2012-10-20, 04:55 | Link #22 |
Senior Member
Artist
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: The Middle Way
|
Philosophy, yes this I know well as often I am thinking.
However, as imparting my ideas to others goes I am not confident in. Since before I've had difficulty in communicating. Normally it isn't noticeable but that changes as soon as I start talking about more complex things. However I shall try to say something for this thread at least. This is one of the principles I live by. "Truth has very little value, if any. What matters is 'sense', what makes sense is kept and what doesn't is thrown out...regardless of all evidence or 'truth'."
__________________
|
2012-10-20, 08:37 | Link #23 | |
Socially Inept
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Retracing my steps.....
|
Quote:
Thomas Aquinas would say that good is anything that moves us closer to "God". I think the answer to that is many-fold but in more modern sense I believe most would think good is anything that brings us closer to "joy". Anyone can see with even a modicum of forethought that this will bite us in the ass one day. So coming up with a set definition of "Good" is going to be difficult.
__________________
|
|
2012-10-21, 01:08 | Link #24 | |
NYAAAAHAAANNNNN~
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 35
|
Quote:
Anything that is good is dependent on how and what kind of benefit is available. Of course, it takes into account the receipient too.
__________________
|
|
2012-10-21, 02:16 | Link #27 | |
18782+18782=37564
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: InterWebs
|
Quote:
I don't think we can define "good" in an absolute sense, or pinpoint what makes something "good" to a single cause. The definitions will always vary as social conditions change and a lot of factors are always in play.
__________________
|
|
2012-10-21, 02:43 | Link #28 |
Senior Member
Artist
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: The Middle Way
|
The notion of 'good', as mentioned by others, is vague, complex, and difficult to pin down.
However it is necessary for us to know this, thus it is necessary for us to simplify it in such a way that we ourselves can use it. Personally my notion of 'good' is, as Saintess mentioned, benefit. I'll admit it now, here I am talking only about my own benefit, if I am to do something it must benefit me somehow.
__________________
|
2012-10-27, 01:37 | Link #29 |
I'm not a tumor
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: In the dreams of beautiful women
Age: 32
|
I think our society doesn't really give 2 craps about good. Good usually maintains the status quo where as bad seems to break it. Its in our instincts of self preservation to avoid bad as oppose to attaining good. Basically we define good by seeing it as opposing to bad. So what ever isn't bad would be a good place to start for finding what is good. The golden rule i believe is a good example. It isn't driven off some appeal to a greater good, it's more of an insurance that we ourselves do not have bad inflicted upon us.
I am nihilistic in my approach to morality. I believe it is immaterial, there is nothing essential about morality. It is a function of a sentient being hence it is subjective. There is no 'good' and 'bad' out there except that with which we assign as such. Good and bad, aswell as virtues are just words to me. Last edited by solidguy; 2012-10-27 at 01:52. |
2012-10-29, 10:39 | Link #32 | ||
Moving in circles
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Singapore
Age: 49
|
...has been shown to be flawed, but I no longer fully remember how the rebuttals worked. Something along the lines of how Kant went in a roundabout way to basically confirm and reinforce Christian morality; more prosaically, Kant tried very hard to show it was possible to not just think of absolute morality but also to behave as though it does, in fact, exist. If I recall correctly, he produced the thesis in response to British empricism, which broadly pushed the view that if a concept cannot be experienced physically, then it cannot really be known.
Suffice to say that Western moral philosophy has long since moved on. Still, for anyone interested in learning how epistemology can be applied to the study of morality, Immanuel Kant's categorical imperatives are as good a place as any to start. Quote:
Quote:
You'll have to explain what you mean by "joy". And, as you seem to already concede, you'll find that it's an incomplete definition of "goodness". |
||
2012-10-29, 10:46 | Link #33 | |
Nyaaan~~
Join Date: Feb 2006
Age: 41
|
Quote:
|
|
2012-10-29, 17:31 | Link #35 | |||
18782+18782=37564
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: InterWebs
|
Quote:
Quote:
===== Btw, does anyone know what this way of thinking is called? Quote:
__________________
|
|||
2012-10-29, 17:34 | Link #36 |
I'm not a tumor
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: In the dreams of beautiful women
Age: 32
|
Something to do with probability metaphysics. Damn I had a friend who was doing his postgrad in this, wish I listened to him more often
edit: Wait wait not probability, I remember the word causality being dropped alot. Something like partial causality or imperfect causality? edit edit: OOO I remember how we had this discussion now. I was discussing the Matrix with him and the different philosophical themes brought up in the film (I'm a film student). The Merovingian programme. Helping? Not helping? Last edited by solidguy; 2012-10-29 at 17:57. |
2012-10-29, 18:18 | Link #37 | |
Deadpan Snarker
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: The Neverlands
Age: 47
|
Quote:
A "Wild Child" would have no idea what 'good' means, it hasn't been part of a social system where we share or sacrifice, where we shame and guilt if not abiding by social ethics
__________________
|
|
2012-10-29, 18:22 | Link #38 | |
18782+18782=37564
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: InterWebs
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2012-10-29, 18:22 | Link #39 | |
Battoru!
Join Date: Sep 2012
|
Are you saying you believe in predestination? If so, there are any number of philosophies that encompass this view point.
Are you saying that you believe in the almighty RNG? (aka that the only God is probability?) ? If so, I would call that philosophy Statistics or perhaps Game Theory. Quote:
Personally, I think this empathy is all that's needed to create a morality for one's self. If you have empathy then social values will only be an expression of that. If you don't have empathy than any social values you have will be meaningless anyways.
__________________
|
|
2012-10-29, 19:47 | Link #40 | |||
Deadpan Snarker
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: The Neverlands
Age: 47
|
Quote:
but to believe that even killing our food creates a feeling of empathy? No! That part is purely conditioned in a society where we never have to kill for food, actually, where killing is negatively treated in any case (a society that you have been subjected to before starting utilitarian killing as well) here I point to the empathy for food/empathy for that which you made an attachment with Best working example I can think of is my grandfather (an oldfashioned farmer), who had no emotional attachments to the animals he slaughtered (boiling chicks alive to feed to the pig), but couldn't take his dogs to the vet to be put down and had to have someone else do it Quote:
Quote:
Where do emotions stop and taught behavior begin? We instinctively form attachments (even to inanimate objects), but when it comes to empathy vs morals, I believe empathy is where we care about those in our direct enviroment and social morals when it concerns the impersonal people/(animals) of the world Just look at how empathy went out of the window when the media showed looters in New Orlean in the aftermath of Katrina were running off with luxury items (which were the exceptions since most looters went for basic necessities)
__________________
|
|||
Tags |
philosophy |
|
|