louis G
Louis G
Points 400

Louis G

Points 400

Male

Member Since Jul 25, 2015

Leo

Last Login Date Jul 28, 2015

United States

Total Login 2
Louis G posted in subinterest 'Definition Of G...'
First: Thank you for your reply I will never mind a reply just because it is long. Then to go on and clarify my argument: I insisted on the importance of scope and the variability associated with it:…

Louis G posted in subinterest 'Nation Relevanc...'
Hey, I just wish to collect arguments for and against the idea: In our current world where interaction are less and less restricted by geography are the current applications of the concept of…

Louis G posted in subinterest 'Definition Of G...'
Hey, I am throwing this subject out there so that everyone can add their own thoughts and ideas. I have been looking for a while now and be it in literature, philosophy or even in any…

Louis G posted in subinterest 'TheHOBMOB Story...'
Well, I am glad I am not the only one struggling to single out a book. As pretty much everyone else I had the chance of reading many books that were important building blocks for myself. I will try…
Louis G
Louis G posted in subinterest 'Definition Of G...'

Hey,
I am throwing this subject out there so that everyone can add their own thoughts and ideas.
I have been looking for a while now and be it in literature, philosophy or even in any conversation no one seems to be able to give a good definition of 'good'. Which might be kind of problematic since I believe that (on some level) we all strive to do good, be it for ourselves or others.
So I would like to ask everyone what is your definition of good? And does it affects what you want to do, or actually do in life?

And to start well here is my 'work in progress':
Good is a notion that varies greatly depending on the scope and focus.
To make it easy let's take you as focus, and start from there:

The definition of good on the smallest scale in time for you would be: if you want food take it (forcibly if need be)

But if we consider things on a slightly bigger scale that would not be very 'good' since you would have the food but then would most likely end up punished (law) (oh and this is an example we can start another subject on the need or not of law and it's relationship with power)

Then, skipping a few steps of expanding our scopes we can come to the scope of the nation (elusive notion if any and pretty recent too in history but yet again let's keep things together and create a nation/state subject if need be). What is beneficial for the nation (securing resources) is good, on the scale of your nation, for you on the longterm (years).

But is it good if the scope that we consider is humanity? For example is securing additional resources that are not needed but to be used in trading and that deprive other groups from a vital resource good? Well we answered that earlier: it is good... on the scale of your nation.

Then we can take it up a notch: can we think in term of good for humans as a species? (different from the cultural notion of humanity). It is arguable that the goal of any species is indefinite survival and expansion.

Is it good? Bad? Can we consider one of this level independently from all others? Is this scale of good/not good is even relevant or meaningful anymore?

Any attack on this concept will be welcomed as well as any other (argued) opinion and ideas.

Louis G
Louis G posted in subinterest 'TheHOBMOB Story...'

Well, I am glad I am not the only one struggling to single out a book.
As pretty much everyone else I had the chance of reading many books that were important building blocks for myself. I will try to limit the list to two (well I will probably not be able to hold myself back and, so as not to use too much space I will just list books that I would recommend to friends generally).

First things first the one that really started my addiction, revealed to me that reading a good book is going on a trip in someone else mind, that the world around us is filled with mysteries that are worth chasing after, and that the dreams that are worth hunting down are the one that you will never reach; on that note I give you: "20,000 lieux sous les mers" (20,000 Thousand Leagues Under the Sea) by Jules Verne. A story of the clash between the world and a man's dreams in an easy to read and old school language. Not the best book around for sure but a must read.

"Flowers for Algernon" Daniel Keyes (the book is the only version that I know), it is a story of the birth and downfall of a mind, it is inspirational, and sad. The only downside of this book is that you might have to 'hang in there' for the first few chapters as the language of the 'journal' follows its writer and the start is not a glorious one. (if you don't believe me open the book around the half-way point and read a few lines).

Because I have so many other books to name and don't want to bore to death the few readers that would have followed my until this point I will just enumerate a few that are must reads:
- The Forever War (by Joe Haldeman) time, society and humanity are challenged and confronted in this book following a somewhat pacifist soldier as he witnesses thousands of years of human history starting in the 1980s (easy read)

-The Chronicles of Amber (multiple books) by Roger Zelazny is an immersion a world of chaos, wonders, solitude and magic. Good and evil are very relative notions and you sure are careful of what you wish for after that one. (easy read)

-The cycle of the Culture (recommended start: The Player of Games) (by Iain Banks) Most books of this cycle are perfect stand alone as they bring through a utopic distopia that addresses the 'simple' topic of humanities future with a disturbing sense of prescience. Very pleasant read but I feel like I cannot really summarize it anymore without insulting it.

- A fire Upon the Deep (by Vernor Vinge), pure blood Science Fiction, it is an all-nighter (you start it when you come back home and next thing you know it is 6am and you have to leave in 30min... which leaves you just enough time to read the last chapter) Very easy read, my kind of 'comfort book' .

And now that I have pretty much lost everyone, and definitely went overboard with the book list I have but one last thing to say: if anyone wants to pm me to talk about books and taste for a personal recommendation or an exchange I would be glad to do so.

Louis G
Louis G posted in subinterest 'Definition Of G...'

First: Thank you for your reply I will never mind a reply just because it is long. Then to go on and clarify my argument: I insisted on the importance of scope and the variability associated with it: on the smallest scope of personal perception what is there but to satisfy one's desire? (remember this is a small scope seconds, a minute at most). And as for your (for the sake of argument) genocidal desires it is once again based on the scope: it satisfies your personal desire but on a larger scale (be it more than one individual or nation) the killing of multiple individuals to satisfy one is not, in my perception of things beneficial/good. Also any argument based on 'it is believed' is not an argument it is a proof killer. Invoking something (be it religion god(s) or else) the introduction of the 'whatever you say I believe' is just the end of the discussion and a fallacious argument as it poses an untestable and absolute hypothesis suffering no questioning.

The notion of a 'nature of good' is the subject of the definition. And for the possibility of good being subjective I have to admit that I dismiss it pretty fast, but I would be glad to reconsider if you have some ideas on the subject. As for your second paragraph it is a perfect example (I was looking for something like that) of the question: Can we consider a level (in scope) of good independently of others and I would agree with you in the sense that it is impossible simply because our scope is not discrete and thus has no clear cut boundaries between 'levels'.