Discourse 21: The Question of Physiognomy

                Recently I have seen many articles appear on the stack that reference the topic of physiognomy. This is the concept of determining a person’s character and personality traits based solely on their external appearance, particularly that of the face.

While I have heard of this topic before and am aware that it has a long history, I have never particularly taken it seriously. While I do not like the term pseudoscience (for many reasons), physiognomy is generally considered to be in that category. Up until a few months ago I would have taken it as a topic of mere coincidental amusement and not that of a serious discussion.

My primary reason for this uncritical dismissal was the fact that such assertions have generally negated the existence of free will. To be clear, if the reader is unfamiliar with me, I certainly believe that free will exists and elsewhere I have explained its existence from a scientific perspective. The short of it, it is a necessary component of evolution that helps make our species anti-fragile. From a metaphysic standpoint, we are individual souls residing inside of a body. Either way, it exists as a presupposition to my logos.

So, Do I or do I not have a say in who I am and what I present to the world? Or am I a mere product of genetics and environment? Clearly, I believe that we do and are not beholden to such things. But they influence us.

I have long considered physiognomy to be just another phenotype like skin color, height, hair color, et cetera, having no bearing on the constitution of the individual soul. Albeit these things can alter one’s perception of themselves, but that is in fact a choice of personal subjectivity.

However, after seeing several thinkers on Substack whose minds I respect discuss this phenomenon with legitimacy, I have decided to spend some time considering the subject and then sharing my thoughts as to what this might mean.

These writers, among others in the public square, have found patterns between physiognomy and a person’s political disposition.

The correlation is significant enough that I decided to contemplate seriously a different answer than it is just a mere coincidence.

To begin with, none of the writers I have found address the concept of free will as it relates to physiognomy. Several of them, I ascertain believe in free will from their writing, but in such essays about the “science” of face reading it is implied that we are tied to these features. I will not link their essays here as I do not seek to put words in their mouths.

After consideration, perhaps they are right. However, why I say this will require some explanation, although it will be brief.

So, under the presupposition that free will does exist, what could all of these historical observations, including those from our current era mean?

How do these things co-exist? Free will and physiognomy?

It did not take me long to produce an answer, albeit hypothetical. It is related to a similar question and answer.

In my essay “The Edification of Marriage through Fear and Trembling”,  I discuss that marriage is not so much an act of completing an individual by making them whole, but an act of synergy between two complete individuals, or between two individuals who are building themselves whole and growing their marriage together.

By complete or “whole”, I am referring to a person who has mastered, or on the path to, their impulses, desires and actions. They have also transitioned through what Kierkegaard called the aesthetic stage of life into the second stage, the ethical. Such an individual can choose by directed will how to act and what standards they follow as well as living their life with chosen purpose.

For context, I view our (soul, spirit, Dasein, whatever you call YOU) as existing in our bodies as though it was a vessel. In that essay I called our bodies biological mech suits, in which they have their own intelligence, as well as other forms of presynaptic programming that influences behaviors. (Reflexes as well as voluntary vs involuntary mind) Some of those behaviors are generalized species traits which I refer to as Natural Law, which is biological and innate, not a mere social construct. One of my unpublished books focuses entirely on this topic and I consider the argument for this point to be mostly uncontested and to a large degree ignored. Perhaps you can think of them as instincts, a much more advanced form of fight or flight. (This is why the negative perception of murder is a generalized species wide trait)

As it relates to the point I am making in this brief essay, In the Discourse about marriage I said that men and women have unique challenges to becoming “whole” based upon their respective gendered pneuma.

Essentially, our respective biological mech suits comes with certain “pre-settings” based upon our sex. To master these settings is to not negate them, but to embrace and work with them, including learning to navigate the darker elements of our shadow psyche. Platos Allegory of the Chariot is a good example.

(Our bodies are intelligent after all, an intelligence not affected by our directed will)

If either a man or woman does not engage in this internal work of building themselves, their behaviors will default to these particular pre-settings of their gender, functionally taking your hands off of the mech suits steering wheel. Autopilot. The path of least resistance. Such a person’s praxis is a product of their genetics and environment sans free will. (Such a person becomes easy to condition through social engineering)

So, what if…. What we observe in the “science” of physiognomy are the phenotypic expressions of some of our individual pre-synaptic personality settings?

Yes, some people are naturally meaner than others. Others naturally more compassionate. (It runs in the family they say) There are also likewise standard degrees of cowardice, slothfulness, honesty, et cetera.

What if these phenotypic expressions are just unique traits/burdens that belong to the body that the individual must negotiate along their path of life?

Just like in games, individuals all start with a diverse min/max character build, charisma, intelligence, strength, dispositions, stealth, et cetera. (some of us are ninjas)

In Discourse 4, I said if a person does not learn to direct and choose their path in life, they will by default take the path of least resistance, in this case they match their physiognomy.

This is when one gives into the whims of the body, a mere reactionary to physical and psychological stimulus. Or conditioning. The intellect, reason and/or free will does not intervene to respond to external stimuli, allowing the mech suit to drive itself.

Some people are indeed more inclined to virtuous behavior than others. Some people are bothered less by temptation or are naturally slower to anger. These statements are not controversial, but what do they mean? It seems to me we all have our own challenges.

With all of that in mind, consider the following:

While physiognomy is ancient, it is impossible to compare the accuracy of this “science” throughout the ages. But I suspect it is more accurate in our modern world than it has ever been.

The reason; as mass society has emerged through the industrial revolutions, less people exercise their free will, their behavior often defaulting to the path of least resistance.

Our political divisions are engineered artificial schismogenesis, which naturally attracts certain personality dispositions.

Meaning, absence the use of free will (which if used could arrive at the same conclusions) certain physiognomic features will go left…others will go right. I think we have never been so predictable.

Point is, if a man looks like a weasel and has a poor personal constitution (a weak man) he will predictably behave like a weasel.

So, while I do think there is truth to what many of these writers discuss, it is certainly not an absolute indicator of who you are dealing with. We can allow them to inform our prejudice (we all have it- it is a natural defense instinct) but we should never permit ourselves to judge an individual based solely on their immutable characteristics. If we are indeed all Gods children as I choose to believe, such methods of judgement are not only unfair, but foolish.

“Speak, so that I may see you.”

-Socrates