how did it come to this?
if beauty is in the eye of the beholder and but a mere game of perceptions, then would it be true that a person deemed to be beautiful by many people be normal, and one that is seen by few if not none to be such, the one that is truly and uniquely beautiful? for one's perception of beauty is, if shared by many others, but proof that she is common - her looks similar to many others before her, who similarly were considered as such.
everything is based upon perceptions. what you perceive to be right, versus what is considered right by others' perceptions. can we then put to blame one who has done an outrage by other people's standards when he has, all along been doing what he perceives to be right?
to anticipate and to realise are different matters. again, it is the idea of perceptions - what we think will happen, versus the actual reality in which it happens. anticipated emotions can hardly be counted on in this case. the calm and disposed manner and reaction, when placed into the context of actual reality, becomes harsh, painful, unacceptable. we can never expect to feel what we expect to.
emotions cannot be stopped merely by wanting it to be stopped. if the difference between the base animal and the great man is the ability to intellectualize, then surely it must be true that the great man is capable of controlling their emotions. for it is when Man thinks, that he is able to capture his thoughts and actions, and when what is to be done is known, then can what is to be felt be known. however, the human mind is known to be irrational, and acts of passion - betrayal, love and hate - have been committed due to an outburst of unexpected emotions. can we therefore say that we are no better than animals? worse, are we not even on par with animals, whose base instincts for survival seem to be much more effective that that of a human's higher level of thought which boasts of intellect and emotions among many things else?
