One Direction and logic

[poolerboy0077]

Boy band One Direction are purveyors of illogicality.


Observe the following lyrics from a famous song of theirs:

"You don't know you're beautiful,
That's what makes you beautiful."
​

This is circular reasoning fallacy. For you to not know you are beautiful, you need to be beautiful in the first place, yes? Yet the lyrics go on to say that what makes one beautiful is that they don't know it. That they don't know what? That they were already beautiful. So the beauty in the second line is dependent upon the beauty in the first, which, unless other information is introduced, is the same beauty.

It would be logical had they said "You don't know you're beautiful and that makes you even more beautiful" adding to the already existing beauty. I know I'm going to offend some of you with this because many approach One Direction as a religion, but the truth sometimes hurts.


Feel free to discuss this or any illogicality you've encountered recently outside of religious debates.

 

[znr]

You're wrong. One direction sucks. I'm a belieber. I believe in baby baby baby, yeah, baby baby baby yeah! And I AM one less lonely girl (belch).

Boy band One Direction are purveyors of illogicality.


Observe the following lyrics from a famous song of theirs:

"You don't know you're beautiful,
That's what makes you beautiful."
​

This is circular reasoning fallacy. For you to not know you are beautiful, you need to be beautiful in the first place, yes? Yet the lyrics go on to say that what makes one beautiful is that they don't know it. That they don't know what? That they were already beautiful. So the beauty in the second line is dependent upon the beauty in the first, which, unless other information is introduced, is the same beauty.

It would be logical had they said "You don't know you're beautiful and that makes you even more beautiful" adding to the already existing beauty. I know I'm going to offend some of you with this because many approach One Direction as a religion, but the truth sometimes hurts.


Feel free to discuss this or any illogicality you've encountered recently outside of religious debates.

 

[poolerboy0077]

You're wrong. One direction sucks. I'm a belieber. I believe in baby baby baby, yeah, baby baby baby yeah! And I AM one less lonely girl (belch).

How am I wrong if I basically agreed with you and denigrated them?

Also, I'm a Belieber too. I guess I'm not an atheist after all.


#hi_haterz #bizzle #ollg #jelena

 

[znr]

I understood what you're getting at. Just having some fun, baby baby baby. Yeah.

#sizzurp_youngmoney #yourebeautifulasyouare_hater #peace

How am I wrong if I basically agreed with you and denigrated them?

Also, I'm a Belieber too. I guess I'm not an atheist after all.


#hi_haterz #bizzle #ollg #jelena

 

[variant]

Boy band One Direction are purveyors of illogicality.


Observe the following lyrics from a famous song of theirs:

"You don't know you're beautiful,
That's what makes you beautiful."
​

This is circular reasoning fallacy. For you to not know you are beautiful, you need to be beautiful in the first place, yes? Yet the lyrics go on to say that what makes one beautiful is that they don't know it. That they don't know what? That they were already beautiful. So the beauty in the second line is dependent upon the beauty in the first, which, unless other information is introduced, is the same beauty.

It would be logical had they said "You don't know you're beautiful and that makes you even more beautiful" adding to the already existing beauty. I know I'm going to offend some of you with this because many approach One Direction as a religion, but the truth sometimes hurts.

Feel free to discuss this or any illogicality you've encountered recently outside of religious debates.

The lyrics would logically mean that the ignorance is what is making the person beautiful rather than physical beauty.

Ironically telling them would make this untrue so the song is making a good case for not being sung.

 

[poolerboy0077]

The lyrics would logically mean that the ignorance is what is making the person beautiful rather than physical beauty.

The ignorance of what, though? The ignorance of their beauty. So one must be beautiful before not knowing it and then they conclude that not knowing it makes the beautiful, despite already being beautiful, which they don't know.

Also, it doesn't "logically mean" what you say it means since they never say what beauty the girl is unaware of. It could be that they're saying: "You don't know you're beautiful [as a person]. That's what makes you beautiful." Not once is physical beauty introduced.

 

[variant]

The ignorance of what, though? The ignorance of their beauty. So one must be beautiful before not knowing it and then they conclude that not knowing it makes the beautiful, despite already being beautiful, which they don't know.

If the not knowing you are beautiful makes you beautiful they can be simultaneous yes.

Beauty is a judgment call by the observer (the writer of the song) in this case they can use any criterion they desire. They judge the lack of awareness of beauty to be beautiful in this person.

The persons unawareness that he thinks they are beautiful to him is striking to the song writer as beautiful (again to him).

It's all in his mind.

Also, it doesn't "logically mean" what you say it means since they never say what beauty the girl is unaware of. It could be that they're saying: "You don't know you're beautiful [as a person]. That's what makes you beautiful." Not once is physical beauty introduced.

I mean we can rule out physical beauty being talked about here because it not specified to be what makes the person beautiful but rather the ignorance of their beauty that makes them beautiful.

If they were physically beautiful that would make them beautiful and unaware of it, but they would already be beautiful and the unawareness would not make them beautiful.

Or, it's just sloppy language.

 

[stevevw]

You're wrong. One direction sucks. I'm a belieber. I believe in baby baby baby, yeah, baby baby baby yeah! And I AM one less lonely girl (belch).

You might beleive in baby baby baby yeah!, baby baby baby yeah! but I'm from the old school and believe in the original and the best. She loves you yeah yeah yeah yeah, she loves you yeah yeah yeah yeah.

I think the beauty they are talking about are two different beauties yet implying the same beauty at the same time. Your beautiful can mean outside beauty yet not realizing it can mean inner beauty.

 

[poolerboy0077]

If the not knowing you are beautiful makes you beautiful they can be simultaneous yes.

Beauty is a judgment call by the observer (the writer of the song) in this case they can use any criterion they desire. They judge the lack of awareness of beauty to be beautiful in this person.

The persons unawareness that he thinks they are beautiful to him is striking to the song writer as beautiful (again to him).

It's all in his mind.

I don't see how beauty being all in his mind and/or being subjective changes the circularity of this.

Yes, in the second line they're judging the lack of awareness of beauty as being beautiful. It would be logical had they said this too is also beautiful or that it adds to the already existing beauty. They, however, did not say this. They used the word "that" which implies "the beauty in question lies here." But we already know beauty needs to precede not knowing it. You cannot, after all, lack beauty and not be aware that you are beautiful. You cannot be unaware of a trait you don't possess, only unaware of a trait that you do possess. How can one not know one is beautiful unless one is beautiful to begin with? See the problem?

I mean we can rule out physical beauty being talked about here because it not specified to be what makes the person beautiful but rather the ignorance of their beauty that makes them beautiful.

If they were physically beautiful that would make them beautiful and unaware of it, but they would already be beautiful and the unawareness would not make them beautiful.

Or, it's just sloppy language.

Yes, I think Occam's razor is probably instructive here.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

There is something else going on here...

If this is sung to the reffered person:

"You don't know you're beautiful,
That's what makes you beautiful."

The person now knows they are beautiful and would no longer be beautiful in the eyes of the singer.

Unless the person promptly denies it and or forgets the assertion, the singer has effective made them uglier in his own eyes.

Bizarre self defeat.

 

[poolerboy0077]

There is something else going on here...

If this is sung to the reffered person:

"You don't know you're beautiful,
That's what makes you beautiful."

The person now knows they are beautiful and would no longer be beautiful in the eyes of the singer.

Unless the person promptly denies it and or forgets the assertion, the singer has effective made them uglier in his own eyes.

Bizarre self defeat.

rofl!

 

[variant]

I don't see how beauty being all in his mind and/or being subjective changes the circularity of this.

Yes, in the second line they're judging the lack of awareness of beauty as being beautiful. It would be logical had they said this too is also beautiful or that it adds to the already existing beauty. They, however, did not say this. They used the word "that" which implies "the beauty in question lies here." But we already know beauty needs to precede not knowing it. You cannot, after all, lack beauty and not be aware that you are beautiful. You cannot be unaware of a trait you don't possess, only unaware of a trait that you do possess. How can one not know one is beautiful unless one is beautiful to begin with? See the problem?

The person lacks awareness of how they are seen by him.

That she can't understand why he would be interested in her is striking to him in and of itself.

Yes, I think Occam's razor is probably instructive here.

And it takes all the fun out of it as per usual.

 

[poolerboy0077]

The person lacks awareness of how they are seen by him.

Correct.

That she can't understand why he would be interested in her is striking to him in and of itself.

Also correct.


I don't see how this resolves the problem, though.

One is beautiful --> One is unaware of said beauty -- *THAT* makes one beautiful
​

But they were already beautiful! How can "that" (i.e., being unaware of one's beauty) be the beauty if not being aware of said beauty implies one is beautiful to begin with? The beauty that is concluded ties back to the initial beauty asserted, making it circuitously fallacious.

 

[stevevw]

The ignorance of what, though? The ignorance of their beauty. So one must be beautiful before not knowing it and then they conclude that not knowing it makes the beautiful, despite already being beautiful, which they don't know.

Also, it doesn't "logically mean" what you say it means since they never say what beauty the girl is unaware of. It could be that they're saying: "You don't know you're beautiful [as a person]. That's what makes you beautiful." Not once is physical beauty introduced.

Come on its one direction. Thats the boy band that has thousands of girls screaming after them. Of course its about the looks. They are about the looks thats why they are made up to look like pretty boys for all their fans. Their adoring fans are not going to scream I love you if they are ugly and say oh it doesn't matter you have a beautiful inside that matters. You hear them all the time saying oh I like that one because hes so cute. Its all based around looks.

But they are also aware that they have to appeal to more than that so that is why even though they know they have many fans attracted to them physically that its only part of it like we all know. So they will have the lyrics showing they have more substance to them which is how it should be. They are probably nice guys and think that way anyway. So hence the lyrics are not just about outside beauty but also inner beauty. If the girl they are singing about doesn't know she is beautiful it doesn't mean she is ignorant or dumb. It could also mean that her nature is she is a really genuine person who doesn't place that much importance of external looks and has a sincere nature that just doesn't think that way. Just because she is made aware of it doesnt mean she will lose that nature either as it is a part of her and something that is always with her.

But there's something even more important that I just realized. WHY i am talking about a boy band and what they think. I am have really lost it now. help.

 

[poolerboy0077]

Come on its one direction. Thats the boy band that has thousands of girls screaming after them. Of course its about the looks. They are about the looks thats why they are made up to look like pretty boys for all their fans. Their adoring fans are not going to scream I love you if they are ugly and say oh it doesn't matter you have a beautiful inside that matters. You hear them all the time saying oh I like that one because hes so cute. Its all based around looks.

I don't doubt this. I just gave my interlocutor the benefit of the doubt that it could either be physical beauty or a "deeper" beauty. Invoking either here does not resolve the problem of logical circularity, which is a fallacy. Ultimately the issue here isn't about boy bands or love, but about logical validity. This is the philosophy sub-forum, after all.

But there's something even more important that I just realized. WHY i am talking about a boy band and what they think. I am have really lost it now. help.

You're welcome. ^__^

 

[stevevw]

I don't doubt this. I just gave my interlocutor the benefit of the doubt that it could either be physical beauty or a "deeper" beauty. Invoking either here does not resolve the problem of logical circularity, which is a fallacy. Ultimately the issue here isn't about boy bands or love, but about logical validity. This is the philosophy sub-forum, after all.

Fair enough but it is a boy band we are talking about and I dont think philosophy is the first thing that comes to mind. I have always wondered how 4 or 5 young guys with reasonable voices but not great ones can gather up so much attention and go on to make millions when fair dinkum artists who have been doing the hard yards for years cant get 1/2 the recognition. I guess its got something to do with that crazy little thing called love. Or teenage infatuation in the case of boy bands.

You're welcome. ^__^

ummm thanks I think.

 

[Oafman]

It is surely not vain to probably think a song is about you, when it actually is about you.

And don't get me started on Morisette confusing misfortune for irony...

 

[Received]

You're wrong. One direction sucks. I'm a belieber. I believe in baby baby baby, yeah, baby baby baby yeah! And I AM one less lonely girl (belch).

This guy!

 

[Paradoxum]

I might agree it would be circular if it wasn't a song... but I think songs can get away with being technically incorrect. You know roughly what point is being made.

If a song said, "Her eyes are gems", you wouldn't say that the singer was being unscientific. You understand what is being said.

Or, perhaps the words mean different things. 'You don't know you're physically attractive, and that's what makes your personality beautiful.'