Pleasure, as Hume observed, seems to be an end in itself. — bert1

He's my favourite philosopher of them all. He had more fresh, individual and original insight than anyone else.

I think this by Hume is the proper answer to the claim that good can't be defined because any attempts lead to circularity.

Well, yes. If something can't be topped, if something is the end of the line, then that's what it is, instead of it being a logical conundrum. Good is a biopsychologically derived product of judgment, and since we are all in the category who behave to the rules governing that product, obviously we can't think of any valid "good" which could point us to something better than "good".

However, to define "good" is not that hard.

One must constantly live under the caution that nothing in human nature is universal. There are 8 billion of us, and each of us are different. Due to differences in qualities that make us up. The differences are borne from mutations. Some mutations and / or gene couplings are extreme. Therefore there are people with no conscience, no guilt, no remorse, who can commit any sin or crime and feel fine about it. Most of us can't.

Such is the case with "good" as well. There are masochists, whose idea of a good time is not pleasure but suffering.

Because of these extreme anomalies one must not reject a theory or natural law.

So we have two theories here, do we? Would you like to unify these and say that the good is pleasure and anything that helps us get there is instrumentally good? — bert1

Thank you, thank you, thank you!! finally someone who doesn't ignore my input.

You separated "good" into two kinds: pleasure, and instruments that lead to pleasure.

At this point I agree with you.

As someone already mentioned it, "good" can only be a judgment by sentient beings. Plants, in my opinion, can't tell if something is good or bad, they just survive or not, thrive or whither. Animals are equipped with decision making survival capabilities, and that definitely needs to involve concepts of good and concepts of bad. Bad is suffocation, being eaten alive, having your mother torn to pieces in front of you. Good is being liked, sex, food, laughter, music, dancing.

A chair is good because it helps me sit comfortably. A magnet is good because it shows me which way to go. A wolf is bad when he jumps me, but good when it keeps the deer population at bay.

Good and bad are hopelessly tied to being alive and having senses.

An advanced version of this is morals: morals have to do not with pleasure or survival, but with the survival of the nearest available derivative of one's dna.
--------------------------

Thanks, Bert1, for picking up the baton.

Please don't get me wrong. This is not an ego issue. I would be the happiest if someone came up with an example that invalidates the definition I provided.

It doesn't even matter that I provided the definition. What matters is that a definition exists, that nobody invalidated, and then you ALL keep talking about how "good" can't be defined.

It is right there, for crying out loud. The definition. Why do you keep harping on it does not exist and it can't exist? Don't you see the irony of this?

How long do you think you want to keep on being ridiculous? The king has a green overcoat, and you are all wondering why it's not green and furthermore that it's impossible for it to be green... when it's green, right in front of your eyes.

"Good" is an adjective denoting that a thing that is good is a thing that is advantageous and pleasant and helpful and accommodating OR at least three at the same time and in the same respect of the aforementioned qualifiers.

I invite examples that debunk this definition.

Please don't juxtapose something that is good now but will be not good later, or something that is good for Mr. X but not good for Ms. Y. Those violate the rule in the definition, "at the same time and in the same respect." — god must be atheist

Why do all of you ignore this? What's with the crap? Only because it renders all of our discussion meaningless?? you are all invalidating your arguments until you debunk the definition. This whole thread is meaningless crap, sophistry to the max, empty phrases that only sound good but have no weight in a thinking person's mind UNTIL you or I debunk the definition I gave here.

Don't be lazy, don't be stupid. Do it. Without first doing it, it is false and misleading and a LIE to speak "good is undefinable" when a completely good definition is staring you right in the face.

All you, or anyone of you, or I, have to do is come up with an example, a valid example, in which the definition fails. It is not an insurmountable task: just one example, and that's all we need to continue the hifolutin' discussion.

Do it, for chrissakes.

But I think that's Moore's contention: good can't be defined by or analyzed in terms of any other properties, good is a simple, sort of an atomic unit or fundamental building block of moral language and reasoning. Whether Moore is right about this is, of course, a different story. — busycuttingcrap

If a unit is an atomic one, as you called it, it still does leave room for delineation from other things. For instance, an atom (in the sense you used it) "is an indivisible unit, something that has no components and inner structure".

This is to show that just because something is "atomic", it does not escape the possibility of getting defined.

This what I am saying is different from arguing whether "good" is atomic or not. I am arguing that just because something is atomic, it still can be defined, explained, described, and shown to be what it is.

That's A.

B. is that just because something is atomic, it still has properties. It behaves in one way or another in the world, and that behaviour can be traced back to the properties of this "atom".

↪Shawn Whatever evaluative context you choose to specify e.g. ethics, aesthetics, economics, religion, engineering / building trades, etc the answer to "what is good?" will vary accordingly. — 180 Proof

I am not saying that what you stated there debunks my definition, but what you say may be a simple case of equivocation as defined by Aristotle.

there are things that can be all those three and yet not be good. — Shawn

Never mind Kant and consensus and ethics and circularity of definition and stuff. Just give me one instance when three or four of my qualifyers are true but the quality is not good.

You guys just talk and talk and talk and nobody thinks around here. I need just one frekkin' instance of a thing that debunks my definition.

I am not saying that my definition is perfect. It may be, or it may not be. I don't know. But it must be accepted and all the other crap you people are talking about must be neglected until the definition gets debunked.

That's the only thing I don't like about this site. If I say something and it's inconvenient, but valid, people simply ignore it and talk around it.

What about this:

"Good" is an adjective denoting that a thing that is good is a thing that is advantageous and pleasant and helpful and accommodating OR at least three at the same time and in the same respect of the aforementioned qualifiers.

I invite examples that debunk this definition.

Please don't juxtapose something that is good now but will be not good later, or something that is good for Mr. X but not good for Ms. Y. Those violate the rule in the definition, "at the same time and in the same respect."

The doctrine of papal infallibility, the Latin phrase ex cathedra (literally, "from the chair"), was proclaimed by Pius IX in 1870 as meaning "when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, [the Bishop of Rome] defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church." — javi2541997

in 1568 or 1620, I can't remember which, the then-current pope ex cathedra declared that the Earth was flat and anyone opposing that is an heretic to be burnt at the stakes.

So much for papal infallibility.

To justify an act is to appeal to some form of authority external to ones' self. — jgill

Authority or evidence, external to one's own self.

Problem arises when the authority is evil, or has a practical sense of humour.

I am a convertibilitist valuationist. To me justificationists are students who want to get good grades without increased intuition fees. In other words, justification is impossible to achieve without proof. Of course we all behave an act on partial proofs, on not enough evidence, and in lack of justification therefore. This still has not created any discernable problems in our history as a species, other than world wars and other wars, and of course our problems caused by overpopulation.

You could also follow the Descartes route to achieve justification: destroying doubts, popping them off as you go.

The biggest problem of course comes up in courts of legal proceedings. Justification there is of utter importance, yet it is never achieved fully. Therefore the idea is to come down with a judgment that is more justified than its opposition. This is the precise situation where justification meets failure; many innocent men and women are in prison due to improper lining up and evaluation of justificatory evidence.

And to you.

Contextualize the following statement made by me within solipsism.

I exist. — Agent Smith

I see myself as existing; the image of me is conceptualized. It is not the same thing as myself, but rather an illusion. However, it is not the same as to say that I AM an illusion; it is only the image I see myself as, which is the illusion.

With the same token, you can say that you exist, because to have an illusionary self-image, you must exist to generate or else to see or conceptualize this self-image, because without you existing, there would not be any illusions that you experience.

The above declarations pertain to human-to-human interactions. What about humanity-the-collective to cosmos-the-totality-of-creation? At this level I assert that atheism is solipsistic.

This so because human consciousness vis-a-vis the totality of creation must first answer the question posed by the interstellar probe Jimmy Carter sanctioned. He asked, "Is anyone out there?"

Let's assume the answer is "yes." Other sentient (hopefully humanoid) beings are out there. Even so, this only dispels the interstellar solipsism of the human collective vis-a-vis other intra-cosmic sentience.
It still doesn't dispel the cosmic solipsism of atheism because the interstellar collective of sentience
vis-a-vis the cosmos is still alone unless the cosmos (and beyond) is sentient as distinguished from the interstellar collective of sentience, a state of being denied by atheism. — ucarr

You immediately jumped into nonsense in the first paragraph, explaining it with more detailed nonsense in the third.

Solipsism excludes community.

Solipsism is not concerned with extraterrestrials.

There is no such thing as interstellar solipsism.

You immediately reverted to saying nonsense... perhaps because you actually don't know the meaning of sopipsism?

the cosmos (and beyond) is sentient as distinguished from the interstellar collective of sentience, a state of being denied by atheism. — ucarr

This is denied by many religions, and may be denied by some atheists; but the only thing that is denied by atheism is that there is a god and that there are gods.

So you sucked me in to reply to you. Let me assure you: this was the first and last time I wasted any thought on debunking your crazy theories.

I don't exist. — Agent Smith

This is an occurrance. It is dependent on someone saying this. It can't exist (the statement) without someone uttering it.

My money is on you uttering it. The only way to go around that is to show an picture of your image, and a ventriloquist says "I don't exist", giving the illusion that the picture of the imaginary person said that.

Imagine you don't exist, but someone insists that the picture shows you. Then the ventriloquist convinces us that the image says "I don't exist".

But this is too much trouble. To make this happen, you'd need to hire 1. a ventriloquist, 2. An artist or photographer to create an image of you, 3. an agent of fortune to make sure you don't exist at the time of this event.

This would cost too much just to make sure we understand that you don't exist when the ventriloquist says "I don't exist."

:smile: Thanks. Nameste.

Depends on your pov. If you think someone else regards you as an illusion, then you are not mad. If you, yourself, regard yourself as an illusion, then take two aspirins and I'll see you in the morning.

You jest of course. — Agent Smith

Well, the fact is that I know very little. I haven't progressed to the ultimate knowledge, that is, to be able to truthfully claim I know nothing; but I'm approaching it tangentially.

Would the thought everything exists except me qualify as a delusion? — Agent Smith

In a psychiatric sense, yes; in a philosophical sense it is a false statement.

multialiasism - the practice of having more than one identity by the same one user on a forums-based website

Thank you, Agent Smith! I always bow to your immense amount of lexical knowledge, far superior to mine.

"Atheism Equals Cosmic Solipsism" As far as I know, solipsism is a philosophical thought that proposes that only the self exists, and its experiences such as himself, his place in the world and his perception of the world are either imagined, or else directed illusions.

How does its being cosmic affect this? There is no cosmos in solipsism.

And why would atheism equal solipsism, cosmic or otherwise? There is no reason to believe that. Atheism is a belief there is no god, there are no gods. This is a far cry from solipsism. Solipsism can exist in the philosophy of a theist and equally in the philosophy of an atheist. Cosmic (?) or otherwise.

This entire thread, my dear friends, is put forth by a philosopher whose words SEEM to make sense, but they don't. In responding to him, other philosophers admit that ucarr makes sense. I blame these other philosophers who have made the initial mistake of taking ucarr seriously.

What do I mean? I mean, that ucarr will make propositions in perfectly clear syntactical statements, that semantically make no sense; and he dupes people into believing he makes sense. Take any statement by him in this thread. I randomly picked the following:

Paradigms sever the induction-deduction oscillation. Only statements the resultants of induction are expressed; no reverse reasoning back to empirical details the resultants of deduction. — ucarr

What's an induction-deduction oscillation? What do paradigms do to sever this? And sever this from what else? The rest I don't understand, but that may be only my problem, because I was never told properly what inductive and deductive reasoning is. My guess is that the rest of ucarr's statement in the quote makes no sense; someone smart and learned can study and tell whether it's valid or sheer nonsense.

I am curious what on earth possessed the moderators to not notice the thinly veiled but screamingly obvious style and tactic of ucarr to engage serious thinkers in joining to discuss a very long tirade of nonsense.

Well, there has been quite a few people who have taken up to discuss ucarr's propositions; they all seem to be having fun with it, inasmuch as a frustrating and leading-to-nowhere never-ending argumenting is fun.

Ucarr is not the first such philosopher on this site who I noticed does this. I can't remember the monikers of others. The tactic is reminiscent of that of Bartricks. But they are fundamentally different. Ucarr makes no sense. Bartricks makes statements that are fallacious, and he contradicts himself often, and when he is shown his own contradiction, then he comes back with ignoring the logic there. Ucarr is more sophisticated: he can't be called out on a self-contradiction, because he makes no sensible propositions, he only spews nonsense; and he will defend himself with more nonsense when called out, in a fashion that will drag the conversation out yet in another vein.

Possibilitism: in an infinite universe every possible state of matter and affairs is bound to exist.

Potentialism: In a finite space anything possible must occur given infinite time.

Exotemporabilism: I don't know what that is. Something that is outside of the time in the universe. I can't imagine what it is, though. No clue what it could be.

And last, till you write your letter,
Yet she
Will be
False, ere I come, to two, or three. — Bitter Crank

I have a hard time understanding this. He is saying he will have the big O two, or three times? (i.e. "come")

The beginning of the poem was happy, carefree, randomly toying with words that exuded mood, not via reason, but via the senses. A bit like music.

But it went sour when he talked about women the way he did.

Love bade me welcome. Yet my soul drew back
                              Guilty of dust and sin.
But quick-eyed Love, observing me grow slack
                             From my first entrance in,
Drew nearer to me, sweetly questioning,
                             If I lacked any thing.
 
A guest, I answered, worthy to be here:
                             Love said, You shall be he.
I the unkind, ungrateful? Ah my dear,
                             I cannot look on thee.
Love took my hand, and smiling did reply,
                             Who made the eyes but I?
 
Truth Lord, but I have marred them: let my shame
                             Go where it doth deserve.
And know you not, says Love, who bore the blame?
                             My dear, then I will serve.
You must sit down, says Love, and taste my meat:
                             So I did sit and eat. — Bitter Crank

Funny you would publish this. There is a very strong parallel between this poem and how our relationship with my wife (before marriage) developed.

There is also a hint of Frank Sinatra's "Strangers in the Night" in it. Could it be, that George Herbert was inspired by Sinatra?

Should we be able to identify however we like? Would that be problematic and is there an ethical dimension? Should identities be challenged?

For example I could identify as a Police Officer. Is that problematic? Does it entail I should have to do some police work? Am I undermining the police force?

Is it problematic if identify as the worlds greatest painter and just think I am an attractive genius?

Obviously we probably cannot stop someone from mentally identifying as anything in the privacy of the mind but do personal identities (which could include religious identities) have a special status and should they be challenged? — Andrew4Handel

And why do you (Vera Mont) take it as given that I don't believe their self-professed identities? — god must be atheist

In accordance with the OP question, that's what is being challenged. — Vera Mont

Vera, above my quote is the entire opening post. I only found references by the Opening Poster to professions, to some character details and to social standing. I think that's what he means by "self-professed identities", because his examples point exactly to those things. I answered him in kind. I can't see how it follows from there that I, like you claimed as given, don't believe in someone's self-professed identity. I am sorry, but it does not follow from that.

if you don't believe their self-professed identities, how did they ever become leaders, trusted people, loved people and feared people? — Vera Mont

Through their actions.

And why do you take it as given that I don't believe their self-professed identities? Did I say or imply that? Please point me to the spot in my text that tells you that.

Obviously we probably cannot stop someone from mentally identifying as anything in the privacy of the mind but do personal identities (which could include religious identities) have a special status and should they be challenged? — Andrew4Handel

I think religious identities, special status and such are all socially imbued on a person. So there is a meaning to them beyond the silliness of being different due to a title. The public, the pnyotos, as the old Greeks called it, fears a person, or trusts a person or follows a person... these are not illusionary, but socially established.

So yes, you can challenge leaders, trusted people, loved people and feared people, but do be wary of the potential consequences.

Am I undermining the police force? — Andrew4Handel

Please don't put explosives under the police station building. If that's what you meant.

How can you memorize all these gods? The poetry and prose of the baroque era in my country and culture, Hungary, was replete with names of Greek gods and other characters of their legends. You needed to have a thorough grounding in Latin and Greek before you could understand the romantic literature of the turn of the century from the eighteenth to the nineteenth.

Greek deities and their multitudinous forms and devious activities are a specialty field. Everything Greek and Roman is specialty stuff. There is so much history, so little time. — Bitter Crank

I think the ancients were heavily leaning on differently evolved mythologies specific to their tribes separated by large distances in time and physical locations. And also the scribes made up stuff as they went... there was no Autodafe or Premier or Secounder Allgemeinen Synod, to unite versions.

Was Mars the Roman equivalent of Eros?

In Greek mythology: how does Chronos fit in? I thought he was the first god, who got castrated by his own son. Or he was Chaos's son, Chronos was?

The word Cupid: the roots was mentioning, could be also the roots for couple, coupling, tea cup, coup (as in "military..."), and copulation, population, execution, revolution... oops, sorry, I got switched over to John and Yoko's "Give Peace a Chance".

"I am conscious, and I came into being in the Universe, so therefore the Universe is capable of giving rise to something conscious." Which, as far as I know, can't really be proven, only experienced with an n=1. — tomatohorse

That's actually a proof. It is not proven in an a priori way, but in an a posteriori or empirical way, but it's still a proof.

Do we know anything about aliens? — Tom Storm

We immediately jump into the conclusion that they must be human-like, except more intelligent, less sexy, and peace-loving or else warmongers, but never in-between.

Whereas aliens have reached our planet, in the form of protein formation, maybe not exactly viruses, but simple proteins such as amino acids. Travelling on meteorites and other space debris that fall to earth on Earth. I don't know if this is still just theory or it's proven.

So what we know about aliens that reached the Earth is that they are simple organic compounds.

Watch the tabloids next week. "GOD ON WEBSITE SPAKE: ALIENS THAT REACHED THE EARTH ARE REAL AND THE PENTAGON KNOWS ABOUT IT."

Do we know anything about aliens? — Tom Storm

Yes. One thing. That we don't know anything about them.

I'd make a safe biospheric (biologically self-supporting) bunker that withstands nuclear, chemical, and biological warfare, as well as conventional warfare. I'd make it really cool and nice and spacious inside. I'd also put a piece of paper somewhere where only I can find it, with the winning lottery numbers of 39 countries for their 499 consecutive draws. I would populate the bunker with incredibly beautiful and smart women who find me attractive, and a few incredibly smart and beautiful men, and keep the combination to the entrance of this bunker only to myself. I'd have enough supplies in the bunker to sustain the population there for 2,000,000 years.

I know this is self-serving and egotistical, but so are the actions and decisions of the currently presiding god. If you can believe the scriptures.

In fact, there is a proof somewhere that anything anyone does, is self-serving and egotistical. Those acts of people that contradict this observation, can be shown that they are exchanging something really bad for something not as bad, so they are also self-serving and egotistical.

Busicuttingcrap, welcome back to the fold. Once you get in, you can never leave, can you.

Stoicism is an underappreciated philosophical treasure. It's also one of the most overrated ones.

If you give full validity to the social applicability of the evolutionary theory, then you must admit that both Stoicism and Buddhism are ridiculously false and illegitimate philosophies, as well as the philosophies of most modern religions, if not of all religions.

Yes, I admit they are much more romantic, likeable, and attractive, Stoicism et al, compared to scientific materialism. But philosophers are supposed to be loving the the truth, not an attractive, illusionary and artistically falsified version of it.

That makes philosophy seem a bit like a game where people hold positions for fun or out of curiosity. — Andrew4Handel

I look at embracing philosophical trends and views, and advocating them, defending them, and disproving views not in agreement with them, as more of a custodianship than anything else.