2. On Beauty: From John Armstrong's "The Secret Power of Beauty" Part Two

I will be skipping the chapter of "Friendship of Parts" in my analysis as it supports the part about the Holistic nature of Beauty.

I will instead be examining the relation (if any) between the experience of pleasure upon coming into contact with a beautiful human form. I find this important as modernity has taught us so much about "need gratification" to the point that we become obsessed with fulfilling our desires and often feed the confusion of desire and neglect the appreciation of Beauty.

Yet again, another post that requires philosophical maturity. So yes, only read and consider if you are of such. If not, please do not attempt the thought-experiment.

Moving on, Kant theorized rightfully that Beauty does not always coincide with the Good.

These two qualities often coexist (but do not necessarily lead or lend existence to each other).

So that leads us to often confuse an object which is a source of pleasure as something which is beautiful.

But the experience of pleasure cannot be divorced from the experience of Beauty.

So balance must then be achieved so that we do not allow pleasure to dominate our appreciation of beauty. It should not dominate but should enrich.

Likewise, if we are too involved with the idea of beauty (the symbolism of beauty then in subscribed onto the object), we cannot engage with whatever beauty there may be on offer.

Let me explain, imagine that even though the characteristics of the beautiful object may change into something ugly, we may still find it "beautiful" because it is "meant to be" beautiful (when we are overly involved with the symbolism of beauty).

The advocating for Balance is emancipating and yet perplexing. I wonder if the problem of the chicken-before-the-egg is truly understood and able to be abstracted from the experience?

It seems to be that modernity has taught us to be more concerned with the idea of pleasure. How do we then transcend?

The pleasure of viewing the beauty of the human form is born out of desire (most dominantly sexual desire). And Armstrong is right to posit that we could not appreciate the beauty of the human form if we were not sexual creatures. How do we then move beyond desire?

When we put pictures of pin-up girls in our rooms, we ogle at their physical attributes. We take pleasure in the viewing of their female form and that honestly is about it.

How many, actually then move to contemplate and appreciate the fully beauty of form beyond desire and in non-relation to desire?

I find this thought experiment highly poignant as I have often found myself to be "Shallow but not Shallow enough". Let us proceed.

Consider this pin-up. Now I have purposely chosen this specimen because of its obvious shock value. Most males would be pre-occupied with this particular female specimen's upper bodily assets and remain fixated. Now we remember Armstrong's advocating of Balance and non-domination of Desire. So we must look beyond.

I then notice her shapely biceps which means that she is probably in good physical health and strength. That is beauty. I notice her smile which is girlish and playful. That is beauty. I notice the sun and the nice play of shadows. Sun is life and that is beauty. I also notice her strong angular neck and a prime physicality is beauty. I am starting to appreciate her beauty more and more as a prime physical specimen and am moving past and away from her upper bodily assets.