Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,

Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,

Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs,

And towards our distant rest began to trudge.

Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots,

But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;

Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots

Of gas-shells dropping softly behind.

⠀

Gas! GAS! Quick, boys!—An ecstasy of fumbling

Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time,

But someone still was yelling out and stumbling

And flound’ring like a man in fire or lime.—

Dim through the misty panes and thick green light,

As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.

⠀

In all my dreams before my helpless sight,

He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.

⠀

If in some smothering dreams, you too could pace

Behind the wagon that we flung him in,

   And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,

His hanging face, like a devil’s sick of sin;

If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood

Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,

   Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud

Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,—

My friend, you would not tell with such high zest

To children ardent for some desperate glory,

The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est

   Pro patria mori.

Wilfred Owen. Dulce et Decorum Est. 1920.

[begin transmission]

An excellent series of questions from the greatest Greek general around.

What do you think defines beauty?
I don't agree with the sense that beauty is entirely subjective. I do think that there are some objective standards to determine what is beautiful. Beauty is what is good and what is true.


What makes something beautiful?
The goodness part is partially informed by how much pleasure it brings us; this pleasure is not characterized by bodily sensation, it isn't an intellectual pleasure, but it is more of a pleasure directed towards something. The pleasure of say, feeling pride, is the best way I could put it. I suppose it's the pleasure of feeling. The rest of the goodness is contingent on how true something is; I'll elaborate in a bit.

The truthfulness component is informed by the universality of the thing, in a Platonic sense. Short recap on this: a BMW Z4 is a particular instance of an automobile. It has certain features exclusive to it: certain parts, it's painted a certain color, etc. It is a singular instantiation of the thing in the world. Contrast this to the concept of 'car' in general: that refers to a broader object under which a multitude of automobiles of different makes, models, configurations of parts, colors, etc. can be considered. Because it encompasses more of reality in a sense, it can be thought of as 'truer' than the particular of a BMW Z4.

Applying this principle to beauty, that which is beautiful is that which can encompass the universality of human experience. Fictional literary works (keep in mind that this does not only include books, but all media with a story) that leave an impression on us long after they've been completed are so lasting because they tell an account that, while not literally true, are true in the sense that they generalize across so many different people and can fit within their life experience. In short, they're relatable.

Take music as another example. Some music is so incredibly sad or abrasive, it's hard to see whatever goodness and therefore beauty that may exist in a song that mentions an 'empire of dirt' or 'crown of shit' as in a NIN track. But the goodness and beauty doesn't lie directly in the subject matter itself, but in the relatability of the work; the track takes a feeling of sadness and futility (which no one really desires) and gives us that sensation without a literal cause. In other words, it's giving us a sample of the experience of the feelings themselves, without having to suffer a negative event that would typically cause them. It's feelings a priori.

This take on beauty as what is true and what is good accounts nicely for the phenomenon of finding beauty in the profoundly tragic or horribly macabre. It isn't because suffering itself is beautiful, but because we're able to experience those associated feelings that we know to be part of our reality without having to enact the actions that lead to them.

The rest of the determination of goodness of something that is beautiful is evaluated by...well, I suppose what could be thought of as 'goodness of fit'. What I mean is how harmonious the object of beauty can make us feel with the world. There's this aphorism floating around, “Art should comfort the disturbed and disturb the comfortable.”; I don't agree with that entirely, but I will cede that the sentiment underlying the first part is true: art should comfort. Art should make one feel something that is true across all people, across all culture, across all of time, therefore making one feel a little more anchored, a little more connected to reality.


How much do you strive to make things beautiful in your own life, or do you find more beauty outside of your own actions?
I think that aesthetics are very important in day-to-day living. Your personal space, the space that you operate in everyday, ought to be filled with things that inspire you, with things that are good and true. The fact of the matter is that reality can get very tough at times; during those times if all you have is the immediate present, things can get unbearable VERY fast. You need something that can cut through all of that, something that is transcendent, something that isn't 'factual' and yet more true to remind you there is more to life than what is happening to you right now. Personally, the most significant aesthetic choices I've made recently includes putting up a banner depicting the YoRHa insignia with the mantra “For the Glory of Mankind” above my desk, to serve as a reminder on how to order my steps in life. I recommend that everyone possess and prominently display something that resonates with them on a profound level.

[end transmission]

[begin transmission]

We're all subject to the mercy and goodwill of others at one point or another.
Mentioning such a plain and obvious fact about the world strikes hard as underwhelming.
And yet, one cannot help but act in shameful ways.
Whether those ways be displays of arrogance, flashes of malice, unwarranted debasement, or cold indifference.

Why?
Why is it that you have the impulse to humiliate others in intellectual discourse?
Why is it that you have the impulse to toy with the emotions of others?
Why is it that  you have the impulse to turn away and withhold compassion and affection?

Couldn't we just as easily be the targets of those transgressions, rather than their felons?
Surely you know what it feels like; to be humiliated, to be toyed with, to be undesired.

Maybe that is what makes the current state of affairs all the more wretched.
The fact that we know how best to harm others because we know what best harms ourselves.
So maybe a little less haughtiness, a little less contempt, and a little more consideration towards your fellow man.
If not for their sake, for your own: wish that they afford you the kindness you've demonstrated to them, in your time of need.

Else, you're going to end up alone.

[end transmission]