"if something is true and good, it is also beautiful.
(b) If something is beautiful and true, it is also good.
If something is good and beautiful, it is also true."
If something like that was presented to Kripke or Ayers or Carnap or any of those guys they would call it a logical mess and wonder who gave the person who wrote this a philosophy book. Even Aristotle rose from the dead after reading that he was so shocked.
(b) can something beautiful be false? If yes, then if something beautiful is false, something true and good can be false. If no, then (b) is a redundancy.
But this is beside the fact that you are using terms of value (aesthetic), which can not be objective in the sense you want such that your axioms would build anything substantial… which is what you think you are doing playing with these circles.
The only term that can have any meaning is ‘true’ and only in the sense of a conclusion following a premise. As you’ve used it, it serves (somewhere, I’m sure) as support for propositions that already aren’t truth-apt; “x is beautiful” amounts to an expression of favor - ‘that’s nice!’ - and nothing about x logically needs to be beautiful to be called beautiful… unlike its shape, its form, its physical properties, etc., which are and must be objective in order for propositions about them to be true.
So you’re just putting together strings of meaningless propositions… or I should say propositions that support each other (if they do, indeed) and are true in the sense of following as a conclusion. But that doesn’t mean the argument is meaningful, only logically sound.
Shallow piddlewaps truff gightly in faster.
This shallow piddlewap is in faster.
Therefore, this piddlewap is truffing gightly.
For real though I’m not tryna give you a course so please don’t reply. Just hang your head in shame and seek redemption. Look for the one they call Bertrand ‘the pipe’ Russell first. And leave the coloring books or he’ll confiscate them.