There are some people whose faces bear the stamp of such artless
vulgarity and baseness of character, such an animal limitation of
intelligence, that one wonders how they can appear in public with such a
countenance, instead of wearing a mask.
I’m gonna leave this up because I love a dumb joke probably even more
than the next guy but in the meantime it’s probably worth pointing out
that Schopenhauer is using this in the service of a metaphor
which reflects his overall moral philosophy, that in the final reckoning
our will reflects what we are.
It’s a complicated point that delves into his interest in (obsession
with?) Kant but the basics can be summed up with the great poem by
Bertolt Brecht:
On my wall hangs a Japanese carving,
The mask of an evil demon, decorated with gold lacquer.
Sympathetically I observe
The swollen veins of the forehead, indicating
What a strain it is to be evil.
So the point is less that physiognomy is a strict biological science
- as postulated/asserted by certain people in the rationalist community
- than that people’s habits and general demeanour are presented in their
faces according to their comportment with the world.
> And in regard to the study of physiognomy in general, it is further to be observed that intellectual capacity is much easier of discernment than moral character. The former naturally takes a much more outward direction, and expresses itself not only in the face and the play of feature, but also in the gait, down even to the very slightest movement. One could perhaps discriminate from behind between a blockhead, a fool and a man of genius. The blockhead would be discerned by the torpidity and sluggishness of all his movements: folly sets its mark upon every gesture, and so does intellect and a studious nature. Hence that remark of La Bruyere that there is nothing so slight, so simple or imperceptible but that our way of doing it enters in and betrays us: a fool neither comes nor goes, nor sits down, nor gets up, nor holds his tongue, nor moves about in the same way as an intelligent man. (And this is, be it observed by way of parenthesis, the explanation of that sure and certain instinct which, according to Helvetius, ordinary folk possess of discerning people of genius, and of getting out of their way.)
>
>
>
> The chief reason for this is that, the larger and more developed the brain, and the thinner, in relation to it, the spine and nerves, the greater is the intellect; and not the intellect alone, but at the same time the mobility and pliancy of all the limbs; because the brain controls them more immediately and resolutely; so that everything hangs more upon a single thread, every movement of which gives a precise expression to its purpose. This is analogous to, nay, is immediately connected with the fact that the higher an animal stands in the scale of development...
> And as thought, equally with motion, is a function of the brain, the character of the brain's activity is expressed equally in both, according to the constitution of the individual; stupid people move like lay-figures, while every joint of an intelligent man is eloquent
>
>
>
>But gesture and movement are not nearly so good an index of intellectual qualities as the face, the shape and size of the brain, the contraction and movement of the features, and above all the eye,--from the small, dull, dead-looking eye of a pig up through all gradations to the irradiating, flashing eyes of a genius.
> And therefore one can well believe the anecdote told by Squarzafichi in his life of Petrarch, and taken from Joseph Brivius, a contemporary of the poet, how once at the court of the Visconti, when Petrarch and other noblemen and gentlemen were present, Galeazzo Visconti told his son, who was then a mere boy (he was afterwards first Duke of Milan), to pick out the wisest of the company; how the boy looked at them all for a little, and then took Petrarch by the hand and led him up to his father, to the great admiration of all present. For so clearly does nature set the mark of her dignity on the privileged among mankind that even a child can discern it.
mmm I dunno, a third of this essay is essentially 19th century sparkly elites
Two passive aggressive roommates are leaving notes for each other, but using reddit.
(it looks like 'antiobnoxiousbot' is specifically made to go after genderneutralbot, and not all the other annoying reddit bots, and of course, it has build in mechanics not to autoremove when downvoted)
E: antiobnoxiousbot more like, lackofselfawarenessbot amirite.
Hmm. I do think it's eminently sneerable for the dig at Hegel alone:
>Therefore, I should advise my sagacious countrymen, if ever again they wish to trumpet about for thirty years a very commonplace person as a great genius, not to choose for the purpose such a beerhouse-keeper physiognomy as was possessed by that philosopher, upon whose face nature had written, in her clearest characters, the familiar inscription, "commonplace person."
I might have forgotten he wrote it if not for a footnote in *World*. He has written other very sneerable material as I'm sure you're aware, even if it is a bit outside the sub's rationalist focus. I don't let a halo effect cloud the guy, he had some bad takes and they weren't all in service of pedagogy.
Sure, and I’ve talked before about hating on Schopenhauer for his takes. But I’ve talked a *lot* more about hating on Hegel. Ultimately I’m more inclined to be charitable to the former rather than the latter.
But I don’t know, I’m feeling vague after making an over-complicated breakfast right now.
Hey, at least he’s not an anti-masker.
I’m gonna leave this up because I love a dumb joke probably even more than the next guy but in the meantime it’s probably worth pointing out that Schopenhauer is using this in the service of a metaphor which reflects his overall moral philosophy, that in the final reckoning our will reflects what we are.
It’s a complicated point that delves into his interest in (obsession with?) Kant but the basics can be summed up with the great poem by Bertolt Brecht:
So the point is less that physiognomy is a strict biological science - as postulated/asserted by certain people in the rationalist community - than that people’s habits and general demeanour are presented in their faces according to their comportment with the world.
Sorry, lockdown logorrhoea again.