FUCK THEORY

Experiments in visceral philosophy.

#
That depends.  Do you want to get laid?
(click)
To put it in yet another, more analytical fashion:  To ask of an object “is it useful” is to ask whether the set of entities “uses for this object” is or is not an empty set.  Or, to put it a fourth way, the answer to the question “Is X useful?” is always and inevitably:  “That depends.  What are you trying to do?”
Health is another one of those concepts, much like “sexuality,” that for some reason we have come to assume exists somewhere, outside of us, as a universal norm from which we deviate positively or negatively.  But this is ridiculous.  The only measure of the body’s perfection, as Spinoza so often reminds us, is its degree of power - what it can or can’t do.  In other words, its possible range of activity.  So any qualities that are specific to parts of the body relate to the body as a whole only in terms of the activity of the body as a whole. 
It’s completely idiotic to ask, as this article does, “whether a rippling abdomen, while attractive, is worth the effort.”  The response, inevitably is, worth the effort for what end?  If, like me, you’ve had a regular yoga practice for 14 years, core strength is an indispensable quality:  it’s very hard to do the splits in a hand-stand without it.  My yoga-based core strength is much less useful, though, when I’m sitting and reading a book.  We see a very similar strain of useless research in the domain of nutrition.  “How much wine is good for you?”  Uh, well, how drunk are you looking to get?  Imagine asking “Is yeast useful?”  Well, that depends.  Are you making bread or a mojito? 
In short, the “health” of any part of the body is always relative to the body’s intensive degree of power - what it can and can’t do.  And it is to the question of action and utility that the value of investing in any particular function of the body must be directed. 

That depends.  Do you want to get laid?

(click)

To put it in yet another, more analytical fashion:  To ask of an object “is it useful” is to ask whether the set of entities “uses for this object” is or is not an empty set.  Or, to put it a fourth way, the answer to the question “Is X useful?” is always and inevitably:  “That depends.  What are you trying to do?”

Health is another one of those concepts, much like “sexuality,” that for some reason we have come to assume exists somewhere, outside of us, as a universal norm from which we deviate positively or negatively.  But this is ridiculous.  The only measure of the body’s perfection, as Spinoza so often reminds us, is its degree of power - what it can or can’t do.  In other words, its possible range of activity.  So any qualities that are specific to parts of the body relate to the body as a whole only in terms of the activity of the body as a whole. 

It’s completely idiotic to ask, as this article does, “whether a rippling abdomen, while attractive, is worth the effort.”  The response, inevitably is, worth the effort for what end?  If, like me, you’ve had a regular yoga practice for 14 years, core strength is an indispensable quality:  it’s very hard to do the splits in a hand-stand without it.  My yoga-based core strength is much less useful, though, when I’m sitting and reading a book.  We see a very similar strain of useless research in the domain of nutrition.  “How much wine is good for you?”  Uh, well, how drunk are you looking to get?  Imagine asking “Is yeast useful?”  Well, that depends.  Are you making bread or a mojito? 

In short, the “health” of any part of the body is always relative to the body’s intensive degree of power - what it can and can’t do.  And it is to the question of action and utility that the value of investing in any particular function of the body must be directed. 

Comments
blog comments powered by Disqus
Page 1