When someone I'm enamored with tells me they'll see me at 10 o'clock, I'm gonna reserve the right to reply, "perfect". — javra

You would be using the word metaphorically/poetically.

Yes, as you've mentioned, this would require adopting some variant of the Platonic ideal/form of “the Good” - but is in no way sinister in and of itself. — javra

I don't think Platonism is sinister. Just unwarranted.

The word sinister came up specifically for the notion below.

How does one describe a 'fit for purpose' morality? Sounds sinister. Fit for whose purpose? — Tom Storm

I so far take it you're not big on objective morality. — javra

I think morality is a code of conduct that shifts with time and varies between cultures. There are intersubjective agreements made around principles like - 'we should prevent suffering' which can operate as a 'foundation' for moral choices. But in the end morality is a conversation we have about oughts and ought nots.

Let’s just lose the work perfect if all we mean is fit for purpose. Which then takes us back to more pragmatic relationships with ideas. How does one describe a 'fit for purpose' morality? Sounds sinister. Fit for whose purpose?

Let’s call this chair the perfect chair - would you be happy to have the label perfect applied to it rather than just adequate? — kindred

No. See above.

Perfect generally means that which can't be improved upon. Where do we find this perfect thing? Unless we accept Platonism?

deleted repeat

I’d just call that fit for purpose.

I was contemplating this question and would like to hear the thoughts of fellow thinkers here on whether perfection is a trait that can be universally acknowledged or whether it’s a more subjective description that can also evoke aesthetics in the subject. — kindred

How about we start with an actual example of perfection in the world and then go from there?

It strikes me that 'perfection' is a word which we use in various ways - from a mere superlative to an almost transcendental category. Which usage is correct?

Can you demonstrate an instantiation of perfection about which we can all agree upon so that I can see what perfection 'looks' like?

Which kind of perfection? — Bob Ross

Any.

Only if you agree that telling time is the chief function of a clock

I did not argue this in the OP: I said that pragmatic goodness is about utility towards a purpose (or purposes), and an example of this is a ‘good’ clock in ordinary language: we say a clock is ‘good’ when it can adequately tell the time—because it fulfills the commonly accepted purpose of telling the time that it was designed for. — Bob Ross

You've just repeated my point in different words. I said that identifying what counts as good is subject to a multiplicity of potential criteria. How do we deicide which is the right frame?

I suspect we are not going to agree - I am more interested in quesions and peeling back presuppositions and in recognizing the role of personal values and you seem more interested in locating some form of objectivity from experince.

But I would be interested in your example of perfection.

I hope, Cecily, I shall not offend you if I state quite frankly and openly that you seem to me to be in every way the visible personification of absolute perfection.

Oscar Wilde: The Importance of Being Earnest

I struggle to follow your argument - possibly because I am not a philosopher and also because I regard words like goodness, evil and perfection as being contingent and subject to personal or intersubjective worldviews.

a good clock is a clock that can tell the time, — Bob Ross

Only if you agree that telling time is the chief function of a clock. As someone who has spent a lot of time in horology circles, the idea of a 'good' clock is subject to many other considerations, telling time may be the least important - age, maker, decorative appeal, historic significance, may all rate higher than time telling. I guess what I'm saying is that when you come to establishing what is good you are trapped by the criteria of value you use to establish merit.

Can you demonstrate an instantiation of perfection about which we can all agree upon so that I can see what perfection 'looks' like?

:up:

'm not surprised. The standard sales pitch makes big assumptions about what believing in God means. There are also people whose belief in God means guilt, self-loathing and sadism — Ludwig V

I do accept that "is" does not imply "ought". But there is no doubt that "is" does lead people to conclude "ought". — Ludwig V

Certainly and it makes sense. We make choices about what we ought to do based on inferences and predictably.

I don't know , do momentarily pleasures take away long term pleasures of life? — No One

What are the 'long term pleasures of life' and what do you mean by 'momentarily pleasures'?

The title of your OP is a bit clearer. But I think most people know already that money can't buy happiness (hence the saying) and that owning some trinkets and vulgar displays of wealth don't really work for anyone. Some of the most unhappy people I have known have also been the wealthiest.

This isn't because happiness is fleeting or because material things come and go, it's because some people have psychological problems which can't be addressed merely by buying stuff.

The average day of each person is sad, boring, depressing and nihilistic. — javi2541997

While this might be true for some, I can't say I agree with this. Sad, depressing and nihilistic feature occasionally, but not in my average day or even my average month.

Religions codify and organize life, so it is easy to see what the implications are of accepting his arguments. Atheism and Agnosticism do not have a codified way of life that goes with them and it is not clear what kind of attitude or way of life might go with them. — Ludwig V

Yeah. That's the key. People often confuse atheism with secular humanism. Which does have a worldview. Atheism itself is about a single issue and doesn't have a worldview. I know atheists who believe in astrology, ghosts and UFO abductions, so skepticism isn't necessary.

For, after all, what deserves the first place in our studies is the consideration of God and our duty; which to promote, as it was the main drift and design of my labours, so shall I esteem them altogether useless and ineffectual if, by what I have said, I cannot inspire my readers with a pious sense of the Presence of God; and, having shown the falseness or vanity of those barren speculations which make the chief employment of learned men, the better dispose them to reverence and embrace the salutary truths of the Gospel, which to know and to practice is the highest perfection of human nature.

For my money this is waffle. It only makes sense if you already presuppose an account of god as per Berkeley. A Scientologist might make similar arguments using their beliefs. It's just the rhetoric of someone who assumes truth. I'm not aware of the Gospels offering humans anything except some stories and claims which can be twisted in endless directions. Jesus death seems absurd and pointless. To believe in the New Testament you could be a rapist or a priest (or both), a homophobic fascist or a gay socialist. I would suggest there is no Christian worldview either. It supports disparate and contradictory worldviews.

In a different vein, Existentialism (and Romanticism) seem to me to be a response to the idea that the universe is a soulless, meaningless machine. — Ludwig V

Does romanticism generally hold that the world is soulless or meaningless? Existentialism certainly seems to have been constructed as a way to deal with meaninglessness and in Camus' case, absurdity. The idea that we need to find meaning in a world without gods in it always makes me laugh. It's not as if theists don't find life meaningless. I have worked in the area of suicide intervention and on balance those who find life meaningless and become suicidal are just as likely (if not more so) to believe in a god.

I think your response is parochial in some sense.
Those parameters will only meet your humour benchmark. For others, it will be different t — AmadeusD

Perhaps you didn't finish your response. I assume you see my comment as personal judgement. I don't disagree. Given he asked - 'what do you guys think' - what I provided is what I think. :wink:

Is it possible to answer this question without personal judgement?

What do you guys think about dark humor and sarcasm? — Born2Insights

Depends what you mean. Most alleged dark humor and sarcasm is fairly tame and piss-poor. The really dark stuff is off limits to most as it deeply offends. Sarcasm is often predictable and dull - note also the old the saying that 'sarcasm is the lowest form of wit'. Irony and satire are somewhat richer, but may also suffer from conventional dullness if not undertaken by someone with some talent.

Basically any Mark Twain quote.
— Lionino
How can you tell, since most of them are ironic or sarcastic anyway? — baker

Yes, he was a primarily a humorist, so most of his quotes were intended as provocations or quips.

Hence -

'Never put off till tomorrow what may be done day after tomorrow just as well.'

"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education.”'

'God created war so that Americans would learn geography.'

Is it not the case that every worldview is located in some form of metaphysics (the nature of reality)? The extent of awareness of this varies. Some scientists, for instance, may posit that they don't do metaphysics, but the notion that reality can be understood is a metaphysical presupposition.

Are atheism and agnosticism ways of life? In a way, yes. Perhaps not entirely comfortable. — Ludwig V

How so?

Watch Jerry Seinfeld's Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee. Comedians talking about what is funny, how they construct a funny bit. You see them trying out jokes on each other, just goofing around, showing how they are thinking. Mostly they are just comedians being funny, but you see the art, the science a bit. — Fire Ologist

Humour is cultural and subjective. I find Seinfeld about as funny as lung cancer. Contrived humour I generally avoid although in this context I find British comedy more appealing. My idea of hell is having to sit though a stand up comedy show. When I laugh it will ususally be at something spontaneous happening around me, rather than anything manufactured to create laughter.

How about "Workers of the world Unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains!" Is that true? — BC

Wouldn’t have thought so. You may also lose your jobs or your life - depending upon the country. But the sentiment is laudable and we need more of it.

Personal property which greatly exceeds need qualifies as theft, IMHO. A small family does not need a vast McMansion on 5 acres of farm land planted in high maintenance Kentucky blue grass (popular lawn grass) and other landscaping cliches. Don't forget the 4 car garage. — BC

That’s a tough one. I think one can argue that personal property is fine. Where do we draw the line in terms of what is enough for one family? My biggest gripe with McMansions is the aesthetic crime. The vulgarity and banality of the architecture. Appalling ‘entertainment’ rooms and the like. In Australia, all the new money favours French Provincial ‘architecture’ - which is neither French nor provincial. It’s the brutal tastelessness and cultural soup of a Disney Company style guide.

I hear you and it has got me thinking that there's a separate aspect to these 'Hallmark' style affirmations.

When someone says - 'You can be anything you want', I don't think it is meant to be taken as a literalist declaration of unlimited possibility. I think the sentiment of the saying is - 'Go after whatever you want, because you never know. Many fights are lost before they begin.'

Quite possibly some of these sorts of sayings are not intended as literalist accounts of potentialities or states of affairs, but rather they are aspirational or 'sketches' of approximate wisdom.

One of my favorites is attributed to Balzac - "Behind every great fortune, there is a great crime." It's by no means entirely true, but it is so rich in aesthetic truth that it might as well be a fact.

I have seen a lot of the dark side of it, though. — Paine

For sure. And that is the issue here. Many of us are so disillusioned that we are almost incredulous at the thought there might be appropriate instantiations of such a sentiment.

Nicely done. I think the first three are more factoids which can be contested rather than sayings per say. But I get it.

How about "the United States is a democracy"? — BC

I'd probably say it is. It may be a dysfunctional democracy, with vested interests predominating, but there is still a vote and, presumably, if the eligible voting public were really motivated and involved, real change could still happen. The problem with many political systems is the quality of the voting.

Any American can be President — BC

False. :up: Any American within certain parameters - rich, native born, connected, etc.

Peace-loving nation"? — BC

Is that a saying or just a descriptive term which is almost incoherent? I think, perhaps, you can love peace yet be in constant conflict.

You can be whatever you want to be. — BC

For some this is true. Obviously the 'whatever' can be interpreted in crazy ways outside, I think, the expression's intention. I cannot be a nuclear power plant, for instance. However, if you are rich and smart the chances are you can be whatever you want to be. Sometimes it just takes one of those.

Perhaps, where respect that is due... — Outlander

Exactly.

Never true? I've used it and meant it.

I've been watching the British detective series Midsomer Murders. It really is bland, predictable pap with atrocious Mickey Mousing incidental music. Perhaps this is why it is so popular with pensioners all around the world.

I wonder how many have pissed on Sartre”s grave? — Rob J Kennedy

Well, a lot have pissed on his legacy, but this isn't really a grave that invites micturition. When I piss on a grave, I generally choose this one.

The purpose of this thread is to collect true-sounding falsehoods and false-sounding truthhoods and thus free the world of great sounding quotes that seem helpful but actually, probably, or possibly ARE NOT TRUE. — BC

Most of what's cited so far are true some of the time or are poetic truths. Are there any that are never true?

Philosophers are traditionally and for the most part elitist. They regard mankind as children that they must hide the truth from. — Tom Storm

The quote above isn't from me. I think I was responding to someone else, citied it and you have picked it up under my name. I don't know if philosophers are elitist.

Maybe he is a p-zombie. — baker

Excellent, a joke, finally in this terribly dry thread on humour. :clap:

Thank you both for your explanations. I feel lucky to be able to partake in these sorts of conversations with people who know their stuff and understand their presuppositions.

This quote from Rosen is very helpful.

The purpose of the text is to stimulate the reader to think, and it does that by being an intricate construction with many implications, some of which are indeterminate in the sense that you can’t be sure of what Plato meant and what Socrates meant, but they are intended to make you, the interpreter, do your thinking for yourself ... I think that it would be better to emphasize that the dialogue has as its primary function the task of stimulating the reader to think for himself, not to find the teaching worked-out for him.

For Strauss, there were three levels of the text: the surface; the intermediate depth, which I think he did think is worked out; and the third and deepest level, which is a whole series of open or finally unresolvable problems. Strauss tended to emphasize the first and the second. I wouldn’t say he didn’t mention the third, whereas I concentrate on the third.

This covers off on much of what I thought phislophy is for.

Not everyone will defend so stark a position as expressed here, but it is undeniably a major influence on today’s culture. And do notice the hostility that criticism of it engenders. — Wayfarer

I get it and I am interested in this way of looking at things. I want to understand it as best I can. Don't you think however that there is also a lot of hostility in the other direction (from those who hold idealist positions), who persistently disparage physicalists?

The triumph of materialism in the sphere of cosmology and metaphysics had the profoundest impact on human self-understanding. The message it conveyed was that the inward dimensions of our existence, with its vast profusion of spiritual and ethical concerns, is mere adventitious superstructure. The inward is reducible to the external, the invisible to the visible, the personal to the impersonal. Mind becomes a higher order function of the brain, the individual a node in a social order governed by statistical laws. All humankind's ideals and values are relegated to the status of illusions: they are projections of biological drives, sublimated wish-fulfillment. — “Bhikkhu Bodhi, A Buddhist Response to the Contemporary Dilemmas of Human Existence

I can see how one might argue like this. It's an emotive and tendentious response. The idea that all of 'humankind's ideals and values are illusions' is something I have intuited to be the case since I was 7 or 8 years old. I guess I am still interested to find out if my intuitions were right or not.

We always come back to understandings of Platonism - whether we're talking consciousness or esoterica.

You clearly take issue with for a secular and, shall we say, 'modern' reading of Plato and Aristotle? You think his take, though scholarly, stops short where it matters, right?

Do you think is projecting his perennialist biases upon Plato?

At heart in most of these discussions you hold the position that there is a realm beyond the quotidian world and that this can be understood/accessed through a range of approaches - e.g., Buddhism, Tao, Jnana Yoga, and the classical Western philosophical tradition, which has been filleted by secularism and modernist understandings.

Your view seems to be that a competent reading of Plato does not necessarily support the above.

We can know nothing whatsoever about whatever might be "beyond being". The idea is nothing more than the dialectical opposite of 'being'. Fools have always sought to fill the 'domains' of necessary human ignorance with their "knowing". How much misery this has caused humanity is incalculable. — Janus

Nice. I was just thinking very similar thoughts. I suspect this goes to the core of the OP's question. The esoterica of the gaps....

I’ll give it one last go: — javra

My mistake. I did understand the point you were making what I wasn't clear about was its applicability to my initial comments. But I do get it: some people may know things we don't and that's no reason for them to be smug and disdainful. Agree.

I'm more interested in the common phenomenon in the world of esoterica where some people falsely think they have knowledge and consider anyone who isn't in their in-group to be a plonker. But it's a small point and not pivotal to Jack's OP.

Thank you that's a great sketch. I will copy it and pop it in my collection of useful quotes.

Quick answer, the Good cannot be known. The best we can do is determine what through inquiry and examination seems best to us while remaining open to the fact that we do not know. — Fooloso4

:up:

feel like humanity needs to flourish in a way that they take each others ideas and beliefs more seriously and emphatize with them and instead find meaning in each other. — Ege

:up:

Cool. What is the foundation of your ethical system - how does one determine what the good is? When we say something 'needs to' happen is there more than self-interest at work?

prolonging the complacent okayhood of a prosperous minority for a few extra decades is not quite the same as "it didn't happen then, so it can't happen now" which is what I've been hearing more and more frequently since the 1960's. — Vera Mont

Not what I was arguing. I was just pointing out that existential dread for these reasons has been with us for many decades. And we don't really know when it all goes to shit. As no doubt it one day will.

By the way, it would help if you separated your ideas with paragraphs - it is hard to read long slabs of text.

I have no idea what the future holds and spend little time thinking about it.

I feel like we as humans don't do anything much with the technological capability that we have on our hands. or even the technological wonder that we were born with; our brains. — Ege

Could be. It doesn't much concern me. All we can control is what we do with our own minds and hands. My only principle has been to do what I think is right and read from a wider range of sources.

I'm not entirely sure what you are arguing - are you saying that people are not taking life and their responsibility as citizens seriously enough and, perhaps, not concerned enough with eudaimonia (flourishing) as Aristotle might have it?

Back in the 1980's I remember reading letters, with content just like your OP, in environmental and left leaning newspapers. Back then, many thought the greenhouse effect (an early version of climate change) would take out most life on earth. People thought President Reagan would probably blow up Russia with atomic bombs and many thought capitalism would eat itself and take out the West. Many also thought that we were heading for annihilation and that people were too obsessed with their own success and greed to do anything to prevent the end of the world from coming. Many of us didn't think we'd make it to the year 2000. Nothing much changes.

Human life may well come to an end one day. And one day, perhaps a person will write something like you have above and finally be right.

I'm not entirely sure what point you're making.

Hey, I'm just a simple minded skeptic. I often think that many of the stories human tell each other (especially in the realm of meaning) are just narratives to fill the time and make us feel better.

To sum things up, I damn well want my parents, my teachers, etc., and the philosophers I read to be better than me in terms of what they have, or had, to teach. And they ought to confidently known this before attempting to impart lessons to me. But if any were to think of me as an inferior in terms of the value of my life, they could then stick it where the sun don’t shine as far as I care. — javra

So this isn't a frame I use. If I am assessing someone as 'better than me' then we run into the problem that it is my assessment that has determined this judgment. How can I reliably judge who I should listen to or read? How can I identify, from a foundational bedrock of inadequacy, that which is better than me? This is probably going to come down to how someone impacts me emotionally and whether their style captures my imagination.

But my concern is simply with the old trope - "I have a secret that the ordinary pissants don't know about.' Having kicked around in Theosophy circles for some years I know that genre of person well and how they disparage the average person for their 'crass materialist consumerism' yet all the while they are obsessed with material things, status, and are subject to all the same issues of substance abuse, relationship breakdowns and petty rivalries. In other words, they are just crass materialist consumers - just another pissant with a little secret...

In the past it was often necessary to keep certain things concealed to avoid persecution and censorship. That is no longer as much of a problem, but if we are to read and understand these works it is necessary to read between the lines and make connections. We no longer have to worry about explicit discussions of atheism or nihilism either, at least in most communities. The cat is out of the bag.

Are there still reasons to write or speak esoterically? Perhaps, but in my interpretive practice I do just the opposite. I attempt to bring things into the light. — Fooloso4

Wow, that's the basis for a massive conversation right there. Thanks. This is probably not the right place.

But just quickly: can you sketch how ones read between the lines? I've read some of what you have written about Plato - in what sense can this (between the lines) be applied to his understanding of the good, for instance? You seem to prefer a secular reading. Is that a modern cultural reading, or are you making some additional judgements?

I hear you; for a lay person this just sounds like a more academic version of, "I'm better than you because I know secrets". Essentially this:

Philosophers are traditionally and for the most part elitist. They regard mankind as children that they must hide the truth from. — Fooloso4

Secular culture is deeply inimical to that kind of ethos, we expect, indeed demand, that whatever is worth knowing is 'in the public domain', that it can be explained 'third person', so to speak. Hence the tension between traditionalism and modernity, often resulting in the association of traditionalism with reactionary politics. — Wayfarer

Fair point. As someone whose values and worldview are secular I agree that this is essentially a debate between competing cultures (apologies to CP Snow). The problem is that the values of secularity and those of esoterica are often held by those who insist that not only is their understanding superior, but the other worldview is detrimental to the human race.

It's hard for me to look at "great" men like FDR and MLK without being totally disgusted by the affairs they had. Is it really that hard to be faithful to your wife? No, it's not. Should we even platform men (and women) who cheated on their spouses, no matter what good things they did? — RogueAI

I don't see what fidelity has to do with whatever achievements a 'great' figure can achieve. Take J Krishnamurti, the famous 20th century sage. He was unfaithful and vain, but his dialogues about freedom and spirituality remain imperishable classics of their kind.