Trees and Humans

Trees and Humans, a Comparison?

Yes, mea culpa in being politically incorrect when I asserted that the tree-- in fact, any tree (you were right, I didn’t see the picture of the tree and the lady in question)—was prettier than the lady. My assertion was based on the relative timescale of the objects involved. Trees, especially oaks, maples, sequoias, sycamores and the like, live longer than humans. Unlike humans, the older the trees are, the more magnificent and thus presumably more beautiful. Now, since the tree was purchased as a housewarming gift and imbued with the spirit of genuine friendship, that tree would be a testament of beauty indeed as it grows bigger with the names of the friends carved in the trunk getting bigger with time. The tree will provide the shade to the occupants of the house during summer and shield the house somewhat from harsh winds in winter.

Actually, we should not compare two different species for beauty. Each has its own standard of beauty. If we must compare, we should compare individuals of the same species. A mare is only “beautiful” to a stallion. I doubt if any stallion finds any human female “beautiful”. We, humans, on the contrary, find beauty everywhere, in all animate and inanimate objects. We even indulge in comparing beauty across the species. I was aware of the lack of soundness in answering the query, but I went ahead to state that the tree was prettier than the lady without even seeing the picture, just to make a point about the evanescence of (human) female beauty. I was being iconoclastic and philosophical. I had no intention of heaping insult on the beauty of the lady involved. After all, I am a self-avowed poet and, more often than not, affected and driven to distraction by the beauty of the fair sex, especially if the person possessing the beauty happens to be virtuous as well. I was writing a short story with the title Holes in My Heart. Undoubtedly, my answer was affected by the story I was trying to write.

Wissai
October 2009