Table Of Contents
- What Beauty Is
- Beauty Is Not In The Eye Of The Beholder
- Human Admiration Is Monogamous
- Kim Kardashian Is Ugly
- Her Appearance
- Her Intellect
- What We Can See
WHAT BEAUTY IS
Beauty Is Not In The Eye Of The Beholder
Beauty is not in the eye of the beholder, it’s also inside the head of the beholder. Beauty doesn’t just dance on the retina, it maps the world beyond the retina from the inside out: beauty is beyond surface appearance. Of course, a traditional view on beauty prompts us to think about make-up, cheek bones, and figures, but such a view is incomplete; the traditional view is half of the image. The full image is a car, because beauty is like a car.
Beauty is like a car insofar as the car has an external appearance: red and rusty or slick and silver. The car presents upon the means of sight in either an undesirable and hideous fashion, or it presents upon the means of sight in an incredibly lustrous and impeccable fashion. Likewise, human beauty has similar extremes. Some humans present wonderfully while others present like a funny little duckling. Such is the nature of external beauty; we either have the desirable standards for external beauty, or we are ducklings of a sort.
But beauty is like a car in another regard as well. As with the notion of external beauty, cars likewise have internal beauty. But the internal beauty I reference does not pertain to the interior design of the car, nay; internal beauty as applied to a car references performance. How fast is the car? how well does the car turn? And so on. Likewise, internal beauty as applied to humans references performance as well. How well does the person speak? how empathetic is the person? And so on. So, there are cars which turn smoothly, and there are humans who speak eloquently, each of which has their own respective beauty.
So beauty is not in the eye of the beholder; not only because eyeballs are ugly, but also because it is in the performance of their cars as well.
Admiration Is Monogamous
Admiration cannot be polyamorous by default, because human attention is simply not designed to take notice of multiple variables at the same time. We are like trains on a track, some external variable must switch our focus elsewhere if we are to notice other details. And much like when we drive while focused on a single variable, we will crash into anything which comes between us and that single variable: human admiration is monogamous.
Thus, the monogamous nature of attention causes a dichotomy between external and internal beauty. When we develop internal beauty, we neglect external beauty; when we focus on internal beauty, we cannot focus on external beauty. Not only is our focus loyal to one and only one form, but so too is the attention of others. And this creates a dichotomy between external and internal beauty. We either become wise like socrates or fabulous like Kim Kardashian. Write a book that begets a thousand reads, or get a butt which thousands speak of.
KIM KARDASHIAN IS UGLY
Kim Kardashian is considered the epitome of external female beauty; someone to be envied and idealized inside fashion and beauty culture. Her synthetic injections are more idealized than the Pythagorean theorem and Fibonacci sequence. The platonic realm is the source from which she derives her aesthetics.
Her physique has come from the brains of gifted scholars and practitioners; those who spent years developing their internal beauty in medical school, studying the nature of human biology. They so poured their internal beauty onto the canvas of Kim Kardashians body, they sculpted from plastic a synthetic and idealized presentation of the human form: the creation of external beauty.
But the brain beauty which goes into the presentation of Kim Kardashian stops not at the physique. The make-up and hair likewise require masters of their crafts. Her skin reflects light as evenly as an airport runway, we may land air force one on her forehead during the darkest of nights; she shall save the life of Donald Trump multiple-times over.
And her skin is like a lifeless pond of water that reflects the lights rays so vibrantly. Her skin shines, flawlessly. It is as though Steve Jobs, in a fit of OCD, ensured utter perfection of her surface presentation, like she were a macintosh laptop about to be passed around by nerds and geeks.
There is yet another layer of external beauty that Kim Kardashian has as well: namely, photoshop. When she is presented to our senses via some medium of communication rather than in person, she has had the internal beauty of photographers added to her appearance. Her synthetic biology is also modified, and so even her synthetic features have synthetic features.
Though Kim Kardashian is a material embodiment of western beauty ideals, so much so that she often seems un-human, she is nevertheless ugly.
Kim Kardashian is uglier than Kant, by far. Kant developed a beautiful mind filled with phenomenal ideas. From the seat of his consciousness, he shaped the foundations of philosophy. Each walk taken at 7:00 P.M. was a time of deep and reflective aesthetics, an internal space of pure beauty and ideals. Comparatively, Kim Kardashian has not written one book on philosophy, nor does she provide justifications for epistemic claims. She is internally deformed.
But to be fair, Kant could never compare to the aesthetics of Kim Kardashian. Kant’s isolated lifestyle had no requirements of external beauty, he only had to focus on his internal aesthetics. So, Kant was an ugly duckling of sorts when it came to external beauty.
Kim’s idealized presentation has lead her to neglect her internal aesthetics, much like Kant’s neglect of his external beauty standards. Indeed, Kim has become lopsided in her presentation. We can only look upon her external form if we seek aesthetics, but we shall not find beauty in her thoughts or expressions. As a result of spending her finite amount of time on external beauty, she neglected entirely her internal character and self-development. Kim Kardashian is ugly.
REFLECTIONS ON KIM KARDASHIAN
What We Can See
Kim Kardashian is ugly, and so is Kant. But Kim Kardashian has idealized aesthetics, and so does Kant. Each have a unique form of beauty, and each have a fairly evident deformity.
We can reflect herein, we can take note of these two extremes and modify our own beauty. Do we want to be ugly in appearance, or do we want to be someone of little to no internal substance? The choice is up to us.