I kindly salute my steemian followers and steemit.com members 👋

I decided to change approach and discuss philosophy today.

So... Let's take this subject and talk about it :

The uniqueness of "beauty", the diversity of "ugly"

The values and the esthetic negative values, intellectual, economics and ethical have different names in spoken language, beauty, truth, kind, useful, right, fair, exact, etc, which designates the free exercise of spiritual activity, action, scientific research, successful artistic production; and ugly, false, evil, useless, inappropriate, unwarrantable, inaccurate, designating an embarrassing activity, the failed product.

In their linguistic use, these names are continually transferred from one category of facts to another. For example, beautiful is used not only for a successful expression, but also for a scientific truth, or for a helpful made action, and for a moral action; that's why we speak of a intellectual beautiful, of a beautiful of action, of a ethical beautiful. If we follow these extremely varied concepts, we enter into a verbally inaccessible and tangled labyrinth in which few philosophers and aestheticians have come forward and lost themselves.

However, it seemed appropriate for us to circumvent carefully the use of the word "beautiful" to designate the expression in its positive value.

But after all the explanations I have given, now that any danger of misconstruction has been removed, and ignoring the fact that the dominant tendency in both the common language and the philosophical language is to restrict the meaning of the word "beautiful " precisely to the aesthetic value, it seems easy and appropriate to define beauty as a successful expression, or, rather, as an locution literally, because the expression, when it is not successful, is not an expression.

As a result, the ugly, is the wrong expression. Even for the unsuccessful works of art, the paradox is that the beauty presents us with a uniqueness of beauty, and the ugly a multiplicity. From where, usually, in fronth of aesthetic works more or less unsuccessful, we hear about qualities, that is, about their beautiful parts, which is not the case when facing the perfect ones.

Indeed, it turns out impossible to enumerate the qualities or show the beautiful parts, because there is a complete fusion, they have only one quality: life circulates throughout the body and is not withdrawn in any of its parts.

The qualities of unsuccessful works can be of varying degrees, even very high. And while the beautiful does not show degrees, not being conceived a more beautiful, that is, a more expressive expression, a more appropriate fit, the ugly, in exchange,
presenting them and still going from slightly ugly (or almost beautifully) to very ugly.

But if the ugly would be complete, that is, lacking any element of beauty, it would cease to be ugly by itself, for, in this case he would lack the contradiction in which his reason for being. The negative value would become nonvalue, the activity would give up the place of passivity, with which it is not at war unless it is effectively countered.

And because the distinctive consciousness of the beauty and the ugly is based on the contrasts and the contradictions involved in aesthetic activity, it is obvious that this consciousness is attenuated until it disappears altogether as it descends from the most complex expression cases to the most Simple and very simple.

Hence, the illusion that there are no beautiful or ugly expressions, considering themselves as being without a sensible effort and as natural.

In today's article I wanted to share with you my opinion, from a phylosofic point of view, concerning "the beautiful" and "the ugly", after having the opportunity to study the work "Estetica" by Benedetto Croce, a work that impressed and inspired me at the same time to take this action.

If you found my post interesting feel free to let me know your thoughts in the comment section.

Till next time, may the power of Steem be with you! ✌️