The meaning of goodness
chengp...@my-deja.com
A network station, which perfectly combines rationalism, idealism with
realism.
The meaning of goodness: The idea of goodness is deeply rooted in the
mind world of every social individual. At the same time, the spiritual
experience of goodness in the deep mind often stands out strikingly.
Acting heroically becomes beautiful scenery, embellishing among
conventional people and practice activities. Goodness to an enemy is a
kind of giving out Goodness to ourselves is a kind of defection.
Goodness, if it can be successfully practices into a kind of reality,
means including all forces of both enemies and ourselves. So the idea
of goodness lies in that it try to possess all energy of both enemies
and ourselves subjectively.
The meaning of goodness illustrates: the explanation of the goodness
from philosophical time and space is a kind of explanation of dualism,
that is, there are an independent subjective idea of goodness and a
behavior of goodness of practice (acting heroically). The idea of
goodness lies in constructing a thinking realm including both enemy and
ourselves. “The sum of enemy and ourselves is bigger that either side
of enemy and ourselves.” That is an axiom. This construction is
possible subjectively. We should regulate the thinking realm and idea
of goodness through the communication of thought------ which is within
the ability of philosophers!
The problem of the reality of goodness is much more complex. I believe,
the most possible way and the most efficient realizing way to make the
idea of goodness come true is through the principle of “thought is
bigger than behavior” and “thought is independent of practice”.
About goodness, present main explanation emphasizes to give out love
mind, to contribute to others unselfishly. However I think, “giving
out” and “contribution” are both superficial. It is essential to
wipe out the opposition and to possess the whole and more and more!
Here goodness is not a value proposition of “should be” but a fact
proposition (or scientific proposition).
Made by the research group of the universal flowers
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
John Paolucci
absolute fact.
PAGE FIVE.
THE HIGHEST AND BEST IS.
One existence in common means one all-inclusive life.
All-inclusiveness does not allow life to be less than a field of
completeness -- the highest and best at all times and places. Why is
completeness more than merely the sum total of good, neutral, and bad?
Why highest and best? Because less than the best; lack, loss,
limitation, burden, obstruction, are all absence. Absence requires
time-space's "not here, not now": merely a false reductive conclusion
from a partial viewer. Less perception doesn't change what IS. Absence
of the highest and best is not a fact. The highest and best IS.
If you could know all the details of why something seemingly bad
happened, you would see detail of preciousness beyond all imagination.
Why? Because preciousness in unlimited scale cannot be absent. The
most precious is all-pervasive because reduction of completeness is
not a fact. That means nothing can escape fully expressing what the
very best does, means, and is. Regardless of perception or conclusion,
every detail of life is the tops intelligence, tops ability to create,
tops structure, tops material, tops movement. Why isn't the least
precious also all-pervasive? Am I spinning a clever fairy tale because
I want to feel good? We've all seen people who need to be proud of
feeling good. But less than the best has no basis. Darkness has no
substance; it's merely the absence of light. This is a mechanical fact
I will continue to clarify. Right in the midst of all the living proof
you could want that good cancels out bad, and bad cancels out good,
making life at best neutral, is the exquisite very best. To confirm
that life is tops, review the fact of complete existence and follow
the logic, otherwise time-space comparisons are all you have. If all
you see of life is some little portion of time-space, and use that as
a basis to conclude about the whole of life, is that really wise?
Would you evaluate your financial status by looking at one line of
your checkbook?
Bad or worst always means something is missing, something is lacking,
something is not enough. Have you ever heard anyone say, "No thanks,
things are really bad here, we don't need anything good". Or, "No
thanks, things are perfectly fine, we've got to find out what's not
here". Bad and wrong is merely the highest and best status of
existence choosing to forget that highest and best is its own status.
Forgetting has no substance; it is merely a conclusion from not seeing
the rest of right and whole. Why life needs to configure itself in
such a way that it sees less than the whole is covered on the next
page.
John. http://www.atwahome.com
RobtCohen
senior level (taken as required ethics) liberal arets curriculum course at my
alma mater, though I can't recall enough content to
b.s. my way through a responsive, substantive note.
Thus, I will add a provocative coda. I recall reading Ayer & C.S. Lewis, but
the most I got from it was the realization that
scholars actually discuss the question of the existence of "good" itself.
["Good" is linguistically related to "god" imho.]
Maybe it was from this course that I began to regard myself as a relativist &
subjectivist, and this may be partly why I have not read Ayn Rand nor embrace
Objectivism and Absolutism.
There was another, probably British too, philosopher whose last name starts
with "N," and I recall he was ...maybe a relativist (?).
He maybe discusses "degrees of good.".
Hey, philosophers argue the seemingly obvious (which ain't so obvious
afterall), split
hairs & count angels on pins while
the anthropologists--political behaviorists--sociologists--economists
attempt to understand causes/effects/relationships.
What's so good about understanding the
qualities of trying to grasp an undertstanding of "ethics" anyhow?
Why should a modern, progressive, traditional, football factory, urban,
secular, rustic Biblebelt taxpayer underwritten state university's head of the
philosophy department teach this dodo about
"meta-ethics?"
THANK YOU, Sir, it was a good course.