Is there an “ideal” male body? A case against the inactive

In this essay, I make a case that men should work on their body in a way that strengthens it. In addition to this, I provide my own experiences and will share photos of myself (waist up) to prove that I am not only arguing from theory but experience. Lastly, I make a case against being inactive: making a call that all human beings should at minimum consistently engage in some sort of physical activity no matter how miniscule. If you feel uncomfortable with seeing a man shirtless, I advise you click off now. This essay deals with contemporary issues.

DRAFT MADE PUBLIC. self-editorial notes: need to restructure or rephrase some statements because they can create some contradictions if interpreted some way, polemic tone, tautologies present (weak argument structure), dismisses counter-arguments (attacks opposition instead), generalizes (can be fine but a good essay avoids this because it is able to be interpreted as a weakness in the integrity of the idea), potentially offensive and mean, meandering in some portions (need to draw a more obvious connection to my main idea in some portions as they can be interpreted as tangents; some are tangents), awkward phrasing in others, need to draw more solid examples, transitions, flow, tone consistency. I’m also telling people that XYZ is objective but give normative examples: rephrasing, further support, or re-contextualizing is heavily needed.

Mankind is latent with potential. Like the block of marble that had been destined to be carved into the statue of Heracles: each and every person has the likewise ability to grow into what “they are”. If another species exists other than humanity that can consciously decide to be (or not to be) something, I ask the reader to provide me one. Humanity’s ability to intentionally guide the direction of its development can be considered a blessing— or for the more secular among us, a privilege.

However, despite our innate potential modern mankind does seem to suffer from something. Certain thought-forms persistently exist in some people: “I was not born perfect, therefore I will give up”; “I did not get it right the first time, therefore I was not cut out for it”; “I tried, and failed. Therefore I would never succeed.” in such a way that can be labelled as self destructive. We can say an individual who persistently suffers these thoughts is affected by a fatalist conception of the world: a mentality of victimhood and self pity that serves to erode rather than realize innate potential that is within him.

If it is not a waste to never realize what is latent within us, I cannot find an example. We cannot discount a waste in never allowing individuals to be pushed forward: an internal dialogue of ever-increasing aspiration and ambition is not necessarily harmful. What excuses should we provide ourselves then, when we sit, wait and or wallow expecting something “to happen”? Or, worse even, decide to work actively against what aptitude we do have for whatever reasons? Do these excuses really end in helping us achieve tenable, real-world results that we can say positively influences our lives?

Of all things latent, the physical body is the most obvious: evident by its ability to grow. The physical body is additionally integral for our presence in the world. At least, we rely on it everyday for absolutely everything if we wish to move things “in this reality”. Imagine a particularly influential person being unable to enjoy the gifts of his or her work because they are in failing health. This physical body we “inhabit” is the medium we use to interact with the world around us. A famous saying exists, “mind over matter”: however mind could not exist nor influence it’s surroundings without the ability of the body. It is a strong argument, therefore, that to care for one’s body as much as one’s mind is not a bad idea (indeed, I take it as a good idea).

Why are there people who exist, then, that disregard a mind-body connection? Moreover, why do people exist saying health exists “at all levels” or as “anything”? It is absolutely not the case that health, or the direction to realize one’s bodily potential, exists as an expression of just “anything”. Most commonly, this latter point of view is often held by self-described “fat-activists” and or a portion of the body positivity movement. I can go into why I think they believe what they do in later parts of this essay, but for now let’s just assume they do so out of laziness or just being a victim to their circumstances.

It should be stated here that I subscribe, and very heartily, to an objective conception of health: id est, it is strength, fitness, and longevity. I do not want “strength”, “fitness”, and “longevity” to be muddied or subject to what I consider post-modern solipsism (and in my opinion the working of people who would rather argue over semantics than hold themselves accountable for destroying their lives) so I will describe strength as the capacity to produce force with ease at will, fitness the ease and tenacity we can continue to perform physically demanding tasks, and longevity as the body’s ability to continue on functioning without any significant problems (like Diabetes, heart disease, broken bones, mental disease, et cetera).

To assert people do not exercise or take care of themselves because they are lazy, unmotivated or victims to whatever afflicts them is an inflammatory remark. With the exception of circumstances people cannot change I don’t argue this stance is particularly hard to come by. We all, after all, have probably come across times where we went against our better judgment, and acted in ways we likely came to regret. We understand, also, that our choices are ours to make. We cannot, therefore, shift responsibility away from ourselves onto something else. We recognize intuitively that we ourselves are responsible for our own life choices. Any words aside this likely result from some sorts of cognitive dissonance.

To make regrettable decisions, those things we do not want, consistently, however, can be a problem. Forgiveness for one’s self for making poor choices can only go so far. We operate in a world consisting of bottom lines, ultimately. Nature itself is often binary: e.g. zero sum. It is hard to argue consistently that humanity, a subject to nature, and society— a construction from subjects of nature— operate on a fundamentally totally different level. It, too, is an unfortunate reality that we are defined not by our thoughts but our actions. We can desire to be whatever we want but it takes movement in the real world to achieve what we want.

To avoid doing something just because it is difficult is weak. Hopefully we all understand that being weak is bad. On this note, there does seem to be have been some phenomenon after the 2020 COVID pandemic that had some premises of weakness being “good”; weakness as a “virtue” or that being strong was “cringe”. The greater ambience diminished an encouragement of trying: where an activity of laziness (oxymoronic), and allowing oneself to let oneself “go” had be seen as “not uncool”. I have my own reservations and theories on where this comes from. I do find it odd that I myself had met two camps of whatever this zeitgeist had named itself to be: one had the inclination that trying was weak— and weakness is not good; another had the inclination that weakness was good (or rather strength was not necessarily good). Moreover, I had experienced an even more puzzling phenomenon: though these two viewpoints claim to support one another, they lead to a contradiction if done so. I should say I do know these kinds of mentalities haven’t been uncommon before the past half-decade. However, with the turn of the 2010’s I have seen it become rampant— and having become treated as almost endemic to the human condition (which is wrong.)

I have not found an official name of what this phenomenon named itself but I name it self loathing. I’m not unaware of the pandemic’s effect on the mental health of most people, and so most are probably lingering out of some sort of neuroses that they have yet to fully recover from. I do not find this mentality prim. Likewise, whatever effects this mentality projects I cannot support. The entire ideologue (and it seems to run on some “kind” of dogmatism and I haven’t been able to get people out of it through reason) of the arguments together (and evaluated in an isolated manner) lead to a contradiction.

All things that are difficult aid in you developing your human potential. Or, rather, all things aid you in developing your human potential: not excluding those things which are hard. It is the personal responsibility of each and every individual, however, to facilitate their own development. Or, rather, I cannot find a proper reason why the development of the individual should be held to rest on another person. With this type of reasoning I fail to find a contradiction.

(NBK459357)

(PMC11406007)

It is difficult for me to see people waste their potential on drugs, alcohol, bad friends, bad people, bad circumstances, and poor decisions. It is more difficult for me to see people attempt to justify their poor decisions by labelling them as virtues. There is no propriety in allowing yourself to be taken advantage of by whatever. I have often heard people speaking of intentionally putting themselves in situations that were poor. What skill it takes to purposefully make your life worse I am not familiar. It may be a show of status, where people can still do well despite sabotaging themselves. What good drugs, bad friends, and poor decisions— that may affect one’s life forever— have to anyone’s future, I have no idea. To waste one’s limited time on this planet in such fruitless activity I cannot fathom. To make poor decisions on purpose should not be the functioning of a healthy mind. To simply keep things that way after recognizing one’s decisions are poor is even more distasteful.

We cannot deny the importance of the body. Today, over 2/3 of Americans are overweight or obese (NBK586644). A study in the European Union in 2022 cited 60% of people were obese or overweight (PMC9107388). Worldwide, the World Health Organization estimates 43% of all people are not a normal body mass (PMC11406007). Worldwide, this is equivalent to 2.5 billion people or 2,500,000,000 people (PMC11406007). A study on the National Library of Medicine says, “Obesity has become an epidemic which has worsened for the last 50 years.” and “In the United States, the economic burden is estimated to be about $100 billion annually.” (NBK459357).

It is not the case that we are all “perfect”. The statue of Heracles would not be considered “perfect” or a “masterpiece” or “beautiful” if it stayed a slab. Pardon my humor. We recognize its beauty from the time, intention, genius and dedication the sculptor put into his art medium— realized from his mind onto canvas— a work brought forward to our eyes with skill. We are likewise no different. Each and every individual has that ability to become “what he or she wants to be”.

Work is required to realize our potential. It is a classic case to want to be born a “god” with all abilities inborn, e.g. Heracles. While I am sure some reading this may have that history, with the work I have had to put into myself, I have figured I am not likely to be of that case. Likewise, for anyone not born with any disposition of godhood, it is only natural to seek out a direction to direct our energy towards to reach our goals.

I may be subject to criticism: that all this is “obvious”. Whether obvious or not, what is the missing link between people knowing this information and actually acting to bring themselves in alignment with it? Stated previously, we cannot just know the right way to do things— but also we must act to bring about the results we want in the world. It is certainly the case, evident just by looking outside, that whatever mindset I have laid out is not normal (in practice at least).

A common age range men are given for their development is 18-30 years old; key traits of physical health, mental and physical development, career development, paired alongside the aging of his parents or guardians come into the forefront: finally showing the results of his poor or rich decisions. A “prime” is commonly associated with a man achieving “manhood” whether that be into his 30s or prior. Manhood is simply whatever is required to achieve a state of being a “man”. I will define both terms later with precision. “Prime” should be classified not as a state a man enters by virtue of him entering an “age”, but as a level of development and maturity where he is able to stand on his own, and to have the ability to do it well. A “prime” is something that takes time. With the physical development men undergo from such ages (basically required at least until age 25 because of brain development), paired alongside life experience, career experience and physical experience it is a process that is comparable to a marathon rather than a sprint: hence the large age range 18-30. To have early experiences isn’t to diminish an individual from having them later, too. Each and every era, the time that goes by, and people younger and older, will undergo adaptation and will always be subject to learn new things. There may be some among us actually who learn multiple things.

A man has to add up to something. Manhood is distinct in that it is more of a learned experience than one provided purely through the virtue of one’s development during something like puberty. There are many mature looking “men” for example that have the minds of little children: e.g. arrested development. These puers will not develop into any kind of man given a lack of intentionality and work. They remain forever children: a puer aeternus (forever child). A more typical term is man child.

Jung, C. G., & Shamdasani, S. (Ed.). (2009). The red book: Liber novus.

Man children aren’t new. Lack of personal accountability, a sense of urgency to claim one’s life, and excuse making isn’t new either. We enter into a territory dangerous, however, when these men of arrested development are given authority to define what makes what what. Often, all these people do is re-define whatever standard already exists but change it to just serve them instead. This is the case for “fit” people as much as it is for people who are inactive: e.g. steroids are good.

Instead of conforming to reality there are people who would rather reality conform to them. This is not how the world works. Any kind of mindset thinking this is mental illness.

To assume people have to abide by your reality because you “deserve it”, want it to be that way, or assume it of yourself is a mark of a deluded mind. More deluded is not seeing how two arguments that contradict one-another cannot be true simultaneously (solipsism). Most deluded is to convince someone of your viewpoint not through reason or logic but by a “if I let you live this way you let me live that way” or justifying people doing whatever they want by saying “just let people enjoy things”. It is an unfortunate fact that actions have consequences: and I say this from personal experience.

Any kind of reasoning here to advise people on living the best life will be I trying my best to do so philosophically, i.e. providing logic and reason for doing so. No method is without its flaws, however I consider I giving a method that follows right philosophical rigor more convincing than just saying “because it is”. “Because it is” is a large part of why we are in our current situation of whatever. To discount a method that works well, additionally, though not perfectly, in favor of one that barely works at all e.g. “because I said so, and if you let me say so I will let you say so” (so one that works poorly— or doesn’t even work at all) is reasoning that needs to be re-evaluated. To have a mind think to throw out a method that works well enough, and to replace it knowingly with one that does not work at all, is interesting logic (but still wrong).

Florence: Piazza della Signoria - Perseus With the Head of Medusa. Authors note: a mortal, Perseus, is the Greek hero often represented as triumph over impossible tasks: his beheading of Medusa is interpreted as triumph over seemingly impossible challenges. Thus, it serves as inspiration that even mankind can achieve the inconceivable by possessing qualities of strength, courage and cleverness if it only desires.

How can mankind realize its potential, then? So far, all we have done in this essay is describe why being self-pitiful is bad, make a case for working on oneself, and address some potential objections to what this essay is arguing.

The answer to how mankind can realize itself is almost trivial: mankind must try. It is less of being successful and more of ensuring one’s full concept is not left to waste. To have lived thinking “what I could have become” is a thought that is unpleasant. Even if an individual is granted— in all ways— to be “successful” in whatever: is it possible for someone to be happy knowing they could have become something greater? In the concept of trying is encountered the concept of challenge.

Challenge exists as different things to different individuals. Simply, however, it is can be classified easily as a natural resistance toward wanting to achieve great things. Whatever aptitude we are born with, there is challenge and work in fulfilling it. It is true the genius will face challenges qualitatively different from those of a journeyman: however that experience of struggle remains a common between the both of them. Work should be seen simply as the act of an individual trying, challenge should be seen as good because it instantiates change in accordance with one’s aptitude, and when one is challenged through one’s work in natural alignment with his or her natural aptitude: we see growth. Mankind thereby is provided a way to express its concept in fulfillment.

“But trying is difficult”. Trying is supposed to be demanding. You would not be reaching the upper boundary of your potential if you did not enact some effort. Even the successful can achieve greater success. A life subscription to a lifestyle of active momentum is life promoting. Stagnation is death.

How does this relate to bodies?