Table Of Contents
Humans Are Ugly
- Why Are Humans So Ugly?
- Why It Is Humans Are So Ugly
Humans Are Ugly
Why Are Humans So Ugly?
Humans are ugly. When we look at a painting which is single in colour and compare it to one that be more diversified in its presentation of pigment, we know almost instantly that which is more aesthetic. Yet, when dealing with matters of human beauty, such becomes less obvious.
The human has a monochromatic appearance with an ordinary outline; we see nothing original or unique. Indeed, with humans, the closer one is to the norm the more beautiful they so become. Great deviations in attire worn, or in the manner which one chooses to style their hair, are perceived as unseemly and horrid: conformity is equivalent to beauty.
In strong contrast to that of human beauty, we have the great works of art produced by humans: a beauty sculpted by the individual differences of each artist’s brain. These works are polychromatic in appearance with greatly varied outlines; we see plenty of originality and uniqueness. Unlike the idealized form of human beauty, these works benefit from non-conformity; in fact, the more deviant the work of art be, the greater its impact upon our awareness so becomes.
And so, the reason as to why matters of aesthetics become less obvious with respect to humans be simple: we have two distinct vantage points from which we view the terrain. And as a consequent, our aesthetic judgements of beauty for either humans or art come from distinct countries: different cultures, different world-views, and so forth.
Put more specifically, humans must now compare and contrast objects with different standards of beauty; which is to say, on one hand, we have an evolutionary standard of beauty, one which favours symmetry, curves, and clear skin; while on another hand, we have a higher-order standard of beauty, of which has been cultivated through matters of culture and reflection, and favours non-evolutionary standards of beauty: such as asymmetry or antagonistic colours.
Thus, when take it upon ourselves to assess the aesthetics found in either a person or object, we face a dilemma. If we so appraise a person with evolutionary standards, then we shall find them beautiful; yet, of precisely the same person, if we so appraise them with our higher-order standards, we shall find them to be both ghastly and repulsive. Put otherwise, the mutual exclusion between evolution and culture causes a cognitive dissonance in those reflective enough to take note of the distinct standards at play.
How can we so judge of one object that it be beautiful but at the same time ugly, such violates the fundamental law of logic: namely, the law of identity. Our spirit cannot tolerate such a contradiction without evoking the most agonizing of sensations, no logician shall tolerate logical contradictions.
And now comes our conclusion, for we have in our road a junction which forces us down one of three paths.
Why It Is Humans Are So Ugly
The first path be that of conformity to evolution. Put clearly, we shall follow down the first road to see through the lens of human beauty standards: I.e., the preference symmetry, monochromatic presentation, and ordinary outlines and wardrobes.
In juxtaposition, we have the second path: non-conformity to evolution. Hereon we shall travel down a road which leads to a reality where symmetry, monochromaticity, and that which is ordinary are entirely devoid. We shall have impressed upon our consciousness deviations of all sorts: lopsided circles and rainbow coloured hats.
The last option be, though counterintuitive, that we not only accept but also embrace the cognitive dissonance caused by the mutual exclusion of cultural and evolutionary beauty standards. That is, rather than reject or attempt to make compatible the mutual exclusions, we can instead accept them, entirely. Like a man who travels between the north and south pole, depending on whether he wants to be upside down or not, we can venture between each standard of beauty without the slightest concern for self-consistency: a change of our worldview upon a whims notice.
To sum up, then. We cannot suppose at all times that humans are beautiful; for if we suppose that which be beautiful to be polychromatic piece of art, then a monochromatic human is thusly ugly. Likewise, we cannot suppose at all times that art be beautiful; for if we suppose that it is a monochromatic human which pleases our aesthetic judgement, then a polychromatic artwork is thusly ugly. Of course, we can whimsically jump between these two views, as said with the third option, but even the third option can only adopt one view at a time.
And so, humans are ugly.