And as for vanity, well, we all betray our vanity when we share our precious opinions here. We are flexing, both in the mirror and on the stage.

Is no different than cycling. Or any other endeveur. It's a lifestyle you don't simply become a bodybuilder you ease into it. It takes along time to know enough about nutrition training and sticking with it over the years. That's what seperates a bodybuilder from an average gym goer. And what are your goals hobby? Competing? Functional strength for a specific purpose? It's like any other hobby. You'd probably feel more doped out drinking 2 cups of coffee than being on anabolic steroids. If you want a neotropic supplement with cognitive potential look at creatine. The most widely studied supplement in the world the research is out there just reach for it.

First of all - bravo very well written post @petrichor. And others too.

Some years ago, considering the next directions in my life, I was focusing on choosing the long term hobby/recreational activity to which to dedicate more passionately. I opened up the topic of lifting weights at the gym and got stuck on exactly the aspects being discussed here: namely the vanity, artificiality and pointlessness of it, to keep it super simple.

My issue was, if the activity did not contain enough substance, intrinsic value, or utility I would not buy into it and get serious. And half-assing just for fun was not what I was going after.

So at that time I did some web searches for "the philosophy of bodybuilding", the "psychology of bodybuilding" etc.. and didn't find anything worthwhile. I wish I had found this board back then, would have been very eager to partake in the discussion.

I am happy you touch so many of the interesting questions @petrichor. And make a few good points as well. That said I can't help but feel like not all questions are answered in a thoroughly enough way.
To say, reading your post my itches have reappeared but did not get scratched just enough :(

And whatever you define as athleticism, why does bodybuilding need to have that in order to be worthwhile? — petrichor

I'll pass on a definition of athleticism since I think you probably have a pretty good idea of what I mean already. However, for me at least, the beauty of muscle is its kinetic function. Bodybuilding*, for this poster, is muscle without muscular purpose. Regarding whether it's 'worthwhile' or not; I have no idea, is it?

*I understand this as the very extreme end of the gym spectrum; competition, steroids, posing pouches, fake tan and veins.

nothing appeals to me aesthetically quite as much as the muscular human form. — petrichor

This is where we differ. I don't believe the value of muscle is merely aesthetic so I'm unimpressed by your aesthetic relativism.

Great posts. You helped me see climbing in a new way. I also agree with the attitude expressed below.

Does it get in the way of other things? Sure! What doesn't? Are we neurotics? More than hard-working businessmen? More than philosophers?

Consider that all the accusations made about bodybuilders and their self-obsession, vanity, inability to feel okay with themselves without such a physique, and so on, could be leveled at just about anyone who does just about anything with enthusiasm and persistence.

Why do philosophers feel such a need to be intelligent? Why can't they be satisfied with everyday ideas and levels of understanding? Why all the reading of obscure and difficult books and performing their understanding for others? Why all the posing? Why all the pretense of profundity? Something to prove? Some sense of inadequacy? Oh, they are all driven by a pure sense of wonder or a pure pursuit of the good, are they? — petrichor

I agree with what I think is your notion that our motives are often mixed. We do this or that to some degree for its own sake and to some degree for status. Smarter, stronger, sexier, richer, more righteous,....

And here:

There is pleasure in excellence in all its forms. — petrichor

Thanks!

vanity, artificiality and pointlessness of it — gumi

I can't help but think that some would argue that most things we do are vain and pointless in the end, if not artificial. In my mind, pointlessness isn't a good reason to reject something.

Consider the old question people ask about basic work, the very definition of the useful. Why do I work? To live. Why do I live? To work? Does work just serve work?

You can't fully justify things by instrumental value. You reach the heart and head eventually. Not everything is best justified in the way that feet and screwdrivers are. That which gives value to all the useful things in the end is itself without instrumental value.

I'll pass on a definition of athleticism since I think you probably have a pretty good idea of what I mean already. — Txastopher

Honestly, I am not exactly clear on what is meant by athleticism. I think it could be an interesting discussion to try to define it and see what consequences we can draw out of that.

Yes, @petrichor. I don't disagree with any of that.
And actually it is exactly the heart of what bothered me.

From one side, you can't easily attack bodybuilding without also throwing punches at a lot of other activities we do in life. Starting from hobbies, unconscious habits, ending up with whatever profession you do daily. And so the discussion very easily reaches fundamental life philosophical dimensions and then turns into a stalemate.

And yet.. There seem to be so many other options for you to satisfy each and every one of those positives that going to the gym offers. Options which don't suffer from the same level of artificiality, vanity and pointlessness.

E.g.

- You want to become excellent at something?
OK, take up carpentry and build something crazy original.

- But you also want it to be something primal and pleasurable for the body?
OK have more sex then.

- But you also want it to be something real manly, provide physical benefits, confidence, compensate for your office job lifestyle?
Heck why don't you at least do a martial art, then? Sure can see a number of situations where it would be more beneficial than bodybuilding

Regards

It takes along time to know enough about nutrition training and sticking with it over the years. — Bright7

Exactly. And it takes a lot of trial and error to learn what works for your body, both nutrition-wise and workout-wise. It's very easy to plateau if you're not paying enough attention to what you're doing all around, as a complete lifestyle, if you're not approaching it systemically and experimenting with the system to figure out what works. That's why you don't see a lot more people who are really built--because it's very difficult to get there; it takes total commitment. And that's why some people try to "cheat" and use ridiculous things like synthol instead.

Options which don't suffer from the same level of artificiality, vanity and pointlessness. — gumi

What make any of these things artificial or not? Vain or not? Pointless or not? You should have some criterion for that, and some justification for the criterion, if you're going to criticize anything versus support anything on those grounds.

When you get under the heavy loaded bar you simulate a necessity to lift it, and stimulate the muscles. This to me is "artificial".

When you take every possible opportunity to stop at the mirror, take peek at your abs, and concern yourself with bodifat digits, and arm circumference, that to me is "vain".

About "pointless", clearly this is exeggerating a bit. In effort to better illustrate the critical side of the argument.

I wasn't asking you to tell me what you think is artificial, vain, etc. about bodybuilding.

I was asking you to basically give your definition of artificial, vain, and pointless so that (a) under the definition, bodybuilding qualifies as artificial, vain, pointless, but (b) under the same definition, carpentry, having sex, doing martial arts, etc. don't qualify as artificial, vain, pointless.

Right..
Well to me those seem pretty straightforward answers as well, but perhaps there is something more to consider in that direction.

This to me is "artificial". — gumi

Of course it is artificial. In the good old days, men got magnificent physiques by building temples and city walls and houses out of stone with their bare hands and a minimum of tools. Or by working in steel mills, or iron mines, or coal fields, or plowing, planting, and harvesting, and so forth. All that has changed.

Modern "Body building" got going as a specialty in the late 19th century. Eugene Sandow, born 1867, was the modern promoter. Of course, the Greeks were interested in physical culture long before us, and they worked on their physiques competitively (I think more for olympic performance than S & M -- Stand & Model.

Historically, industrial revolution era working class men didn't have the leisure or necessity to body build. Work took care of that. They worked hard and then they died. Bodybuilding and athletic practice takes a certain amount of leisure. The more time that one puts into it, the more free time one needs. Most likely athletes have belonged to a somewhat higher class, where leisure was more plentiful.

In our era (century or two) quite a few people no longer engaged in heavy labor, and had more leisure time. Athletic activities could become a specialty for a broader spectrum of classes.

Heck why don't you at least do a martial art, then? Sure can see a number of situations where it would be more beneficial than bodybuilding — gumi

Of course, a 90 lb. weakling is at a disadvantage in martial arts. The guys in the karate club at the U were a pretty lean muscular bunch (drool).

Made my day.

Could I ask for opinions on following case against bodybuilding, roughly would go like:

A: The male muscular body is universally appealing to the human perception. (strong notion maybe, but we could define something more acceptable like: intrinsic beauty, attractiveness to the majority of the population, etc.)

B: The underlying reasons for A can be broken down and iterated many times, until they largely draw from primal instincts, which are pure and universal for all humans. Instincts born out of survival necessities: aggression, toughness/resistance, security; as well as hedonist: enjoyment of foods, sexual partners.

C: The bodybuilder takes advantage of such instincts, but goes a step too far by creating the external appearance without basis in real-life scenarios. The visual result is disproportionate to promise it makes.

D: The motivation behind C is not noble or morally exemplary, and thus opens the door to assumptions like: vanity and narcissism, lack of self-confidence, and desire for social acceptance beyond what the individual offers to the collective.

Point D is very loose and subjective, but if I see opinions supporting A thru C, it is already an interesting conclusion in my opinion.

You'll definitely be poor after spending so much money on injecting crap into your body.

Re your B, you're leaving out the health aspects. That's also part of the instinctive attraction, because it's part of "security," part of having a stable, non-risky mate to help raise offspring.

Re your C, I don't understand "creating the external appearance without basis in real-life scenarios." There's no real way to cheat to a bodybuilding physique aside from something like synthol, but that doesn't really work--it only produces a grotesque caricature of a bodybuilding physique. Even with steroids, getting a bodybuilding physique is very hard work that takes a total lifestyle commitment and a lot of time. There's always a misconception about steroids and PEDs in general that you can just take them and be Barry Bonds or Arnold Schwarzenegger. You can't. It still takes natural talent/natural gifts, years of hard work, and a pretty total lifestyle commitment.

Yes absolutely, to B we can add something like:
"On a more subconscious level, a muscular body may suggest good genes, resistance to a crippling illness. Good to mate with that one."

About C, the clarification is:

In any other situation - outside of the gym - the acquired physique does not serve a purpose in the direction of aspects listed under B. Or - it does, but to a far far lesser degree than the appearance suggest. This represents a illusion towards the observers instincts

But the whole point is that the work it requires to get a bodybuilding physique can't be faked, and it does really have all of those benefits. You can't get to that point and not be healthy, for example.

No. That is a pretty valid point (with exceptions), but not the whole point, and not the point of my C.

Something like this.

Observer's sub-conscience:
Wow this dude probably eats like a tyrannosaurus, snacking on a pack of hippos with cheese, on his way back from hunting down a brontosaurus
Reality:
He weighs the 34g of oats on a digital scale, and has fears of the glycemic load of an apple.

Observer's subconscience:
Wow this dude probably can manhandle a sabretooth tiger and smash it to the ground
Reality:
No, but he should be able to bench 4 sets of 12 reps with the tusks, provided he gets into position and then another such dude spots him.

That would just be saying that others might have ridiculous beliefs about the person, but why would bodybuilding be a special case for that?

Because for me it feels like bb taps into the observer's primal awe more so than other popular hobbies.
But is not so upfront and transparent about it. It masquerades as pursuit for health when it is a pursuit for attention (.. more so than other hobbies like carpentry).
Of course I may be wrong.

Those are not actual beliefs by anyone, you see right?
Those are supposed associations on subconscious level that a muscular body invokes.

I don't buy the notion of subconscious mental content, but even if I did, that would have to be actual subconscious mental content of particular individuals.

It masquerades as pursuit for health — gumi

Even if health concerns aren't primary, you can't get to the destination --a bodybuilder's physique --without being intentionally healthy.

Yes, correct. Cool :). Again: not the point of the case I wanted discussed a,b,c, d above.

Even if health concerns aren't primary, you can't get to the destination --a bodybuilder's physique --without being intentionally healthy. — Terrapin Station

Is this actually the case? As I understand it, competitive bodybuilding is massively unhealthy. If, on the other hand, you mean something else by 'bodybuilding'; working out with weights, for example, then I suppose it is, as you put it, 'intentionally healthy', but I'm not sure if it's bodybuilding though. Perhaps we need to clarify terms.

This is the male parallel of shaming the female body to sell stuff. Bring in all that feminist critique thereof and apply it here.