Ending the conceptual war: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Ethics » Ending the conceptual war » Ending the conceptual war

Ending the conceptual war
between the good and the true.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Last

Ending the conceptual war

unenlightened
everything is...

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales

Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 3286

Posted 07/04/09 - 09:09 PM: Subject: Ending the conceptual war	#1
If rationality declares that there is no objective good, then objectively, there can be no good to rationality. Perhaps it would be 'better' (more fruitful?), then, to allow that rationality is good because it leads to truth, and truth is good. And that it is rational therefore to enquire into the nature of goodness.
...most of our actions are the result of the past, or according to a future ideal. That's not action, that is just conformity. J Krishnamurti "Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought." John Cowper Powys

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island

Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 3304

Posted 07/04/09 - 10:00 PM:	#2
That is almost correct. Reason has no intrinsic value unless it can provide a path to reach something else which has value. In some cases, being irrational or holding a delusion as true might be more productive. Truth is in the same predicament. It only has value as long as it is useful in reaching something else of value. Telling kids that there is a Santa Claus, (a deliberate untruth), might be useful as a family-bonding ritual. The same could be applied to any other subjective experience treated as "real". There is no conceptual war, just a conceptual paradox, (since we tend to assume that truth and reason is somehow objectively "good", even though that is more properly a rule than a tautology.
Ethics is the measuring of morality. Morality is the measuring of good. Good is the measuring of benefit. Benefit is the measure of values.

Incision
Professor

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Jan 04, 2008
Location: Utah

Total Topics: 23
Total Posts: 906

Posted 07/05/09 - 12:52 AM:	#3
There isn't a conflict between the OP's two positions. Maybe rationality isn't objectively good, but it is subjectively good; after all, rationality leads to truth, which is subjectively good, so rationality itself is subjectively good. The argument would only seem like a reductio if you think there's something inherently funny about subjective values. swstephe wrote: Truth is in the same predicament. It only has value as long as it is useful in reaching something else of value. Even if truth isn't an objective good, it could still be a first-order good. I could just feel that truth is just important to have. If all goods are only good insofar as they help you get other things, then nothing's good: either the chain terminates, in which case nothing's good, or there's an infinite chain, in which case nothing's good (since there'd be no answer to "why is the whole chain good?"). So it seems that if anything's good, then something's a first-order good.

mayor of simpleton
CAT vs. DOGMA

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 20, 2009
Location: Vienna, Austria

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 529

Posted 07/05/09 - 09:02 AM:	#4
Very interesting thought. "If rationality declares that there is no objective good, then objectively, there can be no good to rationality". The only problem I have with this is that both "rationality" and "good" are terms of value determination. When speaking objectively, one need to completely avoid such determinations. To speak objectively is to refer to things as they are in their dennotative aspect. This is perhaps the "thatness" of a thing rather than it's subjective perceived character qualities. Rationality cannot declare any objective good, as objective good is not possible. That which is objective is without goodness or badness. This is merely a subjective accessment of what is objective. Rationality is the justification of a subjective perception. Afterall, when we suggest that something is rational, on base do we draw this conclusion? Personal experience or assumed personal experience. Both are subjective in their nature. "Perhaps it would be 'better' (more fruitful?), then, to allow that rationality is good because it leads to truth, and truth is good. And that it is rational therefore to enquire into the nature of goodness". Problem here is that truth is not absolute, but relative to context, time and application. This does not make it more or less fruitful. It makes it what it is. I feel that it would be more fruitful to allow things to be as they are and nothing more or less. Subjectivity is not a bad thing. It is the only thing we have. To be objective about anything is to go beyond ones own limitations. This can only be achieved through something "hyper-real", say symbolic language or, "god forbid", a bit of methaphor and mystic dreaming. What is wrong with that? Yes, it is highly personal, actually exclusive, but reveiling of personal nature and potentially unveiling possibility to go beyond personal good and evil. Personally (how ironic) I find that perfection and objectivity are both overrated and boring. The "ugly" things make us real. Not that we should persue "ugliness", but we should not deny it is real and here and needs to be here, even if it is just for the orientation of the so-called opposite, "beauty". Goodness and badness are just the same. As long as one realizes this experience is personal and not a universal method, things will possibly fall into place. One can be influenced and find inspiration from the experiences of other, but in the end of the day, one needs to find their own way. Whether religion, music, philosophy, sports, or collecting stamps, if it works for opening the doors to harmony, flux, bliss, enlightenment,... whatever you call it, and it does not violate the freedom of others, why not? Our perception of the objective is enough. We are damned to a position of subjectivity. Damned, good or bad? Damned and good and bad are all value determinations. As long as one realizes this, what can go wrong? Meow! GREG This sounds like a fortune cookie. I think I'll order out tonight!
I am not one to attribute that which I cannot understand immediately to be god(s)-perhaps I will never understand, but god(s) are not defined by my lack of understanding-this is the foundation of dogmas, the pressing of connotative values into the realm of dennotative meaning. - MOS http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIYJERcdHb0 Jerry Sings!

Crackers
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 28, 2009

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 519

Posted 07/05/09 - 09:37 AM:	#5
unenlightened wrote: If rationality declares that there is no objective good, then objectively, there can be no good to rationality. True. There is still the subjective case, however. Perhaps it would be 'better' (more fruitful?), then, to allow that rationality is good because it leads to truth, and truth is good. Truth is sometimes useful, that does not make it objectively good. Truth is sometimes harmful, that does not make it objectively bad. And that it is rational therefore to enquire into the nature of goodness. That depends on the subjective premiss that truth is good. What is more fruitful is not necessarily good and what is true is not necessarily more fruitful. There's nothing objectively better in an objective morality than in a subjective one, although subjective morality does exist and objective morality is as easy to prove as God's existence. There is a clear contradiction here: If rationality declares that there is no objective good, and truth is good. Unless you disregard that rationality does declare that there is no objective good. Edited by Crackers on 07/05/09 - 09:45 AM

unenlightened
everything is...

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales

Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 3286

Posted 07/05/09 - 06:48 PM:

swstephe wrote:
we tend to assume that truth and reason is somehow objectively "good", even though that is more properly a rule than a tautology.

Insision wrote:
I could just feel that truth is just important to have.

mayor of simpleton wrote:
Rationality cannot declare any objective good, as objective good is not possible.

crackers wrote:
that rationality does declare that there is no objective good.

Well chaps, since you will not either bite the bullet or dispute my conditional, you seem to have reduced the status of your own arguments to the absurdity of a whim, exactly of the same status as ethics. Is there no one prepared to defend the real value of rationality and objectivity? I can see no reason to take any of your posts more seriously than the babbling of monkeys. sticking out tongue

...most of our actions are the result of the past, or according to a future ideal. That's not action, that is just conformity. J Krishnamurti

"Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought." John Cowper Powys

Incision
Professor

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Jan 04, 2008
Location: Utah

Total Topics: 23
Total Posts: 906

Posted 07/05/09 - 11:11 PM:	#7
unenlightened wrote: Well chaps, since you will not either bite the bullet or dispute my conditional, you seem to have reduced the status of your own arguments to the absurdity of a whim, exactly of the same status as ethics. Is there no one prepared to defend the real value of rationality and objectivity? I can see no reason to take any of your posts more seriously than the babbling of monkeys. I'm confused. Everyone accepted the conditional, and pretty much everyone "bit the bullet," didn't they? That is, most people accepted the antecedent -- is there another bullet you had in mind?

mayor of simpleton
CAT vs. DOGMA

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 20, 2009
Location: Vienna, Austria

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 529

Posted 07/05/09 - 11:37 PM:	#8
Incision, I'm with you on this one. I am a bit confused as well. Meow! GREG
I am not one to attribute that which I cannot understand immediately to be god(s)-perhaps I will never understand, but god(s) are not defined by my lack of understanding-this is the foundation of dogmas, the pressing of connotative values into the realm of dennotative meaning. - MOS http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIYJERcdHb0 Jerry Sings!

Willowz
Wilson wants a smile.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 14, 2008

Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 636

Posted 07/05/09 - 11:40 PM:	#9
Are you implying that there is no "good". No greater good, no lesser good, just truth? Good is a word that encompasses too much. All good is subjective... EDIT:Humans with all there subjectivity won't conclude, what is The objective "good"?
This song will prepare you for a good smile.

mayor of simpleton
CAT vs. DOGMA

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 20, 2009
Location: Vienna, Austria

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 529

Posted 07/05/09 - 11:46 PM:	#10
"If rationality declares that there is no objective good, then objectively, there can be no good to rationality". I don't wish to be too petty about this, but "objective good"? One step at a time... Can the Objective have valuation attached? Can the Objective be valued as good or bad? Is this a subjective perception of what is objective? I feel that the "conceptual war" is founded in the assumtion of definition and the so-call "self-evident" that is not really so clear. I need a clear position on the questions I posted here, from the perspective of the others involved in this pursuit, before continuing. I have about 30 question to this point, but I am waiting to see what happen here first. Question can evolve. Thanks! This is perhaps a caes of having the cart before the horse. Meow! GREG
I am not one to attribute that which I cannot understand immediately to be god(s)-perhaps I will never understand, but god(s) are not defined by my lack of understanding-this is the foundation of dogmas, the pressing of connotative values into the realm of dennotative meaning. - MOS http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIYJERcdHb0 Jerry Sings!

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Last

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.