I'm sure you are right but I still want to add my tuppence.
For me the bee in the picture is deformed but not ugly, in which case the two words can't be synonyms. Ugliness evokes a feeling of repugnance in me and a desire to distance myself from the thing yet the bee's deformity doesn't have that effect on me. Conversely, a toad is ugly yet not deformed. If I happen to touch one when gardening I recoil in disgust.
I disagree with Hutcheson that ugliness is the absence of beauty. In Jane Eyre, the eponymous heroine is said to be plain (i.e. lacking beauty) yet there is no suggestion that she is ugly. I would say Sissy Spacek was neither beautiful nor ugly but just plain.
Something that I have often thought but never read - so I can safely assume I'm wrong - is that love is a reaction to beauty. It's impossible to find something ugly that you love and vice versa. Beautiful things make me want to get near and touch them: kittens, puppies, girls' hair. I know some people claim that, say, trees or great art are beautiful but since neither evoke in me a feeling of love then I personally don't class these as beautiful. Yes, they are more pleasant to look at than at a pile of rubble yet they don't evoke that warm, melting feeling that I believe we have in the presence of beauty.
These are excellent points, which deserve a reply longer than can fit in this comments section. But briefly: (1) regarding Hutchinson, I agree with your claim, and did not mean to endorse his view by quoting him--the point was just that he identifies deformity with ugliness when he makes the claim. (2) Regarding ugliness and repugnance, I suppose I deny that ugliness MUST provoke repugnance, though I agree that it does in many cases. (3) The toad example is a good one. Here are two thoughts. Biologists studying animals we would normally call ugly even in their normal, well-functioning state often report that, after such study, they come to realize how beautiful the animals truly are. So one possibility is that, though you find the toad ugly, you are mistaken, and your mistake is due to your lacking the knowledge that those biologists have. Another thought is that "deformity" can be relative to different standards. Then, the toad may not be deformed relative to normal toad anatomy, but is deformed according to another measure; and it is that other one that is "operative" when you make your judgment. (3) Regarding love and beauty, it's an intriguing idea, that there is some close connection between beauty and love. But surely it cannot be that beautiful things MUST provoke love? Maybe closer to the truth is the idea that love is a normal and proper response to beauty--but then some beauty can and will leave one cold.
Yes, very good answers. Your point about biologists learning to find, say, blobfish or ants beautiful after studying them for many years is a good one, though I suppose it's equally possible that a nurse treating deformed patients could come to find her patients beautiful after many years. Or maybe not.
Regarding beauty that leaves you cold, I guess the Venus di Milo and Scarlett Johanson are beautiful though I can't really see it myself (or rather, I can't feel it). Certainly many people say both are beautiful and though I remain unmoved, I do occasionally concur, but more for the same reason that I sometimes say that 'Godfather II' is a great movie, because I've heard others say it.
I'm sure you are right but I still want to add my tuppence.
For me the bee in the picture is deformed but not ugly, in which case the two words can't be synonyms. Ugliness evokes a feeling of repugnance in me and a desire to distance myself from the thing yet the bee's deformity doesn't have that effect on me. Conversely, a toad is ugly yet not deformed. If I happen to touch one when gardening I recoil in disgust.
I disagree with Hutcheson that ugliness is the absence of beauty. In Jane Eyre, the eponymous heroine is said to be plain (i.e. lacking beauty) yet there is no suggestion that she is ugly. I would say Sissy Spacek was neither beautiful nor ugly but just plain.
Something that I have often thought but never read - so I can safely assume I'm wrong - is that love is a reaction to beauty. It's impossible to find something ugly that you love and vice versa. Beautiful things make me want to get near and touch them: kittens, puppies, girls' hair. I know some people claim that, say, trees or great art are beautiful but since neither evoke in me a feeling of love then I personally don't class these as beautiful. Yes, they are more pleasant to look at than at a pile of rubble yet they don't evoke that warm, melting feeling that I believe we have in the presence of beauty.
These are excellent points, which deserve a reply longer than can fit in this comments section. But briefly: (1) regarding Hutchinson, I agree with your claim, and did not mean to endorse his view by quoting him--the point was just that he identifies deformity with ugliness when he makes the claim. (2) Regarding ugliness and repugnance, I suppose I deny that ugliness MUST provoke repugnance, though I agree that it does in many cases. (3) The toad example is a good one. Here are two thoughts. Biologists studying animals we would normally call ugly even in their normal, well-functioning state often report that, after such study, they come to realize how beautiful the animals truly are. So one possibility is that, though you find the toad ugly, you are mistaken, and your mistake is due to your lacking the knowledge that those biologists have. Another thought is that "deformity" can be relative to different standards. Then, the toad may not be deformed relative to normal toad anatomy, but is deformed according to another measure; and it is that other one that is "operative" when you make your judgment. (3) Regarding love and beauty, it's an intriguing idea, that there is some close connection between beauty and love. But surely it cannot be that beautiful things MUST provoke love? Maybe closer to the truth is the idea that love is a normal and proper response to beauty--but then some beauty can and will leave one cold.
Yes, very good answers. Your point about biologists learning to find, say, blobfish or ants beautiful after studying them for many years is a good one, though I suppose it's equally possible that a nurse treating deformed patients could come to find her patients beautiful after many years. Or maybe not.
Regarding beauty that leaves you cold, I guess the Venus di Milo and Scarlett Johanson are beautiful though I can't really see it myself (or rather, I can't feel it). Certainly many people say both are beautiful and though I remain unmoved, I do occasionally concur, but more for the same reason that I sometimes say that 'Godfather II' is a great movie, because I've heard others say it.