You're Right, You're Beautiful, A Response II

I really enjoyed this comment. It's not too often someone accuses you of leading people onto the path of madmen or beasts (who knew I had that power in the first place?)
Nonetheless, the problem I have with this comment brings up an interesting point to me- the difference between right thought and right action. They aren't necessarily the same thing, and learning to differentiate between the two can be a necessary step in figuring out how to make your way in our brief time.
Adrian's basic argument (which follows), as far as I understand, is that individuals' choices on beauty do not take into account the need, and subtlety, that comes with social interaction. On a most basic example, a psychopath who believes that killing others is beautiful should not simply follow his aesthetic choice and start killing people, that his aesthetics without the lens of shared human experience is a dangerous path, ignorant of morals or social necessity.
Well, yes, I do agree.
But here's the thing-
What you think about beauty shouldn't be your method for determining action. Just because I think something is beautiful has nothing to do with whether I should or shouldn't act on that impulse- it just means that I have my own opinion that is as valid an aesthetic opinion as someone else's. Just because I think some girl is beautiful doesn't mean I get to rape her if she doesn't want to sleep with me. And the methodology of choice for beauty and for action are just different things.
I think too many people take the lens of what they believe without adding the lens of how to apply it to reality. Political ideals are one thing, but it's a much more difficult and subtle, and not to mention useful, thing to try to figure out a way to make others understand it. And so many people take their view and use it to disdain other views (my way is right, other people are stupid).
I just meant that everyone should feel satisfied that what they think is beautiful (themselves, or anything else), is as true as anyone else's opinions. How people choose to act upon this, or any other ideal, is a whole separate matter, and up to them. A serial killer might genuinely think killing is beautiful, and for him it might be. That just doesn't mean he should act on that.


i have a very hard time with your line of thought.

you leave us all mad men, or wandering beasts.

left to ourselves and no one else, sealed in solipsism, the world is indeed as beautiful as the individual's imagination.

and without the bearings against the longitudes of another, with no heed that i am alive relative to the breath of life, i am, therefore i am, because i exist only for myself.

let me be clear because what you say puts all of us in danger of its absence: a monstrous warlord of sudan sees mutilation of a generation, beautiful. his young apprentice sees the absolute brutality of the leader beautiful. i imagine the careful cabal to systematically rape, decimate, then obliterate a race of people might have the same geometric beauty of fractal art for his lieutenants.

beauty can be in the physical world as in ideas, in perception to poetry. but not in everything. and if not everything, then not from everyone.

no, some things are ugly. universally, objectively ugly. perhaps it is difficult to know objective beauty, but it is not so hard to know that there is divine ecumenical revulsion. and therefore, everything cannot be beautiful and everything cannot be right.

Not for humans. That's what separates us from monsters and madness. among humans, there is a shared consciousness or perhaps a shared spirit, tenuous as much as it is real.

step outside, its possible. but you leave behind from that consciousness the equally shared reason and empathy. without that, you're only right because of your ability to negate others by brute strength or size. beasts grazing on a different plane of existence i wish no part of.