Rigsy… while Aristotle has much to say on The Good, my personal preference tends more to the notions of Plato here.
However, even here getting a firm grasp on what The Good is may be difficult in part since his view appears to change in different parts of his lifetime. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-ethics/ He does say that literally it is not possible to *see* Goodness at all visually. We are dealing with the *Form* of The Good…not something seen. http://www.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/web%20publishing/IntroToPlato.htm And, taking an analytical step backwards, to even approach such a notion today one must realize that morality (good and evil) appears to fall into one of four opposite camps: * Moral absolutism holds that good and evil are fixed concepts established by a deity or deities, nature, morality, common sense, or some other source. * Amoralism claims that good and evil are meaningless, that there is no moral ingredient in nature. * Moral relativism holds that standards of good and evil are only products of local culture, custom, or prejudice. * Moral universalism is the attempt to find a compromise between the absolutist sense of morality, and the relativist view; universalism claims that morality is only flexible to a degree, and that what is truly good or evil can be determined by examining what is commonly considered to be evil amongst all humans…. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil And, since Plato wrote that “Ignorance, [is] the root and the stem of every evil.”, the current Biblical rhetoric of evil ‘masquerading’ as good seems to be different, at least on the surface. http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Plato He wrote in ‘Timaeus’ that no man is voluntarily evil. http://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/greek-texts/ancient-greece/plato-noone-is-evil.asp Perhaps you weren’t addressing me; but I don’t think I’ve ever suggested that you are ‘agnostic’ rigsy, have I? In fact, my personal prejudice is similar to yours. Even though I know it is ignorance based, theological beliefs “constructed by men and used by men in vicious ways.” seem to merely add to the suffering of humanity. I put the majority of most religions in this category… including Christianity. The notion that god is beyond understanding is understandable yet this doesn’t inhibit some of us from delving into it. I’ve mentioned negative theology often here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophatic_theology And, in general I hold to this way of not being able to *say* what god is. Yet, on the other hand, this doesn’t mean to me that one cannot know god. In fact, when one actually “Know[s] thyself”… one can then know god. On Apr 3, 5:35 am, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > I appreciated your response and will delve into Aristotle- surely he > has a definition of "The Good". The trouble is that good and evil can > be false and masquerade as one another so it takes an informed mind to > recognise them- sometimes- although I think we can often identify them > properly- especially in their extreme manifestations. > > Contrary to your opinion that I am an agnostic or my sommersaults > about faith, I do believe in God and pray to Him daily- either via > gratitude or supplication. My beef is with religions that have been > constructed by men and used by men in vicious ways. God is not made in > our image. He is beyond human understanding. Why is this so hard to > see when we must struggle to know ourselves or another? > > On Apr 2, 6:33 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Well Ash, like all words, when applied to something it becomes a ‘lie’… > > read: becomes something other than itself. > > > Accepting that caveat, I use the term “The Good” in the Platonic way. > > And, since we are talking about Divine Forms here, we move quite > > quickly into mysticism. So, just applying ‘rational’ terms and > > reasoning let alone simple analogies just won’t cut it for a full > > understanding of the notion. > > > For those who aren’t conversant with this, > > see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_of_the_Good > > > As is referenced, it (Good) exceeds being. Looking further down the > > page, it is instructive to note that Parmenides suggests that such > > Forms “must be seen through the mind’s eye.” Interesting, no? > > > In the first handful of years, Mind’s Eye was all rational and > > mysticism and religiousness was in general shouted down as being > > worthless at best. I found this a strange and unenlightened view and > > kept pushing the agenda of exploring beyond the 5 senses…often to > > sharp reactions and criticism. Today, perhaps as a result, we have > > moved in general to the other side of the dichotomy of skeptic/ > > believer… and many posts are pure blind belief. > > > Regardless, when first exposed to the Greek notion of ‘The Good’, I > > found an innate resonance and have been exploring the associated Pure > > Grounds ever since. > > > You asked for my words on this…something quite difficult to present at > > best. I will say that as shown above that The Good is a universal. It > > is objective. It is innate and not of the senses. > > > In particular, I was saying in my previous post in response to your > > suggestion that “we seem mostly of little consequence.” that “On the > > larger scales, our logic…” is of little or no consequence either…at > > least in any ultimate sense. > > > Hopefully this at least approaches a satisfactory response for you. > > > On Apr 2, 11:42 am, Ash <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Could you please clarify what is meant by "The Good"? I understand some > > > limitations and pitfalls of logic but knowing that clarifies little in > > > this > > > regard, it's another point agreed on. "The Good" is a term used by many > > > but > > > it makes little sense to me, perhaps I am uninitiated, it seems mostly > > > arbitrary. But I would like your take on it if you please.- Hide quoted > > > text - > > > - Show quoted text -
