is it both "beautiful" and "ugly" or neither "beautiful" nor "ugly" — DonChuko

Both are extremes of the same thing - beauty -. I believe that there is no intrinsic middle ground between the extremes, because the concept of what is "beautiful" and what can be considered as "ugly" is born and designed by the individual. A greater number of individuals agree that such a characteristic is beautiful, it becomes the stereotype, what you expect from people, and vice versa.

I've heard songs that were both ugly and beautiful. Lots of Platonists out there it seems

I've heard — Gregory

The individual at his maxim...

That's kind of a fun question :wink:

I think the logician would say its appearance is neither. And the dialectician would say its appearance is mottled.

And I'll go out on a limb and say the physicist might say its appearance is complementary. (And as a fourth option, the philosopher might say its appearance is subjective/a subjective truth... .)

RG Collingwood had an interesting notion about how we think in terms of "artificial" dialectics. So the most ugly thing you have ever seen becomes one pole of the antagonistic concept, the most beautiful the other. But eventually, you will encounter something more beautiful, then your idea of what constitutes beauty will evolve. But both really are on the same spectrum.

is it both "beautiful" and "ugly" or neither "beautiful" nor "ugly"? — DonChuko

It's an outright contradiction to say it's both beautiful and ugly. Ergo, to avoid a contradiction, it must be that it's neither beautiful nor ugly.

It's an outright contradiction to say it's both beautiful and ugly. Ergo, to avoid a contradiction, it must be that it's neither beautiful nor ugly. — TheMadFool

If beauty is in the eye of the beholder, then the same thing can literally be beautiful to me and ugly to you.

If beauty is in the eye of the beholder, then the same thing can literally be beautiful to me and ugly to you. — Pantagruel

Yes, but both can't be the case for a single individual.

Yes, but both can't be the case for a single individual. — TheMadFool

But as I pointed out in my comment about artificial dialectic, they can. You can encounter something which sets a new standard of beauty, whereupon what was formerly beautiful can become ugly.

But as I pointed out in my comment about artificial dialectic, they can. You can encounter something which sets a new standard of beauty, whereupon what was formerly beautiful can become ugly. — Pantagruel

Yes change is possible, from beauitful to ugly and vice versa but a contradiction as when you claim something is both beautiful and ugly is impossible. Are you, for instance, when you contradict me, as you are as of this moment, saying that you're both right and wrong? :chin:

Yes change is possible, from beauitful to ugly and vice versa but a contradiction as when you claim something is both beautiful and ugly is impossible. Are you, for instance, when you contradict me, as you are as of this moment, saying that you're both right and wrong? :chin: — TheMadFool

Hmm. But as I said, if it is beautiful for you and ugly for me, the the thing is simultaneously beautiful and ugly. What does "for a single individual" have to do with it if it is being ascribed to the thing as a property? In physics experiments things can have different properties when viewed from an internal versus an external perspective. They remain the properties of things.

Hmm. But as I said, if it is beautiful for you and ugly for me, the the thing is simultaneously beautiful and ugly — Pantagruel

:up:

For a contradiction to occur, the point of view must be identical. If you and I differ in aesthetic opinion there's no contradiction because we're coming at it from different perspectives. However, this is the critical point, we will, for certain, not agree with each other for the simple reason that doing so is a contradiction.

For a contradiction to occur, the point of view must be identical. — TheMadFool

X is black. X is white. These two statements are in contradiction, there is no reference, either implicit or explicit, to a point of view. The identical element X is the basis of the contradiction.

X is black. X is white. These two statements are in contradiction, there is no reference, either implicit or explicit, to a point of view. The identical element X is the basis of the contradiction. — Pantagruel

How can this be? Every statement must be from a point of view. For instance, the statements you kindly provided, "X is black. X is white" makes sense only if understood in a color context.

You guys made me think of something...would like an opinion.

Concerning beauty and ugliness, If our perceptions of it, using objective reasoning uncovers contradiction (whether it's Bivalence/Vagueness in this case of something being 'beautifully ugly',or simple unresolved paradox/liar/self reference paradox, etc.), and Subjectivism uncovers contradiction or presents completely different subjective views of the same object, how do we discover or uncover the truth there? What means or method is the appropriate way to seek its truth, or understand its truth value?

Is there such a thing as beautifully ugly? Does the logic of language limit us here?

How can this be? Every statement must be from a point of view — TheMadFool

I don't think this is a general principle of logic.......statements are statements.

Is there such a thing as beautifully ugly? Does the logic of language limit us here? — 3017amen

I don't think there is objectively such a thing as beauty. Even instrumental properties are relevant to specific ends. So TMF is right that these are viewpoint relative, but not, for that very reason, that they are mutually exclusive. If the same thing has different properties from different perspectives, it is still the same thing. Why would the unity of the thing not be as important as the unity of the viewpoint?

If the same thing has different properties from different perspectives, it is still the same thing. — Pantagruel

What would that mean then?

Well, in the case of a thing being both beautiful and ugly, that beauty and ugliness are not contradictory properties, in the context of the OP. This whole example kind of ran away with itself I think....

Well, in the case of a thing being both beautiful and ugly, that beauty and ugliness are not contradictory properties, in the context of the OP — Pantagruel

Gotcha, no worries. That seems to suggest some sort of physical complimentary existence, (or even the unity of opposites principle) ... , not sure what you mean... .

I suppose the question remains, what means or method should be used to uncover or discover its truth value?

I suppose the question remains, what means or method should be used to uncover or discover its truth value? — 3017amen

When mixing subjective and objective perspectives like this do you think you can even assign truth values? It seems like a metaphysical issue?

It seems like a metaphysical issue? — Pantagruel

Nice! The experience of the color red comes to mind as the infamous metaphysical quandary :smile:

:up:

I don't think this is a general principle of logic.......statements are statements. — Pantagruel

Of course not but it's a general principle of discourse.

Of course not but it's a general principle of discourse. — TheMadFool

True, but you were making a logical declaration. Discourse doesn't have to be logical. It can be rhetorical, descriptive, expostulatory. If you want to strip it to its logical bare-bones, then you have to let go everything but what is directly contained in the statements. So the identical thing "X" remains, because it is an element of the statements. But the differing perspectives A(X is beautiful) B(X is ugly), A and B disappear because they are part of the organic context which pure logical abstraction removes.

True, but you were making a logical declaration. Discourse doesn't have to be logical. It can be rhetorical, descriptive, expostulatory. If you want to strip it to its logical bare-bones, then you have to let go everything but what is directly contained in the statements. So the identical thing "X" remains, because it is an element of the statements. But the differing perspectives A(X is beautiful) B(X is ugly), A and B disappear because they are part of the organic context which pure logical abstraction removes. — Pantagruel

All I know is this: different perspectives yield different statements but given any single perspective, the statements within it shouldn't be contradictory on pain of being accused of woolly thinking.