September 10, 2007

Darwin, meet the artist in me.

Another post by my friend. He was on a roll, you see... This one is absolutely brilliant.


It is my adamant opinion that accidents are beautiful only in the crudest sense of the term. I don't think so-called "abstract art" is really art, and I think it's stupid that people pay huge sums of money for a senseless mess that my youngest brother's scribbles could match. Similarly, the spill and splatters from a glass of orange juice falling to the floor don't qualify as beautiful. Cool, maybe, something like an almost-beauty, but not really beautiful.

Now, sooner or later at some point in every guy's (i.e. he-man's, male human's) life he realizes that girls are beautiful. If he is a very crude guy, he may treat this beauty very crudely. However, something I have realized is that there is a real, not at all crude beauty that most modest girls have (and indeed that most immodest ones have only in them it is less noticable because they highlight the wrong aspects). According to my belief that accidents are not beautiful, then, I would be forced to conclude that beautiful things such as girls are not accidents.

This, of course, flies in the face of modern secular humanism that would have us see everything as the result of random chance. In short, my opinion of beauty leads me to be sure that much more than chance is at play in the shaping of the world and the people in it.

Interestingly, even a "caveman" could theoretically have a sense of this. It doesn't require advanced scientific exploration to think these sort of things. All it takes is a little of the right kind of thought. However, the modern mind will not accept them in part because a "caveman" could figure it out. The modern mind tends to think anything that could be known without its scientific advancement is either incorrect or irrelevant.

But that's another story.

More relevant to most than scientific superiority, actually, is probably that many are stuck seeing only the crudest aspect of beauty these days due to the awful culture.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

This reminded me of something I head someplace. Apparently there was an African tribe either really early BC or maybe ~ 1000 AD (been a REALLY long time = P) that apparently was the most astrologically advanced people before the modern era. With only their eyes, they discovered principles that we only recently were able to measure with multi-billion dollar telescopes.

In my humble opinion, I think that science's emphisis on measurement and instruments and paperwork and global warmin (gag) has cut it off from actually LOOKING at creation. If we get a close look at the stars, we lose knowledge of the sky.

- Louis

August 07, 2008 12:02 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home