What is beauty ?



On the subject of beauty, one immediately refers to the usual clichés: “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder,” or “Beauty is only skin-deep.” In recent years, beauty has become a hugely lucrative industry. Every day, we are bombarded by adverts selling hair shampoos and anti-aging creams with images of sexagenarian or even octogenarian celebrities who reclaim their lost youth with their perfect skin, glossy hair, and super-trimmed figure. Sitting by swimming pools, long hair bouncing over their shoulder, tanned legs shimmering under scorching sunlight, as if they never aged one day over 25. There is an endless supply of cosmetic beauty products, as well as botox, and plastic surgery for every man or woman, as long as they are willing to go under the knife to be sculptured like a Hollywood star. We should question why our culture defines beauty in terms of Angelina Jolie or Brad Pitt.

Beauty is an illusion if judged at face value. Beauty is transient and ephemeral. What you saw as beautiful yesterday could be unattractive today. According to W C Fields, « Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder ». When intoxicated, your eyes play tricks with images, like the caterpillar changing to the butterfly; like sunsets fading on the horizon; or sand-castles washed away; or ice-sculptures melting.

In a machismo society, beauty can be classed as an asset or a curse for some women. Celebrated sculptor Auguste Rodin once said to American dancer Isadora Duncan, "if we have children, our offspring will have your beauty and my brain" - a remark at once flattering and insulting – does beauty therefore insinuate vacuity? Albeit every woman likes to be praised for her appearance, does she really want to be coined as the “dumb blonde”? Marilyn Monroe’s tragic ending exemplified the nefarious effect of beauty.

Where does the concept of beauty originate? Gabi thinks that human beings developed the ideal of beauty through the survival instinct. Animal attraction is based on natural desire for a healthy partner to produce better offspring. As a result, the perception of beauty started with looking for signs of good health and strong vitality. Undeniably beauty has a strong erotic connotation immersed in the realm of human senses.

If sex appeal means beauty, perhaps porn stars qualify as the most beautiful people? The judgement of beauty is subjective. If all beauty was standardised, the world would be deprived of individuality and personality. There is vulgar beauty as there is classic beauty. Vulgarity equates beauty with basic sex appeal, chintzy garish colours, ostentatious displays of wealth, or anything that has immediate appeal to our five senses. The opposite of vulgarity is the sublime, which has often been mistakenly termed as “high-brow”. In contrast to pornography which aims at arousing sexual desires, Greco-Roman statues of gods and goddesses often represent sublime human forms evocative of spiritual beauty.

“Artist is the creator of beautiful things”, said Oscar Wilde. But not all artists agree with this. In Roger Fry’s opinion, “art is a significant deformity”. Picasso happily admitted that his art is “a lie that makes us realise the truth”. Andy Warhol blatantly claimed that “good art is good business” – in other words, “art” is something that sells for a price. Art in this age is no longer the “creation of beautiful things” as our ancestors believed. Rodin once declared “All those so-called ugly things in nature can become admirable in art.”

What you think is ugly could well be beautiful in the eye of some experts or artists. When you see something visually ugly, it might be intrinsically beautiful. Some beauty can be termed as « horrible beauty », or « grotesque beauty ». If a Christian martyr nailed on a crucifix is considered beautiful, why can’t a carcass of a cow in formaldehyde be equally admirable? With art, the bidding process starts in the auction rooms; the price of art has thus altered the value of beauty.

Some thoughts on Democracy

Topic of the day: Can we reject Majority rule?
Majority rules – the basic principle of democracy. But are the majority always right? Does the government voted by majority represent the true interests of the majority? That’s the fundamental question. The majority arrive at their voting decision based on the information available given by the party campaigners even if that information is as absurd as the three slogans of the Ministry of Truth in the Orwellian world:
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength

Every political party of whatever persuasion has to have a gimmick or slogan to sell their soap powder to the great unwashed.

For those who still hold firm to the belief that the Party is always right and the War on Terror is fully justified (despite any unintended consequences), perhaps they should spare a thought to the words of Norman Mailer:
“Fighting a war to fix something works about as good as going to a whore-house to get rid of the clap” (The Naked and the Dead, 1948)

May I also remind you, the motto of our beloved politicians:
“Don’t treat people like Idiots. But never forget that they are Idiots!”

(Ne prenez pas les gens pour des cons, mais n’oubliez jamais qu’ils le sont. – F.Beigbeder, 99 francs, 2000)

“Good” vs “Bad”



Last judgement

The adjectives “good” or “bad” used frequently in our Café often sound rather puerile to start with. We remember how our parents used to lecture us on how to be “good”: “Be a good girl/boy. Do what your teacher says. Stay with the group. Don’t talk to strangers...” What does it mean to “be good”? When our parents taught us to be good, it often implies that we ought to follow the rules, to be obedient to authority.  If the object of “being good” is to maintain social order, then perhaps a communist society, or a police state would be a good place to live because there no rebellious behaviour or criticism of the government would be tolerated. A totalitarian society is built upon conformism where individualism and original ideas are not encouraged.

Perhaps religion (no matter which faith or belief) is a more effective disciplinary tool than state policing, as religion under the guise of spiritual teaching, often uses the promises and punishment in the afterlife to regulate the behaviour of its followers. Can we say that religious doctrine is our yardstick of “goodness”?

How do you judge who is good who is bad? To be “good” do we have to be a saint? A person who sacrifices all earthly desires and devotes his life to helping others is generally praised as a “good person”. How do you describe a person who steals a loaf of bread in order to save some starving children? Or a person that kills an aggressor to help a victim? How do you qualify a "good thing" or a "bad thing"? If we define that an action that benefits majority of people but only harms a minority of people is a “good thing”; can we also classify an act of gang rape which satisfies a group of rapists but damages only one woman as a “good thing”?



If we say that all killing, rape, theft are “bad things” because they are morally wrong, why then there are such distinctions as “just war”, or “unjust war” where in both instances great numbers of innocent people were killed, raped, plundered? Why some historical instances were described as “crime against humanity”, “genocide”, but some others were described as “war on terror”, “war against tyranny”? The flip side of “bad” thing is considered a “good” thing depending on which side you are on.  If what Nazi did in the WWII was an act of genocide, why then the bombing of Dresden and dropping Atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not also acts of genocide? Does it mean that punitive action, no matter how barbaric, can be justified as “good thing”? This proves the point that history is only written by the winners. 

Fairness vs Justice

Everybody knows: Life is unfair. Some were born rich, some poor; some intelligent, some not; some beautiful, some plain; some healthy and strong, some weak and sickly. It’s the luck of the draw. What can we do about it? If everybody was born equal, then the world would lack any diversity or variety as we know it. Life is unpredictable. You win some and you lose some. We need to be philosophical. That’s the raison d’être for our café-philo.

Nevertheless, inequality has always been the main culprit of turmoil and conflicts. Gross social injustice causes havoc in the world, uprisings, riots, revolutions, wars… No earth-shattering revelations here.

In an attempt to prevent social upheavals, governments adopted a series of measures to deliver “fairness” and minimise “inequality” among different classes so as to alleviate these growing social tensions between the very rich and the very poor. We are impressed by these slogans or promises: “democracy”, “meritocracy”, “equal opportunity”, “political correctness”, “multiculturalism”, “racial and gender equality”, “gay lesbian rights”.

Result: the tip of the balance has tilted towards the other end. Democracy has not given any real power to people but only make the power more concentrated on the top. Jurisprudence has been all but lost as lawyers act in favour of special interest groups. Social welfare systems created opportunities for fraudsters to rob society. Employment policy over-corrected itself by turning the formerly advantageous into disadvantageous. Tax system is controlled by accountants who favour the rich and rip off the salary-earning class.

During the recent two years, we have witnessed the decline and fall of many investment banks and high-street banks found lacking in any self-restraint by speculating in high-risk “investment” futures options. Massive funds have been usurped by hedge fund managers who design new vehicles for their instant gratification. Their bonuses redirected to offshore accounts in Cayman Island and the British Virgin Islands. Government has to rely on the taxpayers’ contribution to rescue banks to maintain their profligacy.

We ask is it “unfair” to pay illegal immigrants social welfare on arrival? Or is it “fairer” to pay bankers unrestricted bonuses by using the tax-payer?

Etiquette

Interesting to find how many synonyms people have used for “Etiquette” during our last session of Café-philo: faux-pas, mannerism, code of conduct, protocol, rules of the game, formality, ritual, ceremony, decorum, politeness, and finally a ticket or a label.  

Hunting etiquette in Book of Hours (Livre d'Heures), 1442

 Etymology: originated in France meaning “ticket” which defines the prerogatives of the nobilities. The 17th century European court education consists of the learning of code of etiquette, which includes sensitivity to language and demeanours, deference and pomposity, ceremonial behaviour and festive disorder, fostering the “natural” superiority appropriate to hereditary aristocracy. Such education was the aristocracy’s response to the absolutism in the French monarchy.

Etiquette differs from “good manners”. Etiquette is artificial set of rules imposed on society where good manners can be part of the natural instinct of being polite.

Exclusivity: Etiquette may reflect a person’s fashion and status. It often serves as a “ticket of admission” to a special club. In pre-Revolution Russia, speaking French was the decorum of the “polite society".  In other words, a prerequisite for the status of an aristocrat in Tzarist Russia.  Being of French origin arising from the practices in Louis XIV’s court, the notion of etiquette and decorum is frowned upon in the United States – a country without a history of monarchy and aristocracy. From the 20th century, the notion of etiquette in Europe has gradually been eroded by the notion of equality, along with the diminition of aristocracy. Conventional etiquette is only practiced in special ceremonies.

We may see distinct differences in social mores in different countries. Some etiquette serves no particular purpose except showing pure aesthetic values such as flower arranging. Some etiquette just seems so pointless that it verges on the ridiculous with its pomposity and ceremonies. The most commonly quoted Japanese etiquette is the Tea Ceremony. The tea serving in Japan has been so ritualised that it fascinates and mystifies outsiders with its theatricality which defies reasoning. Japan may not be the only country with tea ceremony. In Middle-Eastern countries, where the weather is arid and hot, mint tea is often served in a special manner to relieve the fatigue and thirst of Muslim brethren. Some rules of etiquette are similar in different cultures, such as the removal of shoes in sacred places as a common practice in both Buddhist temple and Islamic Mosque.

Culture clash: Some rules of etiquette in one country can often be seen as offence by another culture. Take table manners for example, the Orientals eat with chopsticks and they have a habit of slurping while eating noodles. This would be construed as revolting table manners in the West. Vice versa, where in America a guest is supposed to eat all he has been offered while this would be seen as greedy and gluttony behaviour in Oriental culture.

Rules of etiquette may reflect the underlying ethical code. Every society has its own code of conduct incorporated into the local legal system for the purpose of disciplining people’s behaviour and reinforcing the conformity of certain social convention. Certain code of social convention might be obstructive to the economic growth, for example, fasting on Ramadan or closing of business on Holy Friday can seriously reduce business output in the society. Because of different family values, Nepotism, which is illegal in the West, is considered quite normal in the East. Business dealings can be tricky when there is cultural clash. In China, the most important concept in business dealing is “face”, which loosely translates as honour, reputation, and reliability. Any breach of etiquette that causes embarrassment to oneself means loss of “face”. In America, to say “yes” means “yes”, “no” means “no” this kind of direct no-nonsense answer would be considered a “Faux-pas” in Asia. The stereotyped Oriental businessmen often give the impression of being non-confrontational, as they rarely give a straight answer as “no”. The usual answer is “they will think about it”, or they “will see”. Even the British use the expression “in due course” can be interpreted as a convenient way of avoiding a specific time or date.

As a consequence of the globalisation, many cultural differences are on the verge of disappearing. With the rapid economic growth and the emphasis on “time is money”, some codes of etiquette are construed as obstacles or impediment of effective business dealings. Consequently, many conventional protocols have been dispensed with in the face of social demographic progress of the late 20th and early 21st century. The call for efficiency and effectiveness of management style requires that the modern men and women use plain language and direct answers in business world, effectively abolishing the nuances and subtlety of languages. How much does it say for the future of our civilisation?

A practical guide to business etiquette in different countries can be found here:

Kwintessential

“The French are often impressed with good debating skills that demonstrate an intellectual grasp of the situation and all the ramifications.” - from above website

Shyness and introversion

Good news for those who suffer from "shyness":
'hormone of love' cure for shyness

Palpitation, raised blood pressure, hot blushing face, sweaty skin, clammy hands, fidgety feet, uncontrollable tremors. We have all experienced such fears. But this is a particular brand of fear, namely the fear of being seen, fear of making a fool of oneself, fear of being ridiculed. It’s like a fever, a disease. One feels ill and helpless when such fear strikes.

But it is such a strange topic for Café-philo: Shyness. Does an awkward personal trait merit a serious philosophical debate?  To my surprise, our fellow café philosophers have proved fairly flexible about the range of topics that might be admitted into our discussion, as one can argue that “philosophy” is also about questioning anything under the sun. So be it, we can talk about “shyness” just as we can babble on about the foul British weather, no doubt which is largely responsible for the making of the British characters: moodiness, shyness, introversion, stiff-upper-lip, and so on. 

Shy Politicians




Normally we would attribute a person’s shyness to a deep inferiority complex about one’s appearance, hence such a word as self-consciousness. Some café philosophers, however, tried to use Reverse Psychology to analyse the situation. They think that “shyness” could be interpreted as a manifestation of Superiority Complex – it describes certain persons who rate themselves higher than others and their inhibition and reticence can therefore be seen as a way of showing their contempt for others. I am not sure if I would agree with this theory. To my mind, it is one thing to be shy and bashful and it is another to be inhibited and reticent. Some former “Spin Doctors” in the previous government had a reputation of being secretive and not forthcoming. Can we say that the “Prince of Darkness” of the previous Cabinet suffered from “shyness”? Or, shall we assume that they felt “self-conscious” of their secrecy so that they had to borrow some fig-leaves to cover up their shame, like our biblical ancestors did?

In Asiatic feudal society, women were required to behave in accordance with certain social protocols, in which shyness was regarded as a virtue, and modesty and humility the quality of a well-educated woman. Even in old Europe, this kind of social protocol was not uncommon. Before French Revolution, people from lower social strata had to show diffidence in front of nobles. Assertiveness in the old days was considered bad manners, equivalent to the behaviour of drunkenness.

As Jean-Christophe pointed out, those who like to speak out in the public are usually those who try to impress, to show off their eloquence. Of course, there is nothing wrong with show-offs. Neither is there anything wrong with introverts. Some like to be in the limelight, some like to be on the sidelines. Some are loud; some are quiet. Some like crowds, some like solitude. Chacun a son goût. This is the beauty of living in a multi-cultural society, if we allow diversity of cultures to co-exist, why can’t we allow diversity of personalities to co-exist?

Why then in this day and age are there so much negative connotations attached to the words vaguely connected with “shyness”, such as introversion, inhibition? I think there is a lot of misunderstanding about the trait of introversion in general perception. If you are interested in popular psychology, there is an article worth reading:

Introverts should be left by themselves

Suffering...

After our last session of café-philo in the V&A, I went for a tour of the Museum. Loitering in the Italian court for hours lost in thought. The topic of the day was still lingering in my mind: Is it justifiable to alleviate one’s perception of “suffering” by breaking one’s moral principles or values?

1. What is suffering?

Bound slave

I stopped in front of the statue of a bound slave by Michelangelo, the master of profound empathy for human suffering. The bound slave’s anguished facial expression and contorted torso struck a deep cord in my mind: “Man was born free. But everywhere, I see him in chains.” We suffer because we can never find the ultimate freedom that we desire. A few steps away, I saw the statue of a dying slave. The serene calm expression of the dying slave contrasts sharply with the pained grimace of the rebelling slave. Is death the ultimate alleviation of our suffering? I had that impression that the notion of “suffering” is an exclusive concept in Catholicism. Catholic art views human suffering as a redemption of our sins. Take the image of the Crucifixion of the Christ for example: a manifestation of a martyr who endured excruciating physical sufferings for his spiritual belief, preaching his flock to sacrifice their earthly pleasure for a happy after-life in Heaven, to avoid punishment in Hell.

Dying slave

Religion is a spiritual refuge for sufferers.  Religion is the Opium of the masses, the Prozac for the poor, the Soma for the Epsilon. It is interesting to know how the Oriental Buddhist view differs from the Occidental Christian view on the way of alleviation of sufferings. (I hope Peter can elaborate on this point.)

2. What are the causes of suffering?

Is physical suffering caused by poverty and illness mainly in the “Third World” given their deprived economic situation? Whereas mental suffering, depression and suicide a particular phenomenon of the post-industrial Revolution West, judging by the statistics of Prozac usage? asks Grace.

Not true, replies Christian.  Depression as a mental suffering was recorded long before Industrial Revolution in classical time as “melancholia,” a manifestation of one of the four "humours" in human body: black bile. (three other "humours" with corresponding temperaments: blood - sanguine, yellow bile - choleric, phlegm - phlegmatic). According to some 17th century writer, Melancholia is mainly caused by an unfulfilled desire, in other words, a longing for something lacking, it could be the lack of money, or lack of good health, or lack of love...

Depression has now been classified by medical profession as a physical “illness”, in other words, it is no longer a “mental suffering.” It is now in the same category as flu, headache, stomachache, toothache, gum infection, gastroenteritis, or any other infections which can be cured by popping a few antibiotics and Paracetamol.

3. To what extent can one alleviate one’s perception of “suffering”?

Gerry is more interested in finding answers to moral dilemmas in specific social context. Can one go against one’s moral principle even break the law in order to alleviate one’s suffering?

Christine thinks that those who had broken their moral principles to relieve their temporary suffering often live to regret their action afterwards. She offered an interesting example to illustrate her point: A group of air-crash survivors in the snow-bound mountains of Andes, owing to a moment of insanity triggered by starvation, succumbed to cannibalism to relieve their hunger pain. At the time, it seemed to them justifiable to eat another fellow human in order to save their own lives. Years later when they reflected on that episode, they could not resolve to ease their conscience and they lived the rest of their life in remorse.

Gerry’s question is more specific: Is it justifiable for an illegal immigrant, a penniless single mother with two starving children, to resort to prostitution? Is it lawful for a battered wife to kill her abusive husband in order to end her misery?

There is a distinction between a person who harms or destroys him/herself in order to alleviate his/her suffering, and a person who seeks to blame others for his own suffering, and tried to alleviate his pain at the expenses of others, says Malcolm.

Christine, full of anecdotes, picks out another example: the current NHS system offering to pay for Obesity sufferers to have elective operations such as liposuction and stomach binding at the expenses of other seriously ill patients who urgently needed life-saving operations. That is an example of transferring one’s own suffering to others.

The final question is: does prostitution actually alleviate or aggravate the suffering of the woman (or the man)? This is an entirely different kettle of fish. One can write a whole book on the subject: the battle of the sexes.
...

Fear of Death...

I must thank Judith for the updates. This is last week's topic.  I hope David can write a summary of the meeting at some point.

In search of the Meaning of Life...

Life - what does it mean? Is it just a “bad dream between two awakenings” (Eugine O’Neill), or is it a “funny thing that occurs on the way to the grave” (Quentin Crisp)? Such was the theme of our last Saturday’s meeting:

- Our daily life in a material world is governed by rational thought and basic instinct of survival. Our inner life is enriched by the non-rational part of our psyche - emotions as expressed in poetry, music, art – something sublime, beyond our normal experience, within or without the religious context.

I will leave this space for other members to compose essays at their leisure.

I would also like to suggest our erudite friends to make some recommendations for:

- Books
- Films
- Websites