perfection is subjective to the seeker, life is perfect, heaven and hell is on earth and in your own mind,
JoeTheMan: Yes, a good will is not good because of its effect, and that is precisely why it is meaningless. It might as well not exist, as we might just speak of good effects. Moreover, what is the "good" to which it wills?
EmptyForceOfQi Perfection is not subjective to the seeker. Things which can have a logical greatest expression are would have an objective perfection if such greatest expression was reached. Omnipresence, for instance, would be the logical greatest expression of presence, thus it would be objectively perfect.
PrinceJames: I'm not saying I agree with Kant's conception, merely bringing it up as an example of what the good is. It's a little problematic, because it's circular. You asked: "Moreover, what is the "good" to which it wills?" OK, so the only good-in-itself IS a good will, which is the only thing which is unconditionally good. It's basically the foundation of an intensional ethics, where motives are more important than consequences. Motives are the subjective and invisible intentions driving actions, whereas consequences are objective, empirical results of actions. Kant would say that the ends can never justify the means, that we must have good intentions in order to call ourselves good. The problem is that good intentions don't necessarily or even frequently lead to positive outcomes. But since we're interested in doing ethics and determining which actions are 'right' and 'wrong,' which ones are 'good' and 'evil', we'll need more than circular definitions of the good. It's unclear to me at this point whether such a definition exists. Any suggestions?
JoeTheMan: All ready understood. But an interesting topic, isn't it? Yet the real problem with this is how are we to know when an action has such good will behind it? It's a shadowy notion which can never be directly perceived. We must also ask whether or not Kant's conception of pure altruism can be construed as reality, considering the self cannot escape its will to benefit itself in one way or another. To value something is all ready to place it as something for the self to obtain for its worth and value, therefore making it a selfish action, which is not fully directed at some notion of "goodness" all together. Yes, that old adage "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions" comes to mind. I concur wholeheartedly. I'm actually working on a new conception of ethics, which, although this may sound odd, might be construed as some sort of midpoint betwixt Confucius and Nietzsche. When I formulate it fully, I'll make sure it gets to you.
Sort of reminds me of the concept of "innocent until proven guilty". The presumption of innocence or even "the benefit of the doubt" being similar issues.
Excuse me for intervening but wouldn’t it be more efficient if we first give a definition of ‘good’ and ‘perfect’ before we proceed into defining what the meaning of the definition of good in relation to perfection is? Just a simple query. But please proceed in the analysis. Watching hamsters running in circles is great entertainment. I would suggest that perfection, as defined by the idea of stability, self-reliance and harmony, is detrimental to life in all its forms. Life is a consequence or a reaction against instability, flux and disharmony. The mind is a product of imperfection which dreams of perfection as a way to escape its own condition. In some ways we can say that some remnant of a primordial starting unity – perhaps before the moment of universal expansion – lingers as some echo of the past and makes the mind imagine its return to it. The road towards such harmony lies beyond consciousness, in the after death, where energy is returned to its original state of inertia and consciousness becomes unnecessary. As things stand, the mind owes its awareness to chaos. It is s result of it and created as a method of coping with it. Lucifer's Principle.
but maybe i dont think omnipresance is perfect, because it cant make my breakfast the way i want it, peace,
but perfection means no flaws, if i want jerk chicken with rice and peas and its not made properly, thats not perfect, perfection is concept, could you show me anythign in existance that is perfect, peace,
Yes; existence itself. It is eternal, immutable, and infinite. See my "Prince James Argument for the Existence of God" thread.
The whole human experience is rather interesting. There is so much perception right here and now, but for some reason we seek for more. Simply being might be what we overlook in our search?
-It's snowing and you helped to your friend with your snow truck. That's good, but your friend have a 3 neighbors, should I said you will have a 5 minutes of work to help them, but you didn't. Well it was good for a friend who cares about neighbors. This is the good of this world today and nothing else if you ask me.
Okay, but that this is what it is to you doesn't really negate the concepts of good or perfect in cases where they do not at all relate to you or your opinion. So stating that they don't exist is flatly incorrect. They do, at least to someone who isn't you. Perhaps you might infer from your denial of them that there is a flaw in your own perspective. My comment "good, that's perfect", was intended to directly demonstrate what I see as the flaw in your thinking.
I think that's a strange perspective of perfection. Anthropomorphized even. Even so, I don't think that any of those are necessarily detrimental to life in the human form. If they were all there was, then I would agree. It seems to me however that human life thrives best under a mix of stability and diversity, help and self-reliance, harmony and discord. Life is somewhere in between. This makes no sense because instability, flux and disharmony can only be defined within the context of life. As such, life itself cannot be a reaction against something it defines. IMO, this error nullifies the analysis that follows, though of course there is some nice poetic something about it, perhaps reflective of your character. That's an interesting thought I suppose. From any certain perspective it is always right now. Thus now is in some sense, the moment the universe came to be and always will be. But to that any perspective, the moment the universe came to be is the moment ego epiphanized. The notion that the unity preceding the moment of universal expansion lingers and makes the mind return to it - however, shaky at best - as there are any number of minds, apparently including your own who to not at all need or desire this type of unity, which you have innappropriately labeled "detrimental to life in all its forms". Let me offer this: For anything we might want to call perfect in the sense you describe it, does not such a state require analysis to determine its status? Could we not redefine the criteria for stability, harmony or self-reliance in a way that fully supports or rejects any of the three, simply by changing perspective? If I look at a penny in my pocket, at what level of perspective do I call it stable? Macro, micro, sub-atomic? Do you think at the sub-atomic level stability would be as easily justified as at the macro-view? If you hand that penny to a random person and ask if it's stable, do you think every human on the planet would assume a perspective that justifies a positive answer? Meh. I just feel like bullshitting about this so I am. Lol. I know you're just yanking on chains here, as you haven't the capacity for more, but I feel like responding to this stuff at the moment so color me hamsterish. Again I think applying notions such as harmony (only definable within the context of life) to that which necessarily lies beyond life is quite flawed, no? I wish your avatar was available as a smiley to put in posts, as it seems appropriate here. I'll just leave this statement at: I find that a dubious statement. The mind doesn't own its awareness to anything. It simply is and at this moment, cannot be any other way. Does not "created" imply intention? And why would a result of chaos be created to cope with chaos? Why would chaos need to be coped with and thus, create mind to do so? Again, the notion of chaos is only definable from mind, and as such cannot be rationally applied outside that context as you have.
