Louis G

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


                            [{"CommentID":"281302","CommentText":"I definitely see the importance of scope in your analysis, and I think you do an excellent job looking at its significance. I was looking at the assumption of getting\/taking that which I want is good. The only thing to consider in the smallest moments of personal perception might be to satisfy a personal want, but even if it is, that doesnt necessarily connect to what is good. Just because the only thing I can consider in the seconds\/minutes of my personal perception is what I want does not necessarily mean that fulfilling said want is good. Im simply noting the potential problem of that can arise if getting\/taking what you want is not good case, what with the idea of it being a good thing not being fully justified in the initial analysis. As for the goodness of genocidal tendencies, the point about scope is a fair one to raise. What if I expand the scope though --- if an entire nation of people wanted to destroy another race or people, would you consider that beneficial or good? Multiple implications would arise with respect to the definition of good, regardless of the answer. As for the remark about it is believed, Im not entirely sure what you mean. The premised question invoked personal thoughts (what are our thoughts one the definition of good \/ on your definition of good), and it seems perfectly reasonable to bring up the thoughts of others as, if they were currently in attendance, they would likely espouse their ideas. Some people adamantly state that their God is real and correct, as adamantly as others state that water is a liquid. Its an opinion on the definition of good, which could contribute to your consideration about the definition of good. 
I agree that the subject of the definition encompasses a conversation about the nature of good. Perhaps I misunderstood, but when I read your thoughts it seemed like you had already assumed a nature of good (that it is subjective, as noted by saying if you want food take it Im unsure how this is not a subjective understanding of good as the subject is an individual and the action in question is wanting which is commonly understood to be a subjective desire) and so I wanted to bring it into the discussion.
All in all, awesome post! Thanks for bringing it to our attention!
","CommentByMemberID":"433","ParentCommentID":"281216","VoteTypeID":"NULL","CommentDateTime":"Jul 30 2015 5:08PM","CommentByMemberDisplayName":"Youngbin Yoon","CommentByMemberHandleName":"youngbinyoon","CommentByMemberDP":"NULL","CommentTotalAwesome":"0","MemberAlreadyAddAwesome":"0","MemberAlreadyAddFlag":"0","RowNum":"1"},{"CommentID":"281268","CommentText":"Ack, just saw this! I'll compose a response.","CommentByMemberID":"433","ParentCommentID":"281216","VoteTypeID":"NULL","CommentDateTime":"Jul 30 2015 4:41PM","CommentByMemberDisplayName":"Youngbin Yoon","CommentByMemberHandleName":"youngbinyoon","CommentByMemberDP":"NULL","CommentTotalAwesome":"0","MemberAlreadyAddAwesome":"0","MemberAlreadyAddFlag":"0","RowNum":"2"}]

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'.

Youngbin Yoon

Youngbin Yoon Ack, just saw this! I'll compose a response.

0

Youngbin Yoon

Youngbin Yoon I definitely see the importance of scope in your analysis, and I think you do an excellent job looking at its significance. I was looking at the assumption of getting/taking that which I want is good. The only thing to consider in the smallest moments of personal perception might be to satisfy a personal want, but even if it is, that doesnt necessarily connect to what is good. Just because the only thing I can consider in the seconds/minutes of my personal perception is what I want does not necessarily mean that fulfilling said want is good. Im simply noting the potential problem of that can arise if getting/taking what you want is not good case, what with the idea of it being a good thing not being fully justified in the initial analysis. As for the goodness of genocidal tendencies, the point about scope is a fair one to raise. What if I expand the scope though --- if an entire nation of people wanted to destroy another race or people, would you consider that beneficial or good? Multiple implications would arise with respect to the definition of good, regardless of the answer. As for the remark about it is believed, Im not entirely sure what you mean. The premised question invoked personal thoughts (what are our thoughts one the definition of good / on your definition of good), and it seems perfectly reasonable to bring up the thoughts of others as, if they were currently in attendance, they would likely espouse their ideas. Some people adamantly state that their God is real and correct, as adamantly as others state that water is a liquid. Its an opinion on the definition of good, which could contribute to your consideration about the definition of good.
I agree that the subject of the definition encompasses a conversation about the nature of good. Perhaps I misunderstood, but when I read your thoughts it seemed like you had already assumed a nature of good (that it is subjective, as noted by saying if you want food take it Im unsure how this is not a subjective understanding of good as the subject is an individual and the action in question is wanting which is commonly understood to be a subjective desire) and so I wanted to bring it into the discussion.
All in all, awesome post! Thanks for bringing it to our attention!

0