Sitqi fakulteti Ziyadullayev Javlon Ingiliz tili fanidan tayyorlagan Mustaqil ish Qarshi – 2023 Plan: Access The main part

O’zbekiston respublikasi Oliy va O’rta maxsus xalq ta’lim vazirligi
TIQXMMI milliy tadqiqot universitetining
Qarshi Irrigatsiya va agrotexnologiyalari insituti


Sitqi fakulteti
Ziyadullayev Javlon Ingiliz tili fanidan tayyorlagan


Mustaqil ish
Qarshi – 2023
Plan:
Access
The main part

1. 
   What is it beholder
   
2. 
   Who is said “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”
   
3. 
   Whatis meaning “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”
   

Conculusion
References

In my estimation there is no more perverse doctrine than that which states that ‘beauty is in the eye of the beholder’. Not because it is not true that the experience of beauty is apprehended and appreciated at the level of individual perception, which is, in some sense, a redundant observation, but because of the reductiveness of identifying beauty itself with its mere apprehension. It is perverse, and not just mistaken, precisely because it refuses to acceptthe reality – and by that, I mean the real existence – of beauty and therefore its possibility of being analysed and understood, communicated and becoming once more a central part of our cultural narrative, repudiated as it was for a large part of the twentieth century.The perversity of the reduction of beauty extends beyond ontological and epistemological concerns, though, into the social; it implies that we cannot refine our own sense of the beautiful through meaningful interaction with others; and it suggests – or even mandates – that we dare not teach the young about what is beautiful, as this would imply a denigration of some culture and cultural forms as inferior. The abandonment of a commitment to beauty can be seen in the parlous state of our culture in the West today, which increasingly celebrates the ugly in all its forms, or else, in reaction to that, the twee and insipid. It is perhaps an artefact of the infantilisation of our culture that the space for the mature appreciation of beauty is being squeezed to the margins, displaced by the unenviable choice of teen rebellion or kindergarten sensibility.It is true that the apparent relativity of the beautiful seems to be confirmed, not only by the fact that we individually assert different things to be beautiful, but by the change in the perception of beauty over historical time. I will argue, however, that this is best understood asthe process of the discovery of beauty, in the unfolding of the nature and structure of beauty’s constituents with the passage of time, to which various civilisations have contributed their own insights. I will also argue that the beautiful cannot ultimately be separated from notions of the true and the good and predict that the closer we come to an encompassing theory of beauty, the more that will become apparent.The historical semiotics of beautySome time ago, while out driving, my wife and I witnessed a glorious full moon, hanging clear and limpid above the horizon. My wife was the first to spot it and commented how largeand beautiful it was. We decided to pull over and spend some time just contemplating it. Being so inclined and interested in things astronomical, I mentioned that sometimes the moonis closer to the Earth, which makes it appear larger to terrestrial viewers, referred to as a supermoon. She refused to be impressed by this information and merely wondered whether such a sight had been seen in the remote past. I was not quite sure what she meant by this, butset forth again what I considered to be the interesting and salient fact that in the past the moon had been much closer to the Earth, that Earth’s day had been much shorter and that over time the drag of the moon’s gravity had caused the Earth’s spin to slow down and days to become longer. The imparting of this wisdom was received in silence.
Looking back and reflecting later, it became apparent that compared to the empirically-rootedbut rather banal information I was supplying, my wife’s question was far more perceptive, as it could be excavated to reveal a richer stratum of ideas. For example, a thousand years ago, in what we for so long have referred to as the Dark Ages, would people have seen such a sight? The question is not about the physics of light or the biology of perception; it is about meaning, interpretation and social possibility. In our modern intellectual sphere, we have the possibility of a choice of epistemological perspectives: instrumental or structuralist, phenomenological or evolutionary, for example. For a medieval peasant, we suppose, not only did those terms, or their equivalents, not exist, but we doubt whether even those perspectives, which those terms denote, existed.In all probability, the medieval peasant, farming a strip of land on the estate of the local lord, had a well-developed semiotics, but it was one rooted in the cycles of nature and of the agricultural cycle, tied in to the festivals of the Church. The priest as the most educated local would have been on hand to explain, or dismiss, the questions of the curious, almost certainlywith reference to church teachings. According to Eco (1986): “The Medievals inhabited a world filled with references, reminders and overtones of Divinity, manifestations of God in things. Nature spoke to them heraldically: lions or nut-trees were more than they seemed; griffins were just as real as lions because, like them, they were signs of a higher truth.” Nature was full of signs, and in many ways the medieval peasant, being much closer to the natural world than we are generally today, would have had a more detailed knowledge of its practical processes and warnings, but not the theoretical insight to the interconnectedness of all nature that we would perceive today through our embedding in a scientific worldview. However, for the medieval peasant the signs were infused with symbolism through which they lived simultaneously in a mythopoeic reality, a Christianised revival of the sense of awe and wonder that had so characterised the Classical period of antiquity (ibid).Could a peasant farmer appreciate the beauty of a full moon or a sunset? The barrier to such knowledge is almost as impassable as the attempt to recreate the prehistoric mind, or that of another species. As peasants were universally illiterate, they did not record their thoughts; as they were uneducated, poor and powerless, neither did anyone evince any interest in what they thought or experienced. Today, revealing the prejudices of our own age, we assume theirconsciousness was similarly constructed to our own, but we have no evidence for this. The closest we can get is through the theologians and poets of the era. This reveals some differences from modern consciousness. According to Myers, Pastoureau and Zink (2017), medieval nature poems “combine a myopic attention to what is close by – branches, blades ofgrass, the banks and hedgerows – with the pleasures of the other senses – the song of the birds, the rushing waters of the spring, the scent of the flower, the caress of the breeze – that are made possible by this very proximity and intensified by the limited vision”.This suggests that the medieval idea of beauty was less conceptualised than that of the Greeks(at least the Greek philosophers) and less holistic than today, but sensually richer. The medievals saw the underlying unity of things in theological terms, the ‘Great Chain of Being’ and their own immersion in nature, but they lacked the framework of objectivity, to the extentof lacking the concept of ‘landscape’ (ibid). We surmise that the medieval peasant, in common with most pre-modern peoples, would have been in awe – that curious mixture of apprehension, wonderment and intoxication – at the sight of a supermoon or anything that strayed from the mundane and regular and, lacking knowledge of causes, would have fallen back on a supernatural explanation. This could be totally wrong; perhaps they were simply. One Man’s Trash is Another Man’s Treasure Beauty has always been a key to unlock many doors, it plays an important role on human relationships. However, the definition of beauty varies from person to person. In this essay, the definition of beauty, the relativity of the understanding of beauty, and the question of wheter beauty is only skin deep or not will be argued. Beauty, according to Merriam-Webster dictionary, means “The quality or aggregate of qualities in a person or thing that gives pleasure to the senses or pleasurably exalts the mind or spirit.” (1) Humans have different kind of appreciating beauty. That is why, important questions, on which scientists have been…show more content…
There is an old truly saying: “One man’s trash is another man’s treasure.” It’s about individuals who find the person, object, painting, color and etc. pleasing to themselves. As mentioned above, in the second paragraph, skin-deep will be discussed in this part. What is skin-deep? Skin-deep is the beauty of appearance, what we call ‘looking good’. (3) Is beauty only skin-deep? Not at all. Physical beauty is only skin-deep. One can not judge a book by its cover. Inner beauty is something more different and important. A person’s look can not love you. It can not think or emphatisize. It can only entertain you for a while, but not always. It is just a simple look. Looks can open the door for you, but charachteristic features are the primaries which keep the door open. It is the physical beauty that will make us like the person. But, it is the inner beauty that will make us love the person. While the beauty of a person might include the person’s charachter, spiritual quality, intelligence, and morals, the beauty of a person’s body will not indifferent to nature or incapable of an aesthetic appreciation. It is unlikely we will ever
know

With Valentine's Day coming up, we often turn our gaze to our loved ones. But what we see is up to us. One of the most universally celebrated phrases about the nature of love and appreciation is “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder”. But where did that phrase originate? It’s one of the most universally celebrated phrases about the nature of love and appreciation. But where did the saying “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder” originate? 'Beauty in the eye of the beholder' has a literal meaning: that the perception of beauty is subjective - people can have differing opinions on what is beautiful. So what one person perceives as flawless and captivating might be ordinary or unappealing to another. The concept that each individual has a different inclination of what is beautiful first appeared in the 3rd century BC in Greek. According to Plato, the sense of beauty is itself transient in nature. So, a thing beautiful for one might not be beautiful for the other. Philosophers continued to grapple with the question of the question whether beauty was objective or subjective for centuries. On the side of beauty being a subjective matter, many expressed sentiments similar to Plato, and plenty of variations on his statement followed. One example is found in English playwright John Lyly's late 16^th century play, Euphues and his England: "...as neere is Fancie to Beautie, as the pricke to the Rose, as the stalke to the rynde, as the earth to the roote." A similar sentiment was eloquently expressed by Shakespeare in Love’s Labor Lost:

“Beauty is bought by judgement of the eye,
Not utter'd by base sale of chapmen's tongues”
Even Founding Father Benjamin Franklin paralleled the sentiment in Poor Richard's Almanack, 1741, writing:
“Beauty, like supreme dominion
Is but supported by opinion”
And, just a year later, David Hume penned:
"Beauty in things exists merely in the mind which contemplates them." The modern-day version of the expression is believed to have first appeared in English in the 19th century. Margaret Wolfe Hungerford (née Hamilton) is widely credited with coining the saying in its current form. Hungerford wrote many books, often under the pseudonym of 'The Duchess'. In the 1878 novel Molly Bawn, there's the line "It is an old axiom, and well said, that “beauty is in the eye of the beholder". This subjective nature of beauty applies in all areas of our lives: from art, literature, music, and, of course, love. It is this matter of perception that allow for differences in opinion and grant us the ability to see and appreciate things that others may overlook. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder is a commonly used expression in British and American English. It is frequently phrased as “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” and “beauty lies in the eye of the beholder.”
It applies not just to issues of physical beauty but also to anything proposed as perfect and desirable.
If you introduce friends to a prized painting at the museum, they might disagree with your taste saying, “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” That’s a polite way of disagreeing with you, and it can be said with some dismissive condescension.
Whether or not beauty if subjective or objective has been argued since at least ancient Greece.
Greek philosophers, including Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, considered beauty an absolute manifest in order, symmetry, and proportion. But, Skeptics, Epicureans, and Stoics nudged towards an understanding that beauty exists in symmetry (objective) and in eurhythmy (subjective)
Roughly their contemporary, Confucius is credited with saying, “Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it.”
In 1741, Benjamin Franklin offered, “Beauty, like supreme dominion, / Is but supported by opinion” (Poor Richard’s Almanack, III Mon May).
In 1757, British sceptic and essayist David Hume wrote, “Beauty is no quality in things themselves: It exists merely in the mind which contemplates them; and each mind perceives a different beauty”
One may see beauty in several forms but essentially this is how we perceive others in our own light. McCuen Metherell and Winkler advise that one can take a story regarding a film as a typical example and look at the diverse aspects of beauty as perceived here (McCuen Metherell, Winkler Ch 10). Although American Beauty is a film which may perhaps not fit the bill perfectly in this respect, the authors in the book will most certainly appreciate the techniques and skills which are used to focus on beauty as an intrinsic natural issue. A typical example would be when one person falls in love with someone who outwardly appears ugly and who is not beautiful or pretty. However that person may have an inner beauty which is not visible from the outside and which will have attracted the other person to it in this regard. This happens many a time especially with regards to age gaps and other issues which may appear to keep a couple apart. Another similar issue is taste for certain hobbies or art. Some traditionalist persons see modern art as something which is despicable and is without any form of artistic expression while others enjoy it and find artistic inspiration in it. Why is this so? Principally due to the fact that as already argued beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Now there are several cases and issues when beauty is a common theme and which is perceived by millions to be living and ever present. This can refer to religion, a beautiful building and other examples such as a full life and fine dining. For example one cannot argue that Angelina Jolie is a beautiful woman as that is a fact. If one would state that she is ugly then that is an untruth as it would be denying a fact. As a typical example where beauty is in the eye of the beholder I will take the film American Beauty which contains several important pressure points where beauty is ob served by some while to others it is simply not there. American Beauty is a fine film which demonstrates the mid life crisis a person goes through when his/her marriage is failing and an affair is entered into. It contains some typical embodiments of the American dream as well as some materialistic aspects which continue to dominate the plot like a leitmotif during the film. Obviously there are comparisons and contrasts as both parents played well by Kevin Spacey and Annette Benning, the latter in the role of the materialistic wife Jane. Ultimately Lester Burnham who is the main character in the film has an affair with a cheerleader friend of his daughter who is played by Thora Birch and this is all preceded by considerable sexual fantasies where the rose petals which appear on the front of the film’s poster are a recurring motif. The intricacies of the film are further exacerbated by the tragic ending of suicide where Lester finally is at peace with himself. The main characters, Lester and Angela end up together towards the end of the film where they almost have sex but eventually it does not happen when Lester finds out that she is still a virgin. This part of the film is particularly poignant as it indicates a sort of coming together for Lester who realizes that he has lost everything and nothing will be the same again. Jane’s relationship with Ricky is also a spur to Lester to begin working out and also smoking marijuana, a ridiculous assertion for a middle aged man who cannot admit that he is on the wane. Carolyn’s affair with a wealthy businessman is a further spur to Lester to continue his dissolute life and eventually face reality. The character’s complex relationships and the plots and subplots are part and parcel of the film which continues to receive moderate to positive reviews in this sense. I particularly enjoy the final scene where the gunshot sound is heard and it appears that all is over, it is a very poignant episode which conveys failed dreams and utter hopelessness although the final note does offer some form of redemption.

On the whole the film has been viewed positively although Wayne C Booth has argued that the film does defy any sort of interpretation (Booth, 2002, p 124-131) He also argues that there is an element of satire on what actually is rather wrong with American life especially the infidelity, drug taking and the constant slaving for money. The film can also be seen as a mixture of love stories, all with their own particular gist and all turning rather sour in the end. Booth is intrigued by the parallels one can find in real human lives and as the film develops he begins to see everything in this light (Booth 2002, p 124-131). Obviously the film is not perfect in that sense but it develops extremely well especially in the episodes where everything seems to be coming to a head but then eventually does not due to extraneous factors and a sequence of events. Kenneth Turan and Gary Hentzi also have words of praise for the characters although the latter does acknowledge that some of them are stereotypes although the acting is something which he holds in high regard also (Turan 1999, Hentzl 2000, p 50). The aspect of beauty is something which also springs to mind in this respect as discussed by McCuen Metherell, Winkler in Readings for Writers. The directors have been rather unclear on their actual plot and script of the film even in post film interviews. What can definitely be said however is that the film has no real unifying influence but is rather a collection of plots and subplots which develop independently of one another but are also tied together too. Other commentators have noted excessive editing and different scenes with the end product showing a bit of a disjointed feel. However when the film is good, it ends up to be very good especially in the seminal scene between Lester and Angela towards the end.

In ‘I Have a Dream’ by Martin Luther King, Mcuen Metherell and Winkler observe that Luther King demonstrated a flair and understanding for bringing out what is beautiful and which to others may appear to be ugly. Luther King uses his own writing skilfully to reach a climax especially when his text reaches an apex such as the line ‘Free at last, free at last, Thank God Almighty, we are free at last’.

Another part of the speech is also very beautiful and shows that there is hope even in fear: “I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice. I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character”. Further short stories which deal with the theme of beauty in the eye of the beholder and which are mentioned in the book include: The Waltz, by Dorothy Parker. Remarks on the Life of Sacco and on His Own Life and Execution by Bartolomeo Vanzetti and Salvation, by Langston Hughes. Here each of the themes focuses on particular aspects of beauty which can be seen in different perspectives and the writing of this text creates a sense of suspense and beauty although this may not always be perceived immediately.