Good - Page 3

On May 20 2011 10:18 Pandain wrote:


If a post is made in a blog, and no one reads it, was it truly written?

On May 20 2011 08:51 zulu_nation8 wrote:
Isn't good = eudaimonia, which roughly means the good life. The virtues are means to obtaining eudaimonia. Virtues are both desirable for themselves and as means to an end. I haven't read any of this in a while though.

On May 20 2011 11:26 sYz-Adrenaline wrote:
Bad?

On May 20 2011 11:28 BLinD-RawR wrote:
Ugly.

On May 20 2011 11:34 LlamaNamedOsama wrote:
The OP is more about the nature of good rather than the question of what is good, ie essence precedes existence. I'm not inclined to believe either side of a questionable dichotomy of either existence or essence preceding the other, I guess I just copout on any form of philosophy that attempts to be fully systematic by resorting to my own ideas of epistemology as the basis for other stuff.

On May 20 2011 12:15 mizU wrote:
Riders of Rohan, what news from the mark?

On May 20 2011 11:45 platorepublic wrote:

Yes, you are right about OP.

And what are your own ideas of epistemology exactly?

On May 20 2011 12:52 palanq wrote:
Is good bad? or vice versa?

On May 20 2011 12:52 LlamaNamedOsama wrote:


Well I guess it's probably too presumptuous for me to claim them as my own ideas, I'm sure someone's already thought of them/argued it or whatever. I generally agree with Cartesian rationalism, but when he reaches the solipsism dilemma, instead of using the ontology argument for proving God, I believe that our ability to communicate and share ideas with other beings (ie other people) proves that there can be things that exist outside of us, and it is this consensus-making through the interchange of ideas that then go through Descartes' same process of building up the rest of the truths we can know from there. Connecting to the original question of this blog, I'd then say that this ability to exchange ideas with each other (I also think that this human understanding isn't solely "rationalism" [not in the same sense of the term used with Descartes in rationalism vs empiricism, but the idea of cold logic in rationalism vs emotivism, so I think that emotions themselves can be a form of understanding]) brings meaning into our existence, and the celebration of the meaning of human understanding would be the normative good.

On May 21 2011 00:43 TheGiz wrote:
You do not have to know good to do good, and knowing good does not necessarily bring good either. A sociopath may know what 'good' is, but has no regard for doing good and it will not guide the sociopath's actions. Indifference is a form of sociopathy as well, and there are many people in the world who are simply indifferent.

That said, ethical people may still know good but may not always perform actions that fall into the realm of 'good,' because such actions may be guided by emotion, temptation, or necessity. Good is also inherently subjective, and as such individuals may claim to know what 'good' is despite having different ideas on the subject.

Knowing good does not help elevate oneself morally unless doing good also comes of it.

On May 21 2011 02:46 platorepublic wrote:

How do you do good if you don't know what good is?

On May 20 2011 11:22 Ilikestarcraft wrote:

I think that was more Aristotle's idea of what the good is than Plato's.

On May 21 2011 03:49 Pandain wrote:

If darkness is bad, why does it hide you? If light is good, why does it blind you?