Justin's Jargon

  Humanity has always been obsessed with perfection.   Maybe it was the Renaissance that did us in. The Age of Enlightenment maybe? Perhaps this is just another experiment of western culture. We should all want to get better, but is the ideal really worth it? That’s a question worth examining because what do we lose if the universal is never attained? It’s been a core attitude in philosophy since ancient times to take on this concept and try to explain the exactness of what it encompasses in the scope of man. In all seriousness: idealism is the conversation of the gods. Historically, idealism has been placed right alongside mathematics, music, geometry, and most importantly, metaphysics. The ideal is properly defined as that which never changes, is objective, and its only access is through the faculties of the human mind. Immanuel Kant referred to it as “noumenon”; Plato recognized it as “forms”, Schopenhauer as “will”, and Nietzsche as “nihilism” … that last one takes som...

Many people believe in the phrase, “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder”. And they do so with good reason. It’s safer that way. Not just for the person being judged, but for the critic herself. The problem   with this subjective assertion is that it creates debating regarding truth. Wouldn’t it be nice to know about beauty objectively? This isn’t so much of an attack on people’s beliefs; but more so a referendum on beauty itself. Things that are beautiful should be recognized.                If one is saying that it already is, then why default to the subjective? Nobody argues that the one who perceives holds the key. However, that seems like an immature use of power. And don’t just think that this is about people; though, I’m sure the landscape wouldn’t walk away with hurt feelings had it been called ugly. That said, nobody likes to see land being used for garbage and lakes for sewage. Guess one could say the same about a person. Wha...