Ehem
" . . . everything that exists, accordingly, is good, inasmuch as it possesses some grade of reality value, but (Augustine returns to his relativity principle) not everything is equally good. [For him] the goodness of anything can be looked at from two angles: a being can "suit" or "befit," can be "good for." "
So, a being can be good in two senses:
1) as a shoe fits someone's foot
2) a being can be good in and for itself
" ... Augustine calls this latter kind of goodness "beauty." Contemplate the entire panoply of realities now, he is telling us, and you will find things that may not be good "for" you- mosquitos, say, or scorpions- but you will find nothing that is not good "for" some other being (the male for the female scorpion, for instance), and nothing that is not beautiful, good in and for itself, in some measure or other: how elegantly, for instance, the mosquito is structured! "
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...
So, a being can be good in two senses:
1) as a shoe fits someone's foot
2) a being can be good in and for itself
" ... Augustine calls this latter kind of goodness "beauty." Contemplate the entire panoply of realities now, he is telling us, and you will find things that may not be good "for" you- mosquitos, say, or scorpions- but you will find nothing that is not good "for" some other being (the male for the female scorpion, for instance), and nothing that is not beautiful, good in and for itself, in some measure or other: how elegantly, for instance, the mosquito is structured! "
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...
posted by Velvet at 6:59 PM
6 Comments:
i post this for debate and consideration because ever since metaphysics at christendom the idea of the ontological beauty of a mosquito has bothered me...in fact holly i think this is the book o'herron got his notes from :D
re:ergo sum's first response, in that reflection which dismisses the good within the bad, so to speak, the only rebuttal which i may preach of, is this:
"it is but a matter of from which angle we look at it, from the whole, or from within; should all things be connected and necessary for the whole's existence and we assume existence to be good, then all things must be good on some level...if we assume that each thing is not necessary for existence and thus see the good and bad from within', then we shall see a multitude of varying perceptions regarding every thing, even the goodness of HIV; and, no argument may be made that it is immoral to deduce that HIV is a bad thing, for, it's like comparing the front view to the rear of things. then of course we have those other things, the ones that do not necessarily see existence as a good thing to begin with--to quote my favorite comedian, bill hicks:
"we are all one energy condensed to a slow vibration, subjectively experiencing ourselves in our imagination.""
peace n whatnot,
sean
thats it, battle it out kids haha i love it!
i'm not sure, ergo, that you read my complete response; it seems as though you got as far as seeing something you thought you disagreed with, copied, pasted, and ranted away...not that that is a bad thing...
i also wrote:
"then of course we have those other things, the ones that do not necessarily see existence as a good thing to begin with"
my intention was to communicate the idea which you have espoused here, that the judgment of "good," or "not good," is a thing subject to which angle you look at it from. that's all.
it appears that your main point is that things moral value is in relation to the observers' internal value system (to attempt to paraphrase it)...
which is fine...kewl...totally accepted...it is when individuals begin to impose upon others' their own internal perceptions/judgments that we come into conflict...
we're beginning to evolve a conversation which is revealing, in greater detail, what we meant to originally communicate--we're not yet in disagreement--
however, there seems to be some semblance of hypocrisy in what you say...i realize you're aware of the fact internal judgments will vary in gradation due to individuals' internal value system...you said in your first post that HIV was inherently bad, and that is the only "objective" judgment that can be made--this is false--
internally--i know i'm not going to make decisions which will lead to my self being infected with HIV, so, in the beginning of my analysis of the "good/bad" of HIV, i remain neutral in my judgment because it is presumed it will have no direct impact on me--
i examine things further and weigh my internal judgment of HIV, which is currently neutral, with another internal subjective judgment that most people are stupid assholes; then, i add that belief with the belief that all things are connected and, on some level, necessary for existence; that belief gets connected to the belief that there is some balance in existence and that nature creates and destroys things to ensure "her" own existence; all that gets tangled up in the belief that HIV is nature's way of balancing things which gets connected to the idea that most humans are stupid assholes who are gradually destroying nature which leads me to conclude that HIV is nature's way of eliminating its own version of cancer, the human species; and, being that i generally enjoy nature more than most human beings, in the end, i conclude, internally, that HIV's existence is a beautiful thing which will eventually make the whole of existence better...
the point is, it's all subjective, and the best thing we can do for ourselves is accept that fact; when we do, quite naturally, we begin to see all things as inherently good in some way, even if that means the only good thing we can obtain from its existence is a simple thing called a "lesson."
peace n whatnot,
sean
characterize generally all people with HIV as "stupid/assholes" and further attribute it to a mystical nature's way of getting rid of those unwanted's...
=========
the above was not my intention--->>>it takes less than a second to conclude that most people dieing from AIDS in third world countries are not at fault=theirs is more incidental than not...
i also did not intend to misrepresent your position; i did attempt to paraphrase your position in order to find out if i interpreted it correctly; really, i wasn't too far off--->>>as you noted, the error i made was in not noticing your differing views:
"between "VALUE" and "MORAL VALUE" -- the former can be in many instances subjective, the latter CANNOT subjective at all"
my rant re: how HIV can be viewed as a good thing included the description/generalization "stupid assholes" to demonstrate that the judgment was inherently subjective and not objective...my intent was to make a point, not to stereotype...
i still disagree on the idea that moral values are objective-->>
part of the point i was trying to make is this
1. humans generally, subjectively, value humans more than nature: this is a grave mistake which will only harm humans, nature will get along fine without us; if humans are highly adaptable creatures, mother nature, mother earth, are the supreme examples of adaptation
2. nature has her own mechanisms which are in place to maintain her existence--->>>humans are apart of that existence and will remain apart of it so long as nature doesn't see humans as a threat to her existence
3. it is arrogant for humans to assume that they're more valuable, morally or otherwise, than any other thing in existence
the result of creating a system of unshakeable "moral values" is prejuidace and, eventually, hypocrisy...though i'm not a fan of stupid assholes i would never wish HIV on anybody; however, HIV exists for a reason, one which we humans will probably never understand nor reconcile with our self-important natures...
hehe...i had to laugh to myself when you made mention of your desire to see nature wipe out specimens like me first--->>>this is a good example of the prejuidace created by perceiving "moral values" as objective things...i'd be willing to bet that if we were having this convo over coffee, getting to know one another, that you'd swiftly change your opinion of me: primarily because i think you'd find that our "values"-->>the moral ones--->>>are closer to each other than you think...
my subjective "moral value system" is centered, founded, on one idea:
all things have freedom to be/act/do as they please so long as they do not infringe upon another thing's freedom to be/act/do...
that idea tends to hold true in nature as well, and, nature seems to have her own reward/punishment system for things that go against that thought--->>i also tend to believe there are exceptions to every rule...
gawd damn...there's so much i'd like to say on this subject, but i don't wanna write a book in the comments section!!
the only real disagreement i have with what you're saying is the idea that moral values are objective; they're not at all; nobody MUST recognize that you value freedom as a moral right-->>anyone can choose to murder you at any time for any number of reasons that they may believe to be moral (think the christian crusades); and, to claim that you have the one true analysis which leads to the one true "objective" set of moral value judgments is righteously arrogant...
i was glad you chose to use freedom as your example in the end though, because, as a foundation for a human moral value system, i believe, too, that it works well; however, we've not yet perfected it. we have nothing like real freedom in america despite all the pride surrounding the idea that we do...
i just generally believe that if humans were to stop thinking of themselves as though they were "the human version of god" we'd be a lot better off and more inclined to create better systems, that's all.
i'll leave you with an example of moral values that are different than our american values on a profound level:
in the norther canadian provinces, inuit tribes have a long held tradition: when an elderly person gets to an age and physical state where they no longer feel they can benefit the society as a whole, when they can no longer work and contribute to the overall good of the community, they bid their final farewell by drifting off into the sea on an ice platform, they kill themselves...they just drift off into the unkown and do so believing it is a noble act, a selfless act meant to benefit the whole...
in america, we are so self-important (and fearful of death) that we spend billions of dollars much to the detriment of economy and standard of living, overall, in order to keep our elderly alive and kicking through drugs and expensive medical treatments...
another good contrast would be japanese culture where people will routinely commit suicide if they feel they have disgraced the family or failed to live up to expectations--->>the japanese actually have the highest suicide rate amongst college-aged citizens due to the tremendous pressure their culture puts on children to succeed---->>>but, to kill one's self for the better of the whole is considered an honorable thing, whereas, here, it makes you a coward...
generally, i believe that if you give people the freedom to do as they please, eventually, they'll make the "right" choices, so to speak; it's when we meddle with nature that we goof things up; it's when we allow ourselves the indulgence of labeling everything good and evil that we start destroying things arbitrarily, and, in the end, hurt ourselves more than we ever intended...
blah---that's all for now, we'll see where this goes and continue later...
peace n whatnot,
sean
i knew i was spelling that damn word wrong!!!
PREJUDICE
PREJUDICE
PREJUDICE
there, now i should have it...
lol..
peace..
Post a Comment
<< Home