Many times we have people say “beauty is in the eyes of the beholder”. That is because we do not want to say that some people are ugly. That is mostly in relation to women physiognomy. To appease those who are less fortunate to be beautiful, we say that “beauty is in the eyes of the beholder”. I sat one day and heard a preacher tell his congregation that "everyone in here is rich." I turned to my neighbor and said, "No that is not true!" There are some who were born poor and would perhaps die poor. Some people to foster their ad hominems will ask me “are you yourself handsome or ugly”. I always tell them I am in between. Anything that is physical can be measured. That means; there are parameters that we use to say someone is beautiful or ugly. Therefore, I crave your indulgence as I play with these words.
I believe that an abstraction can only be measured when it is rendered concrete. Since darkness is an abstraction, then it can only be measured when it is made concrete. That is when it becomes alive, else it is dead. For you to know that a place is dark, you must be in darkness, else just hearing that the place is dark leaves us with a dead word. It is same thing with beauty or ugliness. To say someone is beautiful does not mean a thing until we see a beautiful person from whom we can extract the qualities of beauty, so that we can use those standards to compare with the said object we are talking about. Beauty is an abstract word that could be used as a concept. We can posit a theory that beautiful people do not come from your hometown; they only come from mine. When the word beauty is used as an inanimate noun, it is abstract, and it must affect the senses for us to be able to measure it. If it is used as an animate noun, then she must be “a very attractive or seductive looking woman”. Attractiveness may be subjective to an extent but very attractive will have objective standards.
If we accept that CO2 is the same in Brisbane (Australia) and the same in Bucharest (Romania), then there is an absolute! If there is an absolute in any given field on earth, then there should be an absolute in abstraction. That absolute is that; some people are beautiful, but others are ugly. A beautiful person is a beautiful person; there is an absolute truth. If all truth is relative, then how does anyone know that the position he or she has taken is even right?
When anyone says that beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, he/she is saying that the word beauty is merely an abstraction and cannot be converted into concrete terms. In others words; there is no standard definition. If there is a standard definition then those standards could be applied on individuals to see if they meet them. If not, then they are ugly. It is for that reason we have the literary term apostrophe: "oh embrace me my hope."
When you validate an ugly person as a beautiful person then you are faltering the Law of Excluded Middle (LEM) that states that it is either A or non-A and not both. Not everybody can be right. Even though some people may see an ugly woman and pretend she is beautiful, they do not erase the characteristics of ugliness in the woman. We are conscious some depocaginous women need that for their daily survival, but it does not peter out the existence of the word beauty. When ugly and beauty become synonyms then pulchritude is the master of the individual.
Let me take it in simple linguistics terms. Perhaps since some of you are more qualified linguists than myself, you may get it. Beauty is a common abstract noun. Yes or no? Here is the definition of an abstract noun: “An abstract noun is a type of noun that refers to something a person cannot physically interact with”. Do you agree with this definition?
Step two. Let us define concrete nouns as “people, places, or things that we do experience with our five senses”. Their difference “The abstract class is the opposite - we can never experience these nouns according to our senses”. Is the dichotomy correct?
Ok this is what I have been saying heretofore. Since we cannot touch, smell, feel, see, or taste beauty, it must be converted into something concrete. In its abstraction, it is very subjective and even ugliness could be perceived as reality. When you convert it to something concrete, then you will use some parameters to make the comparisons or analyses.
Looking at Lady Diana every man affirmed that she was beautiful. It was not a matter of her being beautiful to one of them, even if she was not to the other. To all and sundry the girl was beautiful. That is because when she is cross-examined with the general criteria of beautiful people she passes.
Contrary to the assertion that perception is reality, it is not. Just because you see something does not mean that thing is real. There could be subjective apparition. Thus we cannot equate concreteness to reality because something could be concrete but fake. For example; just because a dollar bill is concrete does not mean it is real; it could be counterfeit. So we are saying that beauty is in the eyes of the beholder when wrongly perceived by the beholder. That means; it is not real beauty because his or her perception is faulty.
Therefore, we can only know that a woman is beautiful if we see one, not by going with the term beauty. As such, beauty cannot be in the eyes of the beholder if the beholder uses the appropriate parameters to apply the abstract term beauty. When used in abstraction it could be in the eyes of the beholder but when used as concrete, thus objective apparition, it is judged with the canon of what is beautiful.
Until then, beauty is not in the eyes of the beholder.
Prince & PA Hamilton Ayuk
“Bonyfish beware because the same net that caught the jawless fish, caught the cartilaginous fish” (Hamilton Ayuk).
Beware earthly paradise seekers because there is a serpent in every paradise"(Hamilton Ayuk).
Idle people write, idler people read, and idlest people read and whine that idle people are taking their time (Hamilton Ayuk).