If ya gonna do it, do it big
All in
2 Likes
Who gets you. One moment it’s important to define the words you use, the next it’s all ephemeral metaphysics.
It IS important. Thats why i am asking you to do it so we can see where the mismatch is.
Other than that, why are you placing the blame on me for metaphysical concepts which have no solid definitions in the first place?
Whats next? Should i give you god’s ID, social security number, address, phone number and dna profile before i start to talk about it?
I hope you can at least accept the fact that some concepts have broad definitions.
Which btw i did define, you just dont seem to understand what i am talking about.
Nah ah.
You brought the words up, and made a thread around them. So you define them.
I hate to bring Ptolemy up again, but if the state of your concepts is that you are writing this about them, maybe you need to reassess.
Some ineffable metaphysical thing with no solid definition?
Sounds like broken concepts. I don’t even think out of lack of clarity of what you think they are. I think they are torn apart by the contradictions and paradoxes that they inevitably hold for the intelligent, like an analysis of an orbit with Ptolemaic physics, a simple thing that requires a volume of quick fixes and caveats and addendums until it’s inscrutable, unweildy, ineffable metaphysics.
You know, and all.
1 Like
I did define them. Except you do not understand what i said, so where does that leave me?
Can you be at least specific? What is it that you dont get?
The issue is that you are not being specific. You are lamenting that metaphysical concepts exist but you refuse to offer any meaningful or specific criticism of the topic.
Sounds like broken concepts? How on earth would you know that without even understanding the concept? You know what that sounds like instead? Sophistry.
But how can I understand it when it’s:
That’s too much for a rigorous philosophic mind. I need, if not a succinct definition, a coherent and exhaustive exposition. Not vague allusions, not disjointed affirmations. A clear, distinct notion.
1 Like
I’ll take the first step, fine.
Forgetting what good or bad refer to, they are certainly a polarity regarding what is objectively desireable, and what is not.
What is good? What is bad?
1 Like
Good is absolute (God). Unsure about evil, maybe it is absolute too (e.g. the Devil).
Since nukes entered this world, people have subliminally unseated God. Especially in USA. It’s all relative now, and beliefs are a melting pot, a brunch menu, sometihng commestible to business commuter.
1 Like
You are telling me that you are incapable of understanding metaphysical concepts….?
Then you should be probably doing chemistry instead of philosophy…? Not trying to be personal or mean here, i just literally fail to understand the concept behind entering a field that will perpetually fail to meet your expectations.
Doesnt matter how i define good. If i move it from metaphysical to physical, it will clash with other areas.
I can say that good is the incentive behind the dopamine reward system of the brain which can be found in nearly all life in similar fashion, but what would that have to do with the moral and ethical concept of good?
You are casually asking me to define something with physical, chemical precision, over which both philosophers and scientists argued for several millennia.
A universal definition for this concept does not exist and cannot exist. The closest you can come to it is by referencing it in opposite of its negatives. The lack of need. The lack of suffering. The lack of destruction.
Good is the absence of all that is bad.
And the problem is that the absence of all that is bad is poison to life.
1 Like
By all means, im just having no idea at all how to respond to this lol
He is also correct that i am prioritizing definitions. I do. Several threads derailed over each talker just taking a completely different interpretation of a word.
But that does not mean that there arent metaphysical concepts that you cant nail down with material and mathematical precision. Does it?
1 Like
Those that only think of things in terms of materialism do not do well in terms of metaphysics or the esoteric.
A true mental philosophical wizard masters all three forms of thinking, perceptions, and understanding.
Actually, it has met and exceeded them.
So what I’m trying to tell you.
Just work the idea and make it clearer. There’s value to that.
1 Like
I am not against that sentiment.
There is just a limit to what can be done.
I think this is one case where “metaphisical” is being used as a scapegoat.
It’s good to satisfy hunger and it’s good to be non violent. Contradiction. Ah but it’s a mismatch with the metaphysical. Or is it a wrong concept?
It’s bad to be self serving. It’s bad to starve. Contradiction. Ah but etc.
I just don’t buy it.
In the case of this discussion, what I am debating is not the meaning of the words good and bad. I am debating the accuracy of what it is said they point to. The definition is the same, but the application is, as I see it, faulty.