is it both "beautiful" and "ugly" or neither "beautiful" nor "ugly" — DonChuko
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. — TheMadFool
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. — 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. — 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: — TheMadFool
Hmm. But as I said, if it is beautiful for you and ugly for me, the the thing is simultaneously beautiful and ugly — Pantagruel
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. — Pantagruel
How can this be? Every statement must be from a point of view — TheMadFool
Is there such a thing as beautifully ugly? Does the logic of language limit us here? — 3017amen
If the same thing has different properties from different perspectives, it is still the same thing. — Pantagruel
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
I suppose the question remains, what means or method should be used to uncover or discover its truth value? — 3017amen
It seems like a metaphysical issue? — Pantagruel
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. — 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. — Pantagruel
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.