2 Answers

  1. https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_subraznogo

    We are talking about the phenomenon when things and works of art that are considered “ugly” or “ugly” by standard aesthetic standards may seem aesthetically attractive. This paradox manifests itself in such stable expressions as” terribly beautiful”, as well as in aesthetic judgments such as:” I like this bias in music “or”It is the kinks and asymmetry that make this design attractive”. The ugliness paradox simultaneously describes the reverse case, when some things that are characterized by certain features as “beautiful“, perceived as “tasteless” or “aesthetically obtrusive”: “They are too beautiful to (really) be beautiful“[2].

    Other points of view relate to photographs of disfigured disabled or crippled people, as well as to the many different books and films that contain frightening scenes. First of all, the ugly is seen as the opposite of the beautiful, it is distorted, disturbing, repulsive and chaotic. Such associations are hereditary, but often they can also be acquired. As an example, we can cite war veterans who associate fireworks with something creepy; despite the fact that fireworks are considered beautiful, they are still afraid of them, since veterans associate it with gunfire and wartime.

  2. This paradox is given such a detailed definition: the recognition of something ugly as beautiful and the view of beauty as ugliness. One of the meanings of the term “paradox” is a statement that is apparently contradictory or counterintuitive, but possibly true. In a nutshell, this paradox can be expressed in proverbs: you can't put a handkerchief on every mouth: as many people, so many opinions. Some people like to watch horror movies and admire them, while others are disgusted by them. These two contradictory points of view have their own evidence for beauty or ugliness.�

    Anticipating your next question about paradoxes, I recalled the Buridanov donkey paradox. By the way, this is a very vital situation that each of us has experienced more than once. The story of a donkey is given as an example. The point of the paradox is that a donkey that stands between two identical haystacks can starve itself to death because it has not yet decided which haystack to start eating from.�

    Aristotle, in one of his works, told the story of a man who was very hungry and also very thirsty, but he never died, unable to make a choice whether to start with food or drink.�

    Most likely, neither the donkey nor the man had the courage to make a decision, whether it was the right one or not. Familiar situation? 🙂

Leave a Reply