09-10-2004, 08:26 PM
1.) You cannot just call someone "bad". From what reference point are you analyzing his character as 'bad'? If it is merely subjective and random, then your perspective is about as valid as is anyone else's and we have no reason to accept your authority on the subject.
2.) Most conceptions of 'goodness' and 'badness' have some ethical root in either discourses of religion/spirituality or societal norms. Some argued that you could arrive at such characterizations through the use of reason, i.e. 'golden rule' arguments (to keep it simple and stay, for the time being, away from those nasty intuitionists). Given what you've told us, your "bad" is potentially just as metaphysical in character as is your "evil". As of yet, it is a normative judgment, and you should probably defend it with some reasons.
3.) You cannot celebrate the notion that believing "I am part" (as you put it) is inherently 'good' without some kind of reason. It is not evidence in itself. It may seem so to you, but you should probably question exactly where that comes from. I'm not saying that you are necessarily wrong; however, what I am saying is that it is not proof in itself.
G.E. Moore, an intuitionist, once argued that the notion of 'good' could be intuited and yet it was entirely indescribable. He argued, if I recall correctly, that it was an all-encompassing intuition in the sense that common-sense beliefs about the world are correct as they are. In his view, "the purpose of philosophy is not to debate their truth, but rather to seek an appropriate analysis of their significance". He argued that good is "a simple, non-natural, indefinable quality of certain things" which all humans can identify if they but choose to consult their intuition. I don't put much stock in this notion because in my view, it is entirely relativist - that being said, he attempted to avoid such perils by pointing to the ignorance of certain popular moralities of certain intuitable truths. Perhaps this is something like where you are coming from?
Classical Socratic philosophy depended on the notion that virtue and goodness were discernible through the use of reason and that only through the endless pursuit of knowledge and wisdom could one determine 'the good' and what was 'just'. In the end, however, even Plato/Socrates make appeals to the notion of a spirit in making their case and so it loses some of its empirical character. Munkay will probably start arguing with me right about....now. :D
Anyways, without any malice; please, let us know.
2.) Most conceptions of 'goodness' and 'badness' have some ethical root in either discourses of religion/spirituality or societal norms. Some argued that you could arrive at such characterizations through the use of reason, i.e. 'golden rule' arguments (to keep it simple and stay, for the time being, away from those nasty intuitionists). Given what you've told us, your "bad" is potentially just as metaphysical in character as is your "evil". As of yet, it is a normative judgment, and you should probably defend it with some reasons.
3.) You cannot celebrate the notion that believing "I am part" (as you put it) is inherently 'good' without some kind of reason. It is not evidence in itself. It may seem so to you, but you should probably question exactly where that comes from. I'm not saying that you are necessarily wrong; however, what I am saying is that it is not proof in itself.
G.E. Moore, an intuitionist, once argued that the notion of 'good' could be intuited and yet it was entirely indescribable. He argued, if I recall correctly, that it was an all-encompassing intuition in the sense that common-sense beliefs about the world are correct as they are. In his view, "the purpose of philosophy is not to debate their truth, but rather to seek an appropriate analysis of their significance". He argued that good is "a simple, non-natural, indefinable quality of certain things" which all humans can identify if they but choose to consult their intuition. I don't put much stock in this notion because in my view, it is entirely relativist - that being said, he attempted to avoid such perils by pointing to the ignorance of certain popular moralities of certain intuitable truths. Perhaps this is something like where you are coming from?
Classical Socratic philosophy depended on the notion that virtue and goodness were discernible through the use of reason and that only through the endless pursuit of knowledge and wisdom could one determine 'the good' and what was 'just'. In the end, however, even Plato/Socrates make appeals to the notion of a spirit in making their case and so it loses some of its empirical character. Munkay will probably start arguing with me right about....now. :D
Anyways, without any malice; please, let us know.
But whate'er I be,
Nor I, nor any man that is,
With nothing shall be pleased till he be eased
With being nothing.
William Shakespeare - Richard II
Nor I, nor any man that is,
With nothing shall be pleased till he be eased
With being nothing.
William Shakespeare - Richard II