Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

we wer asked this question in philosophy, but everyone got confused as to whether it is self evident or if it would need to be proven by asking evryone, could such a broad statement as this be self evidently true?

Originally posted by Biscuit
we wer asked this question in philosophy, but everyone got confused as to whether it is self evident or if it would need to be proven by asking evryone, could such a broad statement as this be self evidently true?

No, it is not a true statement. Some people want evil and some people want good. Good and evil are in the eye of the beholder. One man's/woman's evil is another man's/woman's good. Take for example 9-11, was it good or evil? If you ask that question around the world, you will find that not everyone will say it was evil, some will say it was good.

enter ... moral relativism

what is considered moral or ethical is largely dependent (or can be) upon the culture you are brought up in.

Generally people want whats "Good" for them...Over looking what may be good for another.....

Yes, good is relative... I mean Hitler wanted what was good... for Him. Same with everybody. If Jimmy Smits, New York city wants what is good, and Sven Svensom in Prague wants what is good, and some guy in China, and some guy in Afghanistan all want what is good, the question is whether they all want the same thing. The hope then is that as many people as possible would want the same "good"... then of course there are criminals and those who can't distinguish between right and wrong.

So I would say that people generally want what is good, it's the good part that is tricky, one mans treasure is anothers trash, ones mans pleasure is anothers pain and so on.

^ True true true...Maybe if people looked at what is good for "Others" first...then there would be more good....and less pain would be afflicted all the way around......Kinda removes ones self from the "me me me" attitude...selfish attitude..

Originally posted by Biscuit
we wer asked this question in philosophy, but everyone got confused as to whether it is self evident or if it would need to be proven by asking evryone, could such a broad statement as this be self evidently true?

You hv 2 define "good" 1st inordr not 2 get a million diffrnt answrs & opinions 2 that.

IF good = states of mind that are good as in pleasant, satisfying, not painful, you know, "happy"

THEN of course everyone want whats good. Those who act otherwise tend to die earlier and therefore not propagate their genes i.e. they become "extinct" in the narrow evolutionary sense of being "selected against" compared w/the general population. You know "bye bye, you're finished...".

On the other hand...

IF good = some moral attitude about behaviour, you know, being nicey nice, helpful etc. etc.

THEN it's not so clear because while that kind of behaviour is generally encouraged in a world such as ours, just because it's so crowded and so we can all get along more or less, there are many people who act counter to this. The more extreme of these are called "criminals" or "conservatives" or certainly "republicans" (j/k!). Aside from these subspecies (j/k again. . . well, sort of) I'd have to say YES, most everyone wants the same thing: a good life, clean water to drink, unpolluted local/global environment, stable world, a good and satisfying job w/a decent income in order to raise a nice little family w/your pretty little wifey, regular vacations to interesting places, kids in college, good health, long life, peace, no f'ing war!

Maybe an important side question is: If everyone wants whats good for themselves and thus whats good for the world in general, why oh why are there so many Americans who voted for and support a gang of selfish, greedy, smug & self-important, murderous, bloody hegemonous criminals to "lead" their country? That would be the following hell-bound individuals (and btw, idiocy, as in the f'ing idiot at the top of the list, is no excuse for high crimes against humanity):

bush/cheney/rumsfield/rice/wolfowicz/rove/libby/ et al

gd them.

gd them ALL, the murderous fk's!


So, in a word: yes.

MOST people want whats good BUT there are plenty still who would, by many diverse and devious means, slither into power only to take advantage of the many for the benefit of the tiny few. Unfortunately, about half of the US population are too dumb or blinded by religion or guns to know the truth. You can't erll me the republican party represents these poor ignorant people - not REALLY - when you see how all their jobs are being outsourced, their economy is totally f'ed, their kids are getting dumber and their future's are bleaker. It's almost funny and I'd laugh if I wasn't so embarrassed for my country.

Believe it!

Truth!

Pease Out.

To will the good for another is love. If you ask everyone if they want good, they will say yes. But ask if everyone loves one another and the answers will range. Ask someone what is good, and your answers will vary.

yeah this is, i think, wot was confusing us, whether good need be defined for the question to be answered or not. empiricists would say that it does need to be defined and therefore its a question of morality whereas rationalists would say that, as 'good' is not defined, it is simply a question of what everyone wants for themselves, which of course makes the statement that 'everyone wants what is good' true, because it allows for different interpretations of what good is.

Yeah, what you just said.



But is what you said a syllogism or a tautology?

Anyways, you're cute enough for me not to care . . .

Everyone wants what he thinks is good.

Originally posted by jOHN_Anderton

But is what you said a syllogism or a tautology?

wot is syllogism/tautology? i shud probly know this but im being dense!

I feel that most of us to a degree including myself must really look at our actions as to whether it will produce a positive or negative result..ie.looking outside what we want, to see if it would be a benefit to others...or not......and then learning from those choices.....some of the lessons are harder to take than others.

Originally posted by debbiejo
I feel that most of us to a degree including myself must really look at our actions as to whether it will produce a positive or negative result..ie.looking outside what we want, to see if it would be a benefit to others...or not......and then learning from those choices.....some of the lessons are harder to take than others.

You are clearly, a highly evolved person.

Some might even say you are . . . angelic debbiejo.

I would tend to agree!

http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/902/angelslight4yd.png

Originally posted by Biscuit
we wer asked this question in philosophy, but everyone got confused as to whether it is self evident or if it would need to be proven by asking evryone, could such a broad statement as this be self evidently true?

Not if your into hard BDSM

Originally posted by jOHN_Anderton
You are clearly, a highly evolved person.

Some might even say you are . . . angelic debbiejo.

I would tend to agree!



No, just perceptive....learning lifes lessons.

thus we arrive back at defining good.

A thesis in itself.

Is good a virtuous person, values, ethics ?

'what is good' could make an interesting thread in itself.
For example, I think that MarsAttack chocolate cake from a certain cafe is good. Why? It is based on my senses. So does pleasing sensory data make something good? Or should I perhaps change my perspective and see it as bad as my heart and veins are perhaps saying, hey what about us? so is looking after my health good?
Or perhaps i think it is good, because a friend bought it for me and it pleases said friend that I eat it thus making them happy. Is pleasing others good?
And then enters the debate about whether one should please others at one's own expense. And what is one's own expense anyway.
Actually, I'm gonna stop now. Brain getting tired. And this is NOT good. Subjectively, of course

Originally posted by StrangeDays
And then enters the debate about whether one should please others at one's own expense. And what is one's own expense anyway.


I don't believe you should please others at your own expense...you must always be aware of "Your" truth......The truth of who you are does go in conflict with what others want from you at times....You must be true to yourself first.

Originally posted by debbiejo
I don't believe you should please others at your own expense...you must always be aware of "Your" truth......The truth of who you are does go in conflict with what others want from you at times....You must be true to yourself first.

Well put.

I would also say "good" is anything that illuminates the dark, dispels ignorance, increases knowledge of ones true self, opposes entropy, increases harmony, understanding, compassion and love. Goodness is just what you feel it is. Thinking about the obvious can get one tied into knots.

So, here's another question: Why do we think we can actually arrive at the truth by reason alone? I don't think this is really possible. We are not just reasoning beings. Our feeling/emotional/raw perceptual capacities are far more fundamental to who we are. Language and symbolic reasoning are very recent developments for our species. Sometimes it seems we live exclusively on the planum temporale (speech association center) in the left hemisphere. We have negated everything else: art, music, feeling states and deep subjectivity - as something less than serious and of no value when considering so called philosophically important questions.

Know what I mean?

http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/4023/ptdark6sg.png

"So, here's another question: Why do we think we can actually arrive at the truth by reason alone? "

Truth as a universal or subjective experience?

In a way that comes back to the 'goodness' debate also, and a whole bunch of other things too for that matter.

Are we talking universally or subjectively.
It is quite possible to reasonably argue for either. And if truth, or whatever for that matter, is more than just reasoning and logic how are we to understand it if it can't be communicated in language and does that negate the possibility of further discussion in a puff of *don't worry, you will just know when you get it*

Don't get me wrong. I do feel (lol, how ironic ) that there is certainly more to this world than can be explained. However, does that necessarily mean that we won't be able to explain it one day?

Maybe there is something to be said for disappearing in a puff of *OMG, I just got it* lol

Originally posted by StrangeDays
thus we arrive back at defining good. maybe its not neccesary to define good in order for this to be true though. if people want something, then they obviously see it as being good, even if it may be morally wrong, for example 9/11 or the Nazis, but people who do evil things do them because they are corrupt and believe that these evil things are good therefore they ARE wanting what is good, its just that what they believe to be good is different to the opinion of the majority.

So in this case, its a tautology (i think) because it doesnt rely on anything else to be true...confusing myself now!

YOUR confused? Me too!! I may be in over my head with either of you Biscuit or Strange Days, but I'm just wondering if we don't sell ourselves short by being too analytical and rely too much on words for meaning. Now thats a hell of a thing to say, I know, and something that might get one booted right off the faculty no matter what discipline one might be in, but, still, I propose that there is an ocean of experience that lies within us, unexplored, undiscovered, and yes, the nature of which is currently beyond mere words - but only because there is no consensus of experience - yet! Our entire Civilization rests on, is constructed from - a frame work of symbols, words, language. . . Is it so implausible to entertain the idea that, within the province of the mind, particularly in the realm of deep subjectivity, there is in fact a common ground of experience among individuals, a meeting of the mind so to speak, that affords intelligible communication that is more immediate than the trickle of information that is conveyed by mere words alone? I wonder. And I wonder if a quasi scientific approach could be adopted for the mapping of such new levels of experience so that eventually a consensus of experience is arrived at. It's just that we are so totally outward directed and have been for centuries, and to great effect as anyone would agree, what with the rapidly developing technologies that began with the industrial revolution and continued in the electronics revolution and now the information age and soon the revolution to be brought on as technology penetrates down to the nano level of manipulation. I love science & industry and all the new tools that spin out of basic research and new technology - it's a continuing grand adventure and I believe we will witness what seem to be modern day miracles in all areas of experience - BUT - imo, there are areas of research and ways or knowing that we haven't even begun to explore, and if my deep seated suspicions are anywhere near correct, it will be developments and advancements that occur in this direction that may be the most important for our future and lend us the power to go beyond the limits imposed by our current and future science for good ends. To me, "Love" can be looked at as a kind of force, from a pragmatic point of view, for the sake of this discussion only, because I know it sound silly describing love in this way, but nonetheless, I believe real love, as realized and created between two people, when steady and true, and other forms of a more generalized love, that perhaps we aren't even familiar with, is the gateway to a new technology that is multi-potential and maybe even infinite (eventually) in its ability to effect change in the so called "real" world - so that those who hearts are truly loving and properly oriented with synchronicity of purpose, have abilities to act on the world not from the outside but from underneath it, coming up from the common wellspring of all that is material, molecular, atomic, subatomic (quantum), quark patterned & string arrayed, finding the pathway up, up and up from such depths in reverse direction and thus into our objective surface reality. If it were possible to influence the world from that direction, underneath it all, then ANYTHING would be possible, and imo it is Love that is the force, the Key to unlocking the doorway to this most fundamental and deepest undifferentiated aspect of human travel and experience. Love then is the key to getting to the answers to all questions, problems and inquiries. We will continue to explore everything out here as normal, it's just that we will also be able to explore and discover and effect change from in here as well. This to me is the next evolutionary step for our society, our civilization and our species as a whole, and everyone will benefit.

Ok, now that i reread the above it's not the most coherent thing i ever wrote but there's revolutionary new thinking in there somewhere. i am VERY serious about the essence of what i was trying to say - i just need to outline it better. that all was "stream of conscious" kind of writing so i don't expect scholary types to get what i was trying to say - but if you do, and you're a woman 'of age' - i just might wanna marry you! LOL!!! (so you could explain to me what i'm trying to say and do!)

Mr Anderton ...
I like what you wrote ... made much sense to me. Was a stream of consciousness kinda chic before becoming corrupted by academia! (j/k to all those in academia land ).

I would argue tho, that what you talk about is already happening and has been for aeons ... it's just that coming from within to without there is distortion. And the challenge is not to get the inner love out but to get it out without distortion. does this make sense?

i wont bother to quote ur amazing long 'stream of conscious' as u called it! but - are u saying that u believe in innate ideas that we only come to realise through experiences? and that love is the force which allows us to experience these 'revelations' within ourselves rather than through the outside world? Or did i read it all twice and completely miss the point?!

John interesting read...and yes I've read much about some science research in the quantum fields....The more they explore this field, the more we will know...It seems the research that has been done can open many doors up to our consciousness and thinking...ie things invisible to most of us...Kinda goes along with some Metaphysics and would change most Religions as we know it.

For now the idea of "good" for me cannot really be explain throughly, but it's more a felt thing....kinda simple actually...if you do something good from an unconditional type way, then it makes you FEEL good....and it has a chain reaction to it that spreads like waves...

Yes, and it, 'Goodness', has a lasting quality that stays with you always and is something no one can ever take from you no matter what. I know what you mean debbiejo.

Originally posted by StrangeDays
Mr Anderton ...
I like what you wrote ... made much sense to me. Was a stream of consciousness kinda chic before becoming corrupted by academia! (j/k to all those in academia land ).

I would argue tho, that what you talk about is already happening and has been for aeons ... it's just that coming from within to without there is distortion. And the challenge is not to get the inner love out but to get it out without distortion. does this make sense?

I'm thinkin' bout this now. Pretty deep. . . Give me a little bit to think - gotta get something to eat 1st too! Hmmm . . .

There is nothing that is actually the question is "Do people what they think is best for them" then yes I 'd agree...anything else...nope..no. "good", so if

Originally posted by jOHN_Anderton
Yes, and it, 'Goodness', has a lasting quality that stays with you always and is something no one can ever take from you no matter what. I know what you mean debbiejo.


Thanks....To me goodness is a good feeling...It makes you feel good...and if for some reason, it doesn't then it's self serving...meaning you are either pleasing yourself, or you're letting someone else dictate to you what good or right is...Most people live in the latter...they want to please others and deny themselves their own selves....destructive actually...destructive to yourself....Mainly taught by religions....For me, I think people should always live what their truth is about them self in a nondestructive way...

Originally posted by Biscuit
i wont bother to quote ur amazing long 'stream of conscious' as u called it! but - are u saying that u believe in innate ideas that we only come to realise through experiences? and that love is the force which allows us to experience these 'revelations' within ourselves rather than through the outside world? Or did i read it all twice and completely miss the point?!

Thank you for you comment too! You are all so smart in this thread! Okay, got to eat 1st to get my synapses firing again. Btw, I'm not an academically schooled "philosopher", as you can probly tell. i just have some ideas that I'm sure come accross unformed or even as old news to you more learned - but thiy're new to me and are mor feeling-based than reasoned. I actually am in foreign territory in the always fascinating world of Philosophy, a discipline that the ancients used to refer to as the "Sophia" or repository for the highest form of thought and reasoning, the guradian of ultimate Truth. I actually have a degree in the sciences, biochemistry and a minor in analytical chemistry to be exact, but try to keep up to date in other area's and certainly on whats happening at both frontier's - the cosmologic and the quantum ends of creation, so to speak. There's so much happening now, our knowledge is advancing so rapidly not only in the physical and chemical and biological sciences but in the evolving ideas coming out of philosophy, the humanities and even metaphysics, that its is hard to put it all together sometimes. It's like you can just feel the energy of some grand unified field theory thats about to happen. Like a tsunami of Knowledge is about to break upon the beachhead of academia and change it all in some fundamental way!

*puts on white coat and leaves thread before the snickering begins by those who are much more learned in these things than jA will ever be . . . back into the laboratory where I belong and am most comfortable!*

well u sound more clued up than me - must just be the big words!

Well big words need not be used then, if it's confusing to some....Layman's terms would do much better to cluing one in.

here here to that debbiejo!!
If there is one thing I have learnt it is that academia land complicates things a lot more than necessary. But, it serves a purpose, which to save a huge ramble I am not going to go into here.

I don't really think that any one is any more clued up than any one else. Just 'clued up' in different ways if you like. Just when you think you get it a 3 year old child will say something that will land you promptly back on your bum!!

I reckon if we go around with the attitude that everyone has something interesting and worthwhile to say then ... life, people and the world is exciting and interesting and there is always something new to learn.

But knowledge can also be subjective. Some say we don't learn anything new ... we just remember stuff we are innately aware of already.

I like the idea of that, it means im clever then again i have a very bad memory - bugger

Originally posted by StrangeDays
Mr Anderton ...
I like what you wrote ... made much sense to me. Was a stream of consciousness kinda chic before becoming corrupted by academia! (j/k to all those in academia land ).

Oh yeah? Hmmm, now you're getting quite mysterious.

Originally posted by StrangeDays
I would argue tho, that what you talk about is already happening and has been for aeons ... it's just that coming from within to without there is distortion. And the challenge is not to get the inner love out but to get it out without distortion. does this make sense?

Believe it or not, YES, that does make sense. It would have to be coming out, yes, in all sentient beings to SOME extent, and the more aware, the greater their expression of love, or at least the greater the possibility for expression of love. Of course Humans on earth would have the greatest self-awareness and therefore become the vehicle through which the expression of love holds the highest promise. Of course that doesn't preclude higher love harmonics, if you will, in other species of life from elsewhere in our own galaxy and other galaxies too. I mean, after all, there's 100's of billions of other stars in the Milky Way that could possibly serve as "suns" for other planetary systems, some of which are bound to harbor intelligent life. Moreover, there are literally 100's of billions of other GALAXIES throughout the entire universe with one estimate at ~ 500 billion.

Wow, got way off topic. I need a break now - splitting headache!

So jOHN, why are you dodging my question?

jA: "what's that buzzing noise? must be a little mosquito that's still around this late in the season, huh?"

*gets a can of Raid and sprays the toxic mix in the direction of the previous poster. after 2/3rds of the contents empty, jA lights the aerosol stream with a match and blow torchs that individual until crispy*

Originally posted by jOHN_Anderton
jA: "what's that buzzing noise? must be a little mosquito that's still around this late in the season, huh?"

*gets a can of Raid and sprays the toxic mix in the direction of the previous poster. after 2/3rds of the contents empty, jA lights the aerosol stream with a match and blow torchs that individual until crispy*



Do you, jOHN what good, or evil?

RELATIVELY SPEAKING, EVERYONE WANTS WHAT THEY THINK IS GOOD.

whats up w/all you guys and the flowers? at least after I pic 'em I give 'em to a babe where they look good instead of wearing them like you two! LOL!!!

oops. sorry. not that there's anything WRONG with that.

HAHAHAHAHA. . .

nevermind. carry on.

(snicker snicker. . .)

Originally posted by Wonderer
RELATIVELY SPEAKING, EVERYONE WANTS WHAT THEY THINK IS GOOD.
yep i agree thers just warped people out there with weird perceptions of what it good! and selfish people who only wnat whats good for them wnd dont care about anyone else!

Originally posted by jOHN_Anderton
whats up w/all you guys and the flowers? at least after I pic 'em I give 'em to a babe where they look good instead of wearing them like you two! LOL!!!

oops. sorry. not that there's anything WRONG with that.

HAHAHAHAHA. . .

nevermind. carry on.

(snicker snicker. . .)

Hi jOHN

I am glad you asked that question. The lotus flower is a symbol that represents the simultaneousness of cause and effect.

Wow. ... Now that I did not know shaky ... cheers clap

Originally posted by StrangeDays
Wow. ... Now that I did not know shaky ... cheers clap

Thank you. The reason for that is; the lotus flower will flower and seed at the same time. Just an odd thing about the plant, but long ago Buddha used it as an example.

ahh ... I can see why that would be so.
I know a little about Buddhism and what i do know has brought a lot of peace to me.
I am glad to be a part of this forum and interact with u guys

and that is GOOD

Originally posted by StrangeDays
ahh ... I can see why that would be so.
I know a little about Buddhism and what i do know has brought a lot of peace to me.
I am glad to be a part of this forum and interact with u guys

and that is GOOD

Thank you! At least I speak of myself.

Originally posted by jOHN_Anderton
whats up w/all you guys and the flowers? at least after I pic 'em I give 'em to a babe where they look good instead of wearing them like you two! LOL!!!

oops. sorry. not that there's anything WRONG with that.

HAHAHAHAHA. . .

nevermind. carry on.

(snicker snicker. . .)
You speak too much and know too little. Quiet down. Everyone wants what fits into their condition of good. Unless they're just twisted/warped people.

Everyone is talking about Buddhism at the mo

Originally posted by Biscuit
Everyone is talking about Buddhism at the mo

That's my fault, sorry.