text_original: Who is right, Kant or Stendhal? When, forsooth, our aesthetes never get tired of throwing into the scales in Kant's favour the fact that under the magic of beauty men can look at even naked female statues "without interest," w T e can certainly laugh a little at their expense: — in regard to this ticklish point the experiences of artists are more 104 THE GENEALOGY OF MORALS ''interesting," and at any rate Pygmalion was not neces  sarily an "unaesthetic man."
text_transcription: WHO IS RIGHT CONTERAL WHEN FORSOOTH OUR ESTITES NEVER GET TIRED OF THROWING INTO THE SCALES IN CONSE FAVOR THE FACT THAT UNDER THE MAGIC OF BEAUTY MEN CAN LOOK EVEN NAKED FEMALE STATUES WITHOUT INTEREST WE CAN CERTAINLY LAUGH A LITTLE AT THEIR EXPENSE IN REGARD TO THIS TICKLISH POINT THE EXPERIENCES OF ARTISTS ARE MORE INTERESTING AND AT ANY RATE PYGMALION WAS NOT NECESSARILY AN UNACETHETIC MAN
phonemes: hˌuː ɪz ɹˈaɪt, kˈænt ɔːɹ stˈɛndhəl? wˌɛn, fɔːɹsˈuːð, ˌaʊɚɹ ˈiːsθiːts nˈɛvɚ ɡɛt tˈaɪɚd ʌv θɹˈoʊɪŋ ˌɪntʊ ðə skˈeɪlz ɪn kˈænts fˈeɪvɚ ðə fˈækt ðæt ˌʌndɚ ðə mˈædʒɪk ʌv bjˈuːɾi mˈɛn kæn lˈʊk æɾ ˈiːvən nˈeɪkᵻd fˈiːmeɪl stˈætʃuːz "wɪðˌaʊt ˈɪntɹɛst," dˈʌbəljˌuː tˈiː ˈiː kæn sˈɜːʔn̩li lˈæf ɐ lˈɪɾəl æt ðɛɹ ɛkspˈɛns: — ɪn ɹᵻɡˈɑːɹd tə ðɪs tˈɪklɪʃ pˈɔɪnt ðɪ ɛkspˈiəɹɪənsᵻz ʌv ˈɑːɹɾɪsts ɑːɹ mˈɔːɹ wˈʌnhˈʌndɹɪd fˈɔːɹ ðə dʒˌiːnɪˈælədʒi ʌv mˈɔːɹəlz ˈɪntɹɛstɪŋ," ænd æɾ ˌɛni ɹˈeɪt pɪɡmˈæliən wʌz nˌɑːt nˈiːsᵻz sˈɛɹili æn "ʌnɛsθˈɛɾɪk mˈæn."