I have been provided with a ‘simple truth’ today like none other… and in one of the unlikeliest of places… my TRESemmé shampoo bottle.
A poorly crafted ‘philosophy’ can be found on the back, which really just happens to be a sophistic/psychological mess of words masquerading as Philosophy.
From our origins in salons, we have always been driven by a simple truth; every woman deserves to look fabulous without spending a fortune. TRESemmé is dedicated to creating hair care and styling products that are salon quality without the salon price.
I think this ‘simple truth’ is worthy of more examination, through a little analysis and by restating the argument differently I hope to unravel ‘simple truths’.
First, there are some assumptions that need to be worked out, and I may not have them down exactly as the ‘stylists’ at Alberto Culver International Inc. had imagined them, but I will be as charitable as possible:
- Women are, essentially, not fabulous.
- Looking fabulous typically costs a fortune.
- Not all women have a fortune.
- A salon will make you fabulous, but for a fortune.
Women are, essentially, not fabulous. Because looking fabulous typically costs a fortune and not all women have fortunes to spend. A salon will make you fabulous, but for a fortune. And so, given our origins (and experience) in salons, we believe that every woman deserves to look fabulous without spending a fortune.
About.Me
3 Comments
You ought to utter this in a summarized version to onlookers at a comedy show. Hefty laughs would succeed your finale of: “And, if you’re going to make up simple truths, why not say something like this: ‘you are born looking fabulous, but your hair gets really fucking dirty all the time…’ I guess that’s not going to sell shampoo… for the time being I seem to be stuck using sexist-socialist hair care products… I will somehow learn to deal with it” (Rafferty 281). As a consequence of this post, I’ll have to delve into the emergence of philosophic presupposition in modern beauty products, too.
I reject your first assumption as listed: Women are, essentially, not fabulous. Your shampoo bottle is actually saying: Women, essentially, do not look fabulous. They do not make any assertions about a woman’s intrinsic fabulousness, merely her appearance thereof.
Also, we use the same conditioner.
You are absolutely right, that was what I meant, and looking back I can see how that could be taken out of context… But please consider it in context, the context of aesthetics, and not ontology.