such women – does not make me a sham or anything of the sort. It makes me someone who loves whom I love enough to go to bat for them. My daughter has always been very beautiful, and I refuse to see her abused by feminists or women who equate their hatred with spirituality for this. I will do what I can to reduce in the culture this poisonous influence. And I will do what I can to ensure that women possessing of both inner beauty and outer beauty be treated rightfully in the world.

Even if you do not value beauty, you have no business discriminating against it. Spirituality is something that's claimed by all sorts of people, some of them rightfully and some of them wrongly. If you think that your hatred makes you spiritual, you are wrong. You may not have interest in beauty, and that is fine. But you have no business attacking those who have it.

Real art is both beautiful and possessing of spiritual richness. We see this with everything from the Sistine Chapel to the works of Renoir. And yes, it includes works that are not part of the Western civilization, such as the Burmese stupas and the Incan temples. Beauty is not limited to culture or taste; it has existed across cultures. And it has done so in a way that is recognizable by people cross-culturally.

When a society does not have value for beauty, there is no demand for beauty. This results in a nation being starved of an essential element. I see no reason at all why Renaissance Italy, with 3 million people and per capita GDP of $1,500 a year, should have better art than America, with 300 million people and per capita GDP of $50,000. We should have 300 Sistine Chapels. The only thing that prevents this from happening is society failing to value beauty. And this is owed both to some on the Left and some on the Right.

The real solution is to stimulate the demand for beauty. The real solution is for people to value beauty – and not only beauty in women, but also beauty in nature and art. The real solution is to tap into the potential supply of genuinely talented artists, musicians and poets and put it to work to make America – and the rest of the world – truly beautiful.

This happened before in American history. It was called the 1920s. That time produced magnificent architecture and artwork without it in any way being contradictory to practicality. Along with the cultural blossoming at the time there was also technological and economic boom. Maybe in 1960s the artistic sentiment was divorced from economic reality. In 1920s however it was not.

This means that there is nothing contradictory between beauty and practicality. It also means that there is nothing contradictory between beauty and spirituality. In truly excellent artwork and literature beauty and spirituality come together. In great architecture and technology beauty and practicality come together. There is nothing at all contradictory between beauty and either spirituality or practicality. Beautiful work can be highly spiritual, and any number of beautiful women are highly spiritual. And it is also possible to make practical things, such as houses, interiors and machinery, beautiful.

The problem is not lack of talent. The problem is wrongful beliefs, such as ones that denigrate beauty. When something is under attack in society, those who have such things – and those who want such things – will be in one or another bind. This will reinforce the fallacious impression that something is wrong with things of that nature. The dynamics are similar to ones of racism and misogyny. When blacks or women are oppressed, then they don't accomplish very much, which reinforces the wrong impression that either are inferior. And when beauty is oppressed, then anyone who is beautiful – and anyone who values beauty – will be in one or another bind, which will of course reinforce the incorrect impression that something is wrong with beauty.

Political correctness is wrong on any number of fronts, and I have written extensively just how much. As for spirituality, it is something that is meant to stimulate development of the person, not to discriminate against beauty. Some spiritual people will be attractive and some won't be. The people who come from position of hatred of people who are more attractive than they are cannot claim their attitudes to be based in spirituality. The women whom they attack generally do not hold ill will against them. And that makes the women whom they attack more spiritual than they are themselves.

Once again, there is nothing at all incompatible between outer beauty and inner beauty. Some will have both; some will have one or the other; and some will have neither. The women I've loved were beautiful in both ways. So is my daughter; so are any number of others. I owe it to them to stand up to these social abominations and correct them – for their benefit and for that of society.


Post a Comment

<< Home