Usually the phrase “which is natural is not ugly” is pronounced with some irony or slight irritation in justification of some petty misconduct that runs counter to ethical and moral standards. This does not mean verbal skirmishes or other shocking behavior, but flaunting the naturalistic moments of human life, which are not customary to speak out loud.
Acquittal
To relieve need in a crowded place or to go out in a dress that barely covers the intimate parts of the body - for one person such actions are considered the height of shamelessness, the other only shrugs and grins: “What is natural, it is not ugly!” The meaning of expression in such cases is understood rather narrowly, is interpreted in the sense that one does not need to be shy about the manifestations of one’s essence, because nature created us like that. And she, as you know, does not have bad weather, in everything there is an absolute order and undivided harmony.
But can a person, considering himself the crown of creation, become like an animal? Will blind adherence to the postulate “what is natural is not ugly” lead to degradation of society and a return to primitiveness? Was there a moral foundation for many millennia so that a single phrase could destroy them so easily? Or maybe we misunderstand its meaning?
The teachings of ancient philosophers
The statement “what is natural is not ugly” was born not today, but approximately in the fourth century BC. Whether the meaning that is implied now was invested in it is not known for certain. One can only assume that the ancient sages tried to cover a wider sphere of human relations with nature than the justification of publicly displaying intimate needs.
Who owns the axiom "what is natural is not ugly"? Its author is none other than the outstanding ancient Roman philosopher and thinker Lucius Anney Seneca (the Younger). As a poet, statesman and adherent of Stoicism, Seneca firmly believed in the materiality of all things, without denying the limitless possibilities of man in understanding the laws of nature. Was the phrase he expressed the principle of natural philosophy, the views of which the thinker adhered to? Or, perhaps, the condemnation of human weaknesses and base manifestations sounded here? There are more questions than answers, since it is almost impossible to unravel a tangle of philosophical thought even from the height of modern knowledge.
