You've mistakenly(?) laid an unfair(?) emphasis on physical appearance. I'm not saying we shouldn't. I think it's quite a normal to go by appearances and the cosmetic industry is there to back me up.

However, if you were to examine other aspects of what makes a person e.g. morality, atheletic skill, talents such as music, and so on, you'll surely discover that everyone has gifts to rejoice about and flaws to lament over. So, to getting down to the essentials - nobody is perfect!

A rational answer - though also one, forgive me, which I think is at times representative of a somewhat egocentric point of view emanating from the perspective of the able-bodied - supporting the natural preconception that our situation cannot intrinsicslly involve an element of absolute meaningless. However, in the face of the sheer bizarness of the degree of inequity which in reality can divide the circumstances of the fortunate and the unfortunate, and also regarding the level of impairment which in practice disability can impose on the quality of people's lives - I think this kind of argument therefore in reality constitutes a somewhat complacent platitude! I could maybe swallow it if this situation of ours was just a dress-rehearsal - but unfortunatly it aint, the reality being of course that we each have only one shot at life! - Incomprehensible or not, the fact is, sadly, that there's just an element of irredeemable nihilism involved in such disparities which no ingenious concession devised by rational reasoning is capable of reconciling.

You're still expecting design. Nilhism is formed out of the expectation there is an underlying force which forms a destiny to be powerful and capable of anything we want. Inequality is thought to be incomprehensible, as if a force necessitated otherwise.

So much so, that the "absolute meaningless (i.e. not being designed and necessitated as being able to do everyday)," is thought to amount the ultimate failure of life, as if the whim of (in)equality meant no-one really lived or meant at all.The argument you are making is the ultimate fear if inequality, of being without design, of the "meaninglessness" of contingent whim.

Faced with the true of someone who is impaired or restricted, you cannot accept the truth, cannot allow them a space to be themselves and live a fulfilling live, even if that's what they happen to enjoy.The dark truth is not "absolute meaninglessness, but suffering itself and that there is no designing force which can eliminate its possiblity.

If everyone was actually equal, there would be no great virtue in treating them so. One does not need the existence of equity in order to believe in it, quite the reverse. There was this old story about the unequal distribution of talents, to the effect that what is meaningful is what you do with what you've got...

There was this old story about the unequal distribution of talents, to the effect that what is meaningful is what you do with what you've got... — unenlightened

That's also what people say about penis size...usually by people with small penises.

I wouldn't know about that. I heard it from this Jesus guy, but I never examined his tackle.

Well, exepting the remedies cosmetic surgery may perhaps provide for the less endowed and most inexcusably disatisfied, It's nonetheless a commonly advanced precept - though sometimes emanating maybe more from a requirement to be seen as adhering to approved standards of ‘moral correctness’ than from any genuine personal awareness – that in the case of any given individual, the basis of a valid sense of happiness must consist in acquiring an attitude of personal contentment towards their own intrinsic situation unimpaired by the distractions of what may ostensibly seem the greater good fortune of others!

Additionaly the stoic philosophers, whilst not deriding that sense of happiness deriving plausibly within individuals happening to find themselves thriving in a benign situation, did nevertheless hold it to be the case that happiness of such a type must inevitably to some extent be characterised by a quality of illusion and therefore worthily instructed the serendipitous on the virtues of their consciously inculcating – firstly as a form of insurance against the transience of Fortune (- ‘Youth’s sweet-scented manuscript must close’, and all that) but also secondly in respect of the nobility of the idea in itself of disambiguating ourselves of illusion, together with the further pragmatic benefit of a sense of happiness less derivative of personal circumstance likely being more impervious to the vagaries of fortune - worthily instructed the serendipitous on the virtues of their consciously inculcating a concept of happiness less intrinsically derivative of their personal situation.

Allowing the plausibility of such a position, my argument is that nonetheless there in practice exists a limit to the degree of stoicism in the face of reality which the human mind is capable of inculcating, and that, given the degree of disparity of individual circumstance actually existing (There is for example such a thing, I think, as earthly paradise) contentment on the part of the most unfortunate, tragically, can be sustained only by default; i.e. it is permissible in practice in the most unfortunate only by means of a pragmatic ignorance on their part - borne of the limitations in their experience inescapably imposed even in the most optomistic deliniation of their milieu that realistically could be envisaged - regarding the quality of life available in principle to the most fortunate and further, that such are the disparities of life, that in addition this principle ultimately applies in practice to the great majority of us - if only we but knew it! Though, again with pragmatic good fortune, owing to the similarly insulating effect of our own individually deliniated circumstances, we generally remain oblivious of how superb in principle the quality if life of the most fortunate can actually be!

Great post, Robert. We are dealt cards that we are forced to play with our whole lives long. I sometimes reflect on kind of thinking or personality development is opened or closed as a possibility by physical attributes. Does a man with a masculine face (strong jaw, etc.) end up playing into his face? Because (subtly, like raindrops carving a mountain) that's what plays for the crowd? Does the beautiful person try to live "up" to their face? Does the ill-shaped person gain unexpected advantages by being forced to market their skills and decency rather than their charm? It's a strange thing, the power of physical beauty, because sexual contact is usually not a possibility. But maybe there's something genetic going on. Is beauty an indicator of virtue in general? I tempted to say yes, but maybe that's bias. There's something dark and cruel here, though. It's not "rational." It's not fair. But who would want it removed who didn't really just want to possess it in both ways?

Incomprehensible or not, the fact is, sadly, that there's just an element of irredeemable nihilism involved in such disparities which no ingenious concession devised by rational reasoning is capable of reconciling. — Robert Lockhart

I see what you're getting at, and I agree. I understand the temptation to fend it off with what I would call rationalization, but it's not hard to shake off. Birth defects in animals and humans especially seem to spit in the face of a proposed human-like creator. The deformation of the human form (which is the dehumanization of the form in plastic terms at least) is...profane (?) in the sense that the most beautiful thing in the universe (for a human being) is a beautiful human being. Obviously (or rather non-obviously) character is the essence of human beauty, but I think the ideal image of the human clothes this ideal character in an ideal outward form that speaks to the sense as the character speaks to the heart and the intellect. Lynch's The Elephant Man derived its power from the terrible contrast, of course.

Certainly the stoic philosophers, whilst not deriding that sense of happiness deriving plausibly within individuals happening to find themselves thriving in a benign situation, did nonetheless hold that happiness of such a type must inevitably to some extent be characterised by a quality of illusion and therefore worthily instructed the serendipitous on the virtues of their consciously inculcating – firstly as a form of insurance against the transience of Fortune (- ‘Youth’s sweet-scented manuscript must close’, and all that) but also secondly in respect of the nobility of the idea in itself of disambiguating ourselves of illusion, together with the pragmatic fact of the likelyhood of a sense of happiness less derivative of personal circumstance being more impervious to the vagaries of fortune – worthily instructed the serendipitous, on the virtues of their consciously inculcating a concept of happiness less intrinsically derivative of their personal situation. — Robert Lockhart

Indeed. My criticism of stoicism (in this context) is that such a defensive attitude toward Fortune might drain life of its beauty entirely. The only beauty remaining for the radical stoic seems to be narcissistic pleasure in their own power to resist Fortune's tendency to humiliate the less watchful. It's a sort of radical self-possession with not much self left to grasp. But I respect the stoics for facing and addressing the horrors of life (for their relevance and stubborn insistence on a rational, self-possessed "answer" to their own births. ) They don't want to whimper like puppies when it's time to die, and that is truly beautiful. Can this beauty be justified rationally? Or is their an "irrational" image of the noble at the very center, around which the rational "crystals" of this system sparkle?

In the USA, there is alot of denial about what 'equality" actually means as the founders intended. Originally the statement was that we are CREATED equal in accordance of the laws of nature and God. That is, in the eyes of God, we are created equal, in worth to God. It is not what we own, or what talents we have, or what physical body we are given, that makes a difference. We are created innocent, and we are judged not for what we have, but what we do with it. It is the choices that we make, for whatever we are given at birth, that defines us; and therefore the purpose of 'equality,' as defined by the founders, was originally that we are treated fairly by other humans, not that we deserve to have less or more than others by virtue of existence alone.

In the USA, there is alot of denial about what 'equality" actually means as the founders intended. Originally the statement was that we are CREATED equal in accordance of the laws of nature and God. — ernestm

I thought it was specifically dignity and rights. But I am a mere foreigner, correct me.

In the USA, there is alot of denial about what 'equality" actually means as the founders intended. Originally the statement was that we are CREATED equal in accordance of the laws of nature and God. — ernestm

We are created innocent, and we are judged not for what we have, but what we do with it. — ernestm

I thought it was specifically dignity and rights. — unenlightened

There is some confusion about the Declaration of Independence, which is a good read, and the constitution which is less of a good read, but has the force of law.

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness….” Thomas Jefferis--The Declaration of Independence — Thomas Jefferson

As for being created "innocent" and it being more important what we do with it than how much we started with, I don't know where you get that. Who said we were born innocent? (We may be born innocent, but there is a large industry devoted to the notion that we are actually not innocent, but carry the stain of Original Sin. And the notion that we are not judged by how much we have was not a very popular sentiment in the 18th Century. (It isn't all that popular now, either.) One of Jesus' parables points toward being good stewards of what you start with, but getting as much as possible was discouraged in another one.

Some of the FF probably thought we were innocent, but some FF wanted the phrase to be "life, liberty, and the pursuit of property". Franklin discouraged the "property" phrasing. So I have heard..

However nice it is, the Declaration of Independence is neither constitution nor law. It was a letter to King George III. It reads much better than a latter president's tweets (farts).

Well, as the theory of natural rights on which Jefferson based that statement require the existence of a benign God who judges our destiny in our afterlife, the answer to your question is that Jefferson said that.

Thanks for comments. Of course individual contentment is contingent on personal aspiration as well as situation, and restrictions resulting from disablement for example would likely impose less despair in the case of an individual affected by a reduced level of desires - explaining perhaps why many disabled people in practice report, if not a reconciliation with their situation, at least a decline in the level of their discontent once they have passed the 'hurdle' of youth and are beginning to age.

Although certainly the most positive attitude on the part of a disabled person would undoubtedly be, "There's nothing the able-bodied can do that I cant", nonetheless ultimately such an attitude towards realising personal potential in the face of diffulty, no matter how admirable, cannot fully reconcile the nihilism of extreme inequity. Conversely however, perhaps the unfortunate potentially have an opportunity to eventually conceive of a type of happiness less derivative of circumstance and so less illusory than is the case with the more fortunate. Easier to say of course, but also - if such a journey could finally enable a more sustainable concept of happiness - perhaps then this situation represents another example of how a degree of nihilism is disguised in the atheistic concept of mortality foreseeing everything as it does, including such a hard-earned capacity for sustainable happiness, as being ultimately reduced to the same ineffectual state of annihilation!

Certainly the most positive attitude on the part of a disabled person is, "There's nothing the able-bodied can do that I cant", but nonetheless such an attitude towards realising potential in the face of diffulty, no matter how admirable, cannot fully reconcile the nihilism of extreme inequity. — Robert Lockhart

That brings to mind a time when my father asked the author Ved Mehta out for dinner. We went to a very large and noisy restaurant. Suddenly he burst out laughing. My father, a little offended, asked him what was so funny. He pointed at a table about 60 feet away and said "he just told a really funny joke." We, not being blind like him, could hardly make out the conversation at the table right next to us )

Yeah - Seems some more than others must be required to inculcate that virtue of stoicism being the sole prescription recommended by atheism as the omnipotent means to effect a reconcilliation with our predicament! Also, it seems to me, the idea that that prescription is not ultimately a platitude requires a faith more stubborn and solipsistically persistent in the face of uncomfortable reality than even that of the most fundamentalist of religious persuasions!