>>24075210
Liebniz teaches us that these different goods are all just approximations. Some people have mostly accurate approximations of the good and others have terribly inaccurate approximations.

>>24075228
So Plato was wrong in saying that there is a same universal good desired by everyone?

>>24075243
If you are referencing your quotation from above then no, he is not saying that. Plato is only claiming that nobody desires after what they perceive as evil to themselves but instead as what they perceive as good.

>>24075250
If it's that subjective, then why does he call it "the Good", "Form of the Good" etc

>>24075256
I don't recall since I haven't read Plato in a while, but in this dialogue do they not bring up the contention that different persons desire different 'goods'? And Socrates argues through dialetic that the true good is what everyone seeks and needs in truth, but that some seek after false goods which they imagine as the true good. I do not recall; would you mind sharing the source of this excerpt?

>>24075243
The function of desire is the same, as Buddha tells us. Its the human conscious condition that which reifies the perceptual forms/objects and confuses those as real and chase for it

>>24075257
No problem, here it is: http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/philebus.html
I haven't read it yet. But I'm reading an Ennead (by Neoplatonism founder Plotinus) and there he says:

"(...) Now we should say what the nature of the Good is to the extent
that is appropriate for the present discussion. The Good is that upon
which all beings depend and that ‘which all beings desire’;4 they have it
as their principle and are also in need of it. (...)".

This footnote (4) is to Philebus. So that's why I read at least that excerpt of it.

>>24075210
Restart

>>24075268
Thanks for the interpretation, but I think it will be very hard to concile these two very opposite thoughts such as Platonism and Buddhism.

>>24075228
so after the raitnalists created out of thin air ''the good'' then they create out of thin air ''the approximation to the good'', only as a cope to salvage their idiotic fantasy of ''the good'''
wow those people are just like religious devout, incapable of admit their ideas are nonsensical, always clinging to some mental gymnastics to salvage their preposterous dogmas in face of contradiction

>>24075280
You mean, restart the text? I haven't read it full yet, see >>24075275.

>>24075275
From the text we read,
>The Good is that upon which all beings depend and that 'which all beings desire',
We see that there are quotations around the part which perplexes you. Notice that this isn't the case for
>...is that upon which all beings depend...
It is true that all beings depend on the good, but not all beings 'desire the good' because they aren't aware of the good as good.

>>24075299
Also, I forgot to add that every being does desire the good, but they don't know what the good is or have even though about it. They only think they know, but in reality, they might not know.

>>24075299
I don't get it, anon. I thought the quotation marks were just to reference Plato's text, not to give it a different (and opposite (?)) meaning.
>>24075303
But if they don't know the good, how could they desire something they don't even know?

>>24075285
Start. Restart.

>>24075330
What are you saying, anon?

>>24075243
to me it seems like Plato is emphasizing the role of reason in pursuing the good. everyone's goods are different, but reason is what makes attaining the good in each individual case coherent and feasible. reason is thus the universal good.

>>24075210
>How can everyone desire the good
>if people desire different and opposing things?
Remember the tripartiate soul? One part of the soul desires bodily pleasure and deems it the good. Another part deems fame and power the good. The last part of the soul deems Wisdom the good. The configuration of the soul varies from person to person and causes variations in the precise item desired.

Guess which part of the soul Plato thinks most valuable and purest good.

Also Im just spitballing, but that was the impression I got from the Republic years ago

>>24075319
I mean everyone desires health but they might not know what it is. They might think they know what health is, but in reality they only see an image of health but not health itself.
I am not sure what the quotations are for since I am not reading Plotinus' Enneads and so I go off what I think. This, however, was not a contradictory reading even if Plotinus just means to quote Plato's Socrates. Everyone desires the same good, but don't know it because they might have never analyzed it deeply before.
You are desiring knowledge or answers or something good, but if I ask you what the knowledge or the answer or the good is you might not know. You desire that we should tell you even though you yourself don't know what it is we are going to tell you. You just want the good though you don't know what that is

>>24075210
You can reach the same end through different means, i.e. individuals in this case. Plotinus identifies the Good with the One.

>>24075334
Start with the Egyptians.

>>24075338
>You are desiring knowledge or answers or something good, but if I ask you what the knowledge or the answer or the good is you might not know. You desire that we should tell you even though you yourself don't know what it is we are going to tell you. You just want the good though you don't know what that is
Yeah, but I just don't get how this good can be the same for every other person. Just because I don't know what it is, doesn't mean it's the same for everyone. It's like a mathematical indeterminacy like 0/0. It can be more than one thing.

>>24075358
nta but the good is good because all life desires it, but also because it is the good.

>>24075358
Meant for >>24075341 as well.
>>24075354
Got any recommendations?

>>24075361
Remains of the loyalist teaching and book of the dead.

>>24075364
Interesting. So are they related to Platonism or are you just mentioning them as philosophy in general?

>>24075366
Start.

>>24075358
>Yeah, but I just don't get how this good can be the same for every other person
Does it seem to you that there is a different essence written in every person's constitution, or does it seem to you that each one of us akin to one another in our essence? Could you give an example what you mean by,
>It can be more than one thing.
?

>>24075379
I think that even if we have the same essence, the things desired by each one of us can differ.
>Could you give an example what you mean by "it can be more than one thing"?
For example, the good for one person can include "be freed from prison", while for another person, it can mean "maintain that person in the prison".

>>24075401
>For example, the good for one person can include "be freed from prison", while for another person, it can mean "maintain that person in the prison".
But I think both person would agree that "being freed from prison" is a good; as in, being imprisoned isn't good. It might be just, and justice is good; but being wrongly imprisoned isn't just. And I am sure that both would agree that to "maintain that person in the prison" is a concession on the part of the jailor. That if it were otherwise, the jailor would rather free the prisoner and have him live rightly. To imprison someone is a punishment. The jailor responds with evil for evil, and this is done as a concession—not as a good but in the place of good.

>>24075210
good is a quality you can never capture it, logically

you could theoretically attempt to capture a being with that quality, but it makes you evil

ps btw
THE good? to what was plato referring the pre-existing "good", if not God him self.

if you could "know" God then you would teleologically know "the good". and dont mean one of the aeons.

tldr plato is like cancer: you hear one thing and he or one of his peers makes up ad hoc answers. spirits dont die. plato isnt god, no philosopher is god. by definition. why would God need to study and ponder what Love is.

>>24075433
>It might be just, and justice is good; but being wrongly imprisoned isn't just.
Who determines whether he was wrongly imprisoned?
>The jailor responds with evil for evil, and this is done as a concession—not as a good but in the place of good.
It wouldn't make sense to allow evil. Punishment, as all actions, is justified by being good. At least in theory.

>>24075438
>you could theoretically attempt to capture a being with that quality, but it makes you evil
I think that's what Plato did. Do you mind to elaborate in why it would make me evil?

>>24075366
People frequently mention the Egyptians because Pythagoras studied under them for many years but if anything Hegel says, the Egyptians knew nothing at all and Pythagoras actually taught them stuff like how to measure the pyramid’s height using a man’s shadow which is relatively easy to do.

Jesus Christ this thread is retarded. It's hammered over and over throughout the dialogues that some people desire what is not the good because they are mistaken about what the good is. That's why virtue knowledge is so important in Plato's view; you have to be able to identify the good in order to seek it.

Every dualistic system is a pathetic cope by terrified primates desperate to escape their own insignificance. These sniveling wretches, too weak to face raw existence, construct elaborate fairy tales about "good" and "evil," "right" and "wrong," like children clutching security blankets in the dark. What laughable arrogance - to think the cosmos gives a fuck about their manufactured moral categories and kindergarten ethics. Every prophet, priest, and ideologue peddling these simpleminded binaries is either a coward or a con man, selling comfortable lies to other cowards. The universe is not your nursery school morality play. It just IS - vast, uncaring, and utterly beyond your cute little categories. Those who need to divide everything into opposing teams reveal themselves as intellectual and spiritual infants, still sucking at the dried teat of dualistic delusion rather than facing reality in all its terrifying wholeness.

>>24076276
Socrates says it in the republic that what differentiates the philosophos from the typical person is he seeks after wisdom and truth AND also attains it much like how the philoinos is someone who tastes wine and enjoys it as well. They both aren’t merely seeking the truth but knowing it.

>>24076329
The wine passage is about desire, not simple attainment. They're talking about lovers of wisdom as equivalent to lovers of learning, so seeking is built in.

It’s simple OP. Everyone desires what’s good. Most people mistake something lesser for the true good but they’re still seeking the good. No one seeks the bad because if they thought it was bad they wouldn’t seek it by definition.

>>24076276
So why exactly does Plato say the opposite of that in the OP's excerpt and Plotinus even defines the Good as "that 'which all beings desire'"?
>>24076318
Define dualism?

>>24076636
But by that reasoning there would be more than one good, which is not the case in Platonism/Neoplatonism.

>>24076672
Nta but it's not the opposite. It's like half the thread has forgotten the distinction between apparent and real goods, it still holds that everyone pursues the good even while some number of those are mistaken about what's really good.

>>24076686
>>24076676

>>24076702
Again, doesn't hold, because you're confusing apparent and seeming goods with real goods. Plato’s claim is general enough to be reduced to "everyone is driven by the desire for what's good," and realistic enough to frankly acknowledge "many disagree about what those goods are." As >>24076276 said, this is discussed over and over in the dialogues. At some point one has to stop hopping up and down like a spaz over one passage in abstract, and read what else he says.

>>24075210
This sort of thing makes better sense if you use Peirce's monadic, dyadic, and triadic relations to work it all out.

>>24076707
>>24076707
When one says "the good", do you think they're talking about a fixed, universal thing, or a contingent, subjective thing? Because by what you're saying Neoplatonism wouldn't make any sense.
Also, the claim "everyone is driven by the desire for what's good" implies ONE fixed good.
>>24076716
Care to explain how? Because to me it breaks the point of Neoplatonism.

>>24076735
Kek, I thought that was you, Rouslan, terrible baiting, funny to see you fall for my own

>>24076741
What are you talking about?

>>24076676
Did you miss the part where I said most people are mistaken about the good? The argument I gave is boilerplate Neoplatonism lol

>>24076768
It's a contradiction to "seek something lesser than the true good (due to mistaking)" and "still seek the good".

>>24076777
No it isn’t. You need to study basic logic. I recommend the Organon. The good is sought per se, the less good is sought per accidens. If there was nothing ultimately desirable in human action it’d be incoherent, Socrates’ thesis is tautological. “But, like, what IS the good then and how d’ya KNOW it’s good?” lol this site is 99% pseuds.

>>24076816
>No it isn’t.
?
>The good is sought per se, the less good is sought per accidens. If there was nothing ultimately desirable in human action it’d be incoherent, Socrates’ thesis is tautological.
That doesn't even seem to counter what my point.
>“But, like, what IS the good then and how d’ya KNOW it’s good?” lol this site is 99% pseuds.
I'm not pretending to be an intellectual, I'm just trying to grasp the concept. And you didn't answer these questions.

>>24076816
He's baiting by pretending to be retarded, don't feed him

>>24076826
At this point I am inclined to believe that you are unable to understand simply because you are subconciously uncharitable resulting in an outward biased unperceivable to yourself; I do not mean to characterize you with ill-will however, so I will endeavour to explain nevertheless.
>It's a contradiction to "seek something lesser than the true good (due to mistaking)" and "still seek the good".
Nobody is seeking something lesser than the true good, everybody is seeking the true good; but through lack of reasoning, wisdom and knowledge they imagine the lesser-than-the-good as the actual good or as a way which inevitably leads to the good. They hope that the lesser-than-the-good will lead them to the good. However, since the the lesser-than-the-good is not the good, they ascend and arrive nowhere. They are still seeking the good but have no idea how to arrive at it. It is an innate desire to seek after the good which is why we seek it. But the good cannot be found simply by 'seeking' it. You need other tools as well since evil things seem to be good and good things might seem to be evil.

>>24075210
it's literally words, the greeks define "good" as that which is desirable. but their language also had a definite article and they spoke of "the good". enter two thousand years of bullshit coping

>>24076901
Thanks for not ignoring my question. I think I see my mistake in putting "seeking something lesser than the true good" in your words; I did it by mistake.
But now another doubt came to me:
Seeking isn't the same as wanting. The equation works fine when you use the word "seeking". It's true that "no one seeks the bad because if they thought it was bad they wouldn’t seek it by definition". But even seeking the good, it is possible that, because of their mistake, people would want the bad. They would commit the error in the process of seeking, and then, not finding the good, would erroneously consider another thing (let's say a bad thing) to be the good, and then would want it. Notice that they would be seeking the good, but would want the bad.
So by the way you phrased it, it made more sense to me than in the Philebus itself. Do you think it could be some translation issue or something like that?

>>24076925
Interesting, but see >>24077043.

Language games

>>24077056
>Seeking isn't the same as wanting
I don't care about arbitrary distinctions you made to try and make a certain statement true, the reality is unchanged. I already know what the reality is regardless of how you state it. So I won't waste my time trying to understand the verbal distinction you are making.

>>24077043
Yes, so Plato's Socrates already addresses this. People still desire the good; that doesn't mean they know what is good. It is immaterial whether what they currently imagine as the good is actually the good. They just need to desire it, and it is still true that they need the good even though they don't know what it is and even though they imagine something which is not the good as the thing they need. People are still seeking the good. Some are on the right path, others not. They want the good; it doesn't matter whether they label evil good because they think they have the good and that's what they want and seek.
>Notice that they would be seeking the good, but would want the bad.
They still imagine the bad as good. This doesn't mean they see the bad as it actually is—bad. They want the good and imagine something bad as good. Plato's Socrates argues that we need reason, knowledge and wisdom to get at the good lest we delude ourselves just as in our hypothetical scenario of a person imagining evil as good. This mean we question everything though not too skeptically.
Also, no I do not think there is a translation issue

>>24077103
Why are you angry with me?

>>24077125
you cant desire what you do not know. what you desire in this case is the fantasy of the object, build out of what you heard about this object from other stupid people who made it up

>>24077126
you referred me to a post which asked me to try and grasp a distinction which doesn't exist except in your own head, I'm not a mind reader

>>24077137
People know the good innately because people innately feel the good. They recognize good and evil, and consider it. Whether there is good and evil, or whether there isn't. People cannot comprehend the good, but they still know the good. Otherwise, why would they desire it? Why not as likely desire evil? But people desire what they imagine as good even it be evil. You spoke now, not because you desired evil but because you desired good. You didn't want to read what you imagined as lies (evil) and instead want what you imagine as truth (good).

>>24077125
I don't get it: how is desiring something imagined as the good the same as desiring the good? Please correct me I'm wrong, that's what I got of
>People still desire the good; that doesn't mean they know what is good. It is immaterial whether what they currently imagine as the good is actually the good.

>>24077150
Because whatever evil thing they imagine as good probably has characteristics of the good, so they imagine that specific object as the good. It would be easier if I asked you what you consider 'good things' and what you consider the good might encompass

>>24077170
>Because whatever evil thing they imagine as good probably has characteristics of the good
Why? And isn't an evil with characteristics of the good an oxymoron or something?
>It would be easier if I asked you what you consider 'good things' and what you consider the good might encompass
I confess that for me that's not easy to answer.

>>24077206
>Why? And isn't an evil with characteristics of the good an oxymoron or something?
I did not express myself correctly. I do not know how to say what I want to say, so I'll illustrate it instead: Pleasure is good; however, there are those who derive pleasure from wicked doings. Whether it be murder or torture or suffering, they derive pleasure from it and imagine murder or torture or suffering as good. Now, I do not know if this type of pleasure is the same type of pleasure one gets from being charitable, being loved or being content from an enterprise undertaken and succesfully accomplished. I cannot imagine it is since pleasure derived from wicked doings seem to originate from hate, unhappiness and discontentment with the things one has or doesn't have. I would imagine that good pleasure builds up and creates, and evil pleasure brings down and destroys. Seeing this, one can easily understand why someone would mistake evil for good since both contain pleasure, but these two pleasures are not equal.
>I confess that for me that's not easy to answer.
At this point, you need to focus on reading and asking yourself whether you believe good and evil to exist; and if good and evil do exist, what is good and what is evil. You need to teach yourself because nobody else is; people will just get impatient with you if you are unable to answer the question I asked you.

>>24075210
He’s wrong. It’s just a cope for the reality of evil and some people really do want to unbelievably wicked things.

>>24075210
goodness is being is intelligibility
evil is an imperfection in that being, the lack of it's essence being fully manifest

to desire something you have to:
have some understanding what it is which means having some idea of it's form, and it's form is knowable by the full expression of it's form.
If you want a dog you are thinking of a good instance of a dog, even if some particular dog has 3 legs, doginess as such is the structure that brings about 4.
The goodness of a dog is the actualization of it's form, you desire it in accord with that goodness to the extent that's the only sense in which the dog is at all intelligible.
You can't speak of anything specifically without reference to their form/good.

We have particular powers which have their own proper goods as well, taste, vision, digestion, etc.
When you desire something it's the proper good for some particular power. The pleasure associated with that is in itself good as well. Sexual pleasure is good.

You desire something by it's form/good/intelligibility, to the extent it's proper for your being/structure atleast in a partial way. So it's atleast in a partial way for your good as well.

The evil is introduced by not being considering and turning away from the good of other things:
eating bad food is pleasurable for your taste, but bad for your body as a whole. You act for the good of the particular, but in such a way where you aren't open to the good of the whole and are intentionally turning your will and intellect contrary to them. That's why it's evil. You are intentionally keeping your will and intellect from their proper ends for the sake of a lower good.
(meaning a good of a part of the person, rather than the good of the whole of the person. The good of the part of the person is dependent on the good of the higher for it's existence, it's lower in the sense of being dependent on the whole for it's being).

For things like hate, or willing bad things like a terrorist would, they are still acting for the sake of some good such as political order, justice, etc.
Again just like above they are intentionally preventing their intellect and will from grasping the whole of it's object and in doing so it's evil because of the lack of comprehensiveness they are intentionally maintaining.

it's all just metaphysics.

>>24077962
yikes

File: Le Jugement de Salomon.png (1.22 MB, 994x1008)

1.22 MB PNG

>>24075210
>>Everything desires the good, and the good is the common goal for everything.
>For this reason, we often despise being, but not the good. The very people who bring about evil do not bring it about as evil, but as good; a doctor, for example, cuts the body when opening a vein, not with the intention of cutting but because he wants to heal. And a murderer commits murder, not because he desires murder [itself], but because he desires the gain for himself that results from it, which he considers good. Therefore everything desires the good, but either the real good or what is believed to be the good, <which is> not always good
because they have not aligned their logos properly either through weakness of intellect or morality.

>>24077222
I don't know if good and evil exist, but I normally associated evil with the generation of suffering, and good with the reduction or elimination of suffering. I'm reading the eight chapter of the first Ennead (On What Evils Are and Where They Come From) and so my intention was to understand the Platonic concept of good (which is referenced in the text right at the beginning) before I moved on to the next parts.

>>24077962
>For things like hate, or willing bad things like a terrorist would, they are still acting for the sake of some good such as political order, justice, etc.
>some good
So are there multiple goods? Because I'm talking about the universal good.

>>24078276
>Therefore everything desires the good, but either the real good or what is believed to be the good, <which is> not always good
Do you see a contradiction like I'm seeing?

>>24078912
fent is good because it feels good so now i live under a bridge in a pool of my own waste. good life.

File: 1683645370463238.jpg (31 KB, 375x375)

31 KB JPG

>>24075210
I think the best way to explain is to relate this to what Plato has to say about the differences between perceptibles and Forms in Phaedo (74a-c, Grube trans.):
>Consider, he said, whether this is the case: we say that there is something that is equal. I do not mean a stick equal to a stick or a stone to a stone, or anything of that kind, but something else beyond all these, the Equal itself. Shall we say that this exists or not?
>Indeed we shall, by Zeus, said Simmias, most definitely.
>And do we know what this is?—Certainly.
>Whence have we acquired the knowledge of it? Is it not from the things we mentioned just now, from seeing sticks or stones or some other things that are equal we come to think of that other which is different from them? Or doesn’t it seem to you to be different? Look at it also this way: do not equal stones and sticks sometimes, while remaining the same, appear to one to be equal and to another to be unequal?—Certainly they do.
>But what of the equals themselves? Have they ever appeared unequal to you, or Equality to be Inequality?
>Never, Socrates.
>These equal things and the Equal itself are therefore not the same?
>I do not think they are the same at all, Socrates.
Later on (74d-75b), Socrates explains that this case of the Equal is also the same for the other Forms, such as the Beautiful, the Just, and the Good - that all people have an innate understanding of these concepts due to his (Plato's?) belief in Knowledge as Recollection (people existed among the Forms before their generation in the material world, which is where we derive prior knowledge of such concepts) however the instantiations of these Forms in the material world are deficent examples because they are able to be perceived differently from what us actually the case. Living in the material world we are not able to come to true knowledge of what these Forms are except through philosophy which in turn results in people coming to incorrect conclusions due to their deficiency in understanding as a result of only seeing and thinking about people and things in the material world, all of which are imperfect examples based upon an eternal model. Hence, there are different and varying understandings of what is Good that are opposed to each other in the material world. This is just how I understand it, a lot of this is derived from Nicholas P. White's article "Plato's metaphysical epistemology." Ya can probably find it on libgen in the Cambridge Companion to Plato.

Bump.

>>24080826
Thanks for saving the thread.
>>24079405
>however the instantiations of these Forms in the material world are deficent examples because they are able to be perceived differently from what us actually the case.
>Living in the material world we are not able to come to true knowledge of what these Forms are except through philosophy which in turn results in people coming to incorrect conclusions due to their deficiency in understanding (...)
Exactly. My issue is that Plotinus' definition of the Good as "that which everyone desires" implies that each person actually accesses the actual Form of the Good itself. And this is not true. Is this conclusion of mine (of the implication in the neoplatonic definition of the Good) wrong anyhow?

>>24078907
Rational action resolves into the universal good when you do it well, like I said you aren't intentionally frustrating your understanding, but we all have fairly limited understanding.
We rationally act for some particular good but if we have a full understanding of what's involved that makes the good (Being/actuality) more manifest in the things involved.
"the universal good" is the source of our being, and the being of the object. It's not something we desire in some abstract sense it's the realization of our being/structure with the structure/being of the object.

File: zenos hand.png (496 KB, 1920x1080)

496 KB PNG

>>24075210
Because everyone desires the genuine Good from the base of the primordial nature of All things. This is then misinterpreted by peoples ignorance and manifest in ways which do not lead them to the ultimate good.

Notice the implication is merely that of the innate primordial drive, and not of the proper expression of such towards its desired object.

Epictetus explains a lot about things like this if you look at his teachings.

Divine desires manifest through the filters of our lack of understanding or our unevolved capacity to properly express or fulfill them, and thus we yearn divinely but we express or understand wrongly.

>>24080879
How does rational action for a particular good "resolve" into the universal good? And why is the universal good the source of our being/the being of the object? Seems like a few steps in reasoning were skipped.

File: Screenshot at 2025-01-02 (...).png (283 KB, 1920x1080)

283 KB PNG

>>24075210
A philosophical truth is that people actually do not ultimately "desire different and opposing things" they merely express the singular divine desire for the True Good in the way in which they have come to understand it and from which point they are at in there evolution to attempt to express and attain it.

Another thing that leads people off the path of the True Good is that people try to attain the fruit of their being (the Good) before they are capable to fruit, and thus its manifested as things which are not the True Good. People try to force base consolations and pleasurable habits as the True Good because its the True Good which provokes them in the search for itself, but ultimately men discover that those things are not the genuine object of their desires, albeit that they found them when provoked by that genuine object within them.

People find all sorts of things on the path of the "hunt after good" because that "hunt" is the entire scope of our life as we know it, and we evolve through the failure and trial of repeatedly determining what is and is not The True Good.

>>24075210
>How can everyone desire the good
Why would anyone desire anything else? What else is there to desire? Evil for the sake of evil?

File: epictetus.jpg (443 KB, 1992x992)

443 KB JPG

>>24080926
Based and red pilled. God bless you brother.

File: Discourses_-_Epictetus_il(...).jpg (418 KB, 1478x1126)

418 KB JPG

>>24080910
NTA so ill leave it to them to answer the first question, but I will say you can not be taught the answer to the later question through philosophical argument brother, you must know The Genuine Good as the Source of All Being through the raw concious experience of it. You can not be philosophical argued into knowing yourself as Microcosmus, you can only come into the proper awareness of it by experiencing it.

This is one of the things people like Socrates, Diogenes, and Epictetus were trying to teach us and they were completely right.

>>24080928
No place for evil in the universe.

>>24080910
If you want to find the place where Man might be so blessed to verify the observable fact that the universal good is the source of our being/the being of the object you will have to turn to the Book of Nature and the Book of Life in order to find it. The argument is presented in these better than any Philosopher is able to. But after you find the proof there, then you will see why it is evident as Socrates said, but you will not be apt to see if first in Socrates and then in Life unless you are exceedingly blessed.

>>24080947
"When a raven happens to croak unluckily, don't allow the appearance hurry you away with it, but immediately make the distinction to yourself, and say, "None of these things are foretold to me; but either to my paltry body, or property, or reputation, or children, or wife. But to me all omens are lucky, if I will. For whichever of these things happens, it is in my control to derive advantage from it."

File: diogenes-podcast_82a22aa6(...).jpg (396 KB, 1280x1011)

396 KB JPG

>>24080947
Even when one of Socrates Disciples cried at his feet and said unto him "But Socrates, the worst part of all, is to have to see you killed unjustly!" It is said that Socrates (God bless the Man, with tears in my eyes) looked at him warmly with a smile and put his hand lovingly on the youths head and said "My child, would you rather have I been put to death unjustly?".

Thus demonstrating that all was a benefit to him, and it was merely the way in which such was understood that caused such a great impact on mens thoughts, feelings, and actions.

What the young Disciple saw as an impediment and a misfortune was actually the key to Socrates seeing a God given Grace for himself. The contrast of this is what deigns a True Philosopher from a Sophist, or in this case just a young Philosopher who has not yet reached understanding in this regard.

These Men have blessed us friends. God bless Socrates and Stoicism and Cynicism, truly life changing and saving stuff.

>>24080910
every particular existing thing is a "restriction" of the good as such, goodness is being is form, the very structure of all existing things is a manifestation of the universal good under some restricted/focused aspect.

By willing your good, and the good of the other objects around you are willing the good as such be manifest.

Accurately understanding what things are is essentially being able to distinguish their Good (a restricted form of the good as such) from imperfections preventing that good from being manifest. (Knowing what doginess is in reference to a dog and being able to see what is sort of universal about it's structure and how that relates to what is particular about it)

You choosing to act well in relation to a dog is you
>understanding your own structure and how the good is manifest through you
>understanding the structure of the dog and how the good is manifest through it
>choosing to act in such a way that it makes your good, and the dogs good more manifest
This is how moral action is tied to the height of human nature, knowing and loving the Good. As particularly existing things that are particular manifestations of the good as such, we come into better harmony with it by manifesting it through our being which manifests it through other beings and helps us to know and will to bring it about. (this is why you hear people say divine love is willing the good of the other, it's relating to things under the aspect of their formal structure which just is some particular restricted manifestation of the good as such or pure actuality)

The proper end of the will then is the good as such, just as the proper end of the intellect is truth which is the same thing as the good just in different relation to us.

That's kind of the main thing, the structural intelligible aspect of things just is the extend to which they are shaped by a restricted form of the good as such. Willing the good and doing the moral thing is basically willing with the full understanding of what things are. The immoral action is basically disharmonious willing of the good where rather the "Good as such" (the good as it underlies all particular goods). There's a fundamental harmony with moral action that moral good brings about and moral evil is contrary to.

To know something absolutely would involve somehow knowing the form of the good itself.

Coming at it from the other side might be helpful, with the idea of divine simplicity where the good is itself not composed and sort of a pure expression of what it is to be, the the extent we speak of it knowing and creating is it knowing and willing itself.

The most absolute form of knowing is understanding the very nature of what it is to be as such, and the most absolute form of willing is willing that and basically creating all of reality. What we are doing is a pale imitation of that but it's still as I said above what we are doing in just a restricted form.

>>24080870
It doesn't imply that because Plotinus is fully aware of how many people fall short of actually understanding the Good itself. His statement is no different than Aristotle's at the start of NE.

Good thread so far.

>>24080879
>It's not something we desire in some abstract sense
What do you mean by that? Because Plotinus seems to define the universal good in this exact way.
>>24080907
>Because everyone desires the genuine Good from the base of the primordial nature of All things.
But how do they do so if they don't even know this "Good from the base of the primordial nature of All things"?
>>24080922
>they merely express the singular divine desire for the True Good in the way in which they have come to understand it and from which point they are at in there evolution to attempt to express and attain it
But if each person has come to understand True Good in a different way, and they desire these understandings, so they desire different things, no?
>>24080926
It's a fact that people want opposing things. That happens everytime people disagree on anything.
>>24081187
>It doesn't imply that because Plotinus is fully aware of how many people fall short of actually understanding the Good itself.
The definition seems not very well phrased then. How can someone desire what they don't understand?
>His statement is no different than Aristotle's at the start of NE.
Yes. I always found it a bad definition to consider the good "that which all things aim". That would (formally) imply murder aiming at some good.

Rouslan's getting to be as bad as Tweetophon or /rhet/ anon

>>24082041
Who is Rouslan?

>>24075228
So you can't pick a side so you play neither and call it chance or approximation

You're confusing the method of attaining pleasure with the pleasure itself.

>anon1 enjoys vanilla ice cream and derives pleasure from it (a general form of good)
>anon2 enjoys chocolate ice cream and derives pleasure as well

It’s not about the type of ice cream, what’s inside it, or even how your brain is wired to value. it’s not about the specific subjective valuation, but the value in itself. The objective good exists in each person’s mind after completing a task in a given context. Both people experience pleasure (or good), but they get there through different means. there is a good beyond the context of things.
the good doesn't exist in the icecream, nor in your neurological construct that makes you value in a certain way, but the pure positive that your mind gets or generates. good without context.

>>24082451
To add to that, the taste of either ice cream is not the pure form of good it’s a complicated, impure manifestation of it, shaped by various factors.

The closest we come to experiencing pure good might be through something like opiates, which directly stimulate pleasure centers in the brain. However, there could be superior ways to achieve this, especially if the practices of Buddhist shamans hold any truth in their methods for transcending ordinary experiences of pleasure.

this complicated impure form is subjective. but we all inherent from the ultimate good.

>>24081942
>But how do they do so if they don't even know this "Good from the base of the primordial nature of All things"?
Because to sense is and to know it are two different things. They dont have to understand the desire or even to have properly identified its nature in order to experience it, and very profoundly at that.

>But if each person has come to understand True Good in a different way, and they desire these understandings, so they desire different things, no?
No, they express the same root desire in a myriad of manners which are "sins", because what a "sin" really is is explained by the origin of the term. To sin in archery means to miss the mark, and sin exists when our genuine root desire for the good is fallen short in our attempt to actualize such a thing, and we fail to actualize it accurately by a lack of our understanding in regard to the manner in which to direct our desire so that its actualized in the manner that we so desire and not carved off into another result which in this case we do not really desire but come under a false conviction that we due as a result of misinterpreting our own innate yearnings.

>>24082476
People experience things all the time, that they do not know what they are and come to radically incarcerate interpretations about. Socrates and the True Philosophers taught us that among the misunderstandings men commonly suffer from it is the misinterpretation and misappropriation of the roots of human nature and existence that are the greatest banes of mankind. To feel the drive that the Good has within all Men drives them to do all things, but to not know the nature of such and to hold false convictions about it making certain that such men will never attain to their desired object is more often caused by a lack of understanding rather than a lack of ability.

>>24082483
Sorry typo
>radically inaccurate interpretations about.****

>>24075282
To reconcile these things would give greater understanding and wisdom. Even though it can only be done to a certain degree. I do not think it was an improper argument to mention how this corresponded to Buddhist conceptions. Stoic or Buddhist both were on a path towards very similar ends and learned similar things about the nature of being.

>>24076318
I agree with the spirit of what you wrote, but at the end of the day we're stuck with our pathetic delusional minds that enforce and isolate us into a fractal prison from ultimate reality.
great, Zeus and ego are both fictions, a ridiculous distortion of reality, but they are still real because my retard brain wants them to be and "I" have no control. and then there is pain...

>>24082065
A dipshit poster who inadvertently confirmed for me that I have em dead to rights lmao

>>24082451
>>24082468
Pleasure cannot be considered as the good, anon. That's because, as you pointed out, there are multiple types of pleasure (while there is only one type of good). So just because there is pleasure involved in two different activities, it doesn't mean that both are good.
>>24082476
>>24082483
>Because to sense is and to know it are two different things. They dont have to understand the desire or even to have properly identified its nature in order to experience it, and very profoundly at that.
So how is it that they sense the Good?
>they express the same root desire in a myriad of manners which are "sins", because what a "sin" really is is explained by the origin of the term. To sin in archery means to miss the mark (...)
But it's these sins, these approximations to the "mark" that they desire, right? Which are multiple, different things. Socrates said that they would desire the Good itself, not approximations of it.

>>24082828
its weird when you walk into a thread you havenot posted in, on a board you havenot interacted with in a while because of the f**king 900 sec wait time only to have people talking about you for no reason when youre not even there

who the hell are you??? and whats your deal with me

im not even a poster or a thing or a namefag or whateer... why you are using my name everywhere in the catalogue when im not even there... you look for me im here what do you want

>>24081073
First of all, fantastic reply.
>every particular existing thing is a "restriction" of the good as such, goodness is being is form, the very structure of all existing things is a manifestation of the universal good under some restricted/focused aspect.
Is this a presumption that good = being? Would that imply that destruction is automatically bad? That seems to be a bit extreme. Individual things might be worth destroying to benefit the Good as such. What about when two beings clash in a lesser way that doesn't necessarily involve destruction?
>This is how moral action is tied to the height of human nature, knowing and loving the Good. As particularly existing things that are particular manifestations of the good as such, we come into better harmony with it by manifesting it through our being which manifests it through other beings and helps us to know and will to bring it about. (this is why you hear people say divine love is willing the good of the other, it's relating to things under the aspect of their formal structure which just is some particular restricted manifestation of the good as such or pure actuality)
This is a very interesting exposition but it seems to both rely on that presumption of being = good I pointed out earlier (suppose that evil, or some neutral force, is the default mode of being!) while also being susceptible to the problem of indeterminate being (so much being lies in potentiality which makes it difficult to serve as a guide).

I also sense that you are a big fan of Socrates's claim that evil is only done through ignorance. Do you also believe it's possible to knowingly will evil? What do you think of the medieval doctrine of transcendentals (being, unity, beauty, truth, etc.)? Finally, what do you think of Schelling? I feel like you would appreciate his work on good and evil a lot.

>>24083584
Yeah the goodness being "convertible" with being and truth is a sort of standard medieval idea.
The idea is basically that the fundamental thing, being, oneness, existence, goodness, truth, are all just different frames of reference for the same underlying thing which is most fundamentally being.
A good example is if you just think of the being of a Dog, a dog with only 3 legs is in some sense not a "true" dog, as it's an imperfect instance of the dog nature.
If you think of a wild rabid dog, an evil dog, viciously attacking it's own pack members or owner or something, that is also not a "true" dog or a "good" dog. But each thing fundamentally means the same thing.
It gets into the sort of fundamental metaphysical structure of what a thing is...
Basically you have the essence and act of existence, the "what a dog is" and it's fundamental act of existing/being. The act of existence is the sort of "good itself" creating the good of things, but it's restricted to be in accord with the Dog essence.
From there that actualizes in some particular matter with the particular form of that dog.
So goodness as such, restricted to be in the form of the Dog essence, becomes a fundamental part of the structure of the Dog and gives it existence and it's formal structure which make it inclined to be good in the way a dog is good.

This is kind of the key thing, if absolute goodness underlies everything, all beings to the extent they exist, and are intelligible, are a reflection of that goodness (being a restricted form of it).
Evil is a lack of reflecting that goodness and it can be physical (missing an eye) or moral (intentionally acting contrary to it).

The reason willing evil as such is not possible, is intelligibility itself is a quality of goodness. Having a formal structure is what goodness provides, and you cannot will something if it is not intelligible.

As to having the default mode of being being netural or evil or something, it's just hard for me to understand what that would mean.
It would have to mean that somehow things had no formal intelligible structure (which is well, not a intelligible idea), or that having a formal intelligible structure is neutral or evil. But must not whatever is structured have parts that manifest that structure, such that they are good for it?
as is clear I'm a big fan of the medeival approach to transcendentals and it's pretty fundamental to how I see things.
>Would that imply that destruction is automatically bad?
The tragedy of existence/a fallen world. Most greek tragedy is about this, but I think the illiad itself is the best example.
>Shall I tell you the secret of the whole world? It is that we have only known the back of the world. We see everything from behind, and it looks brutal. That is not a tree, but the back of a tree. That is not a cloud, but the back of a cloud. Cannot you see that everything is stooping and hiding a face? If we could only get round in front—

>>24083429
Imagine pretending you aren't on 4chan like every other day for hours authoring multiple threads. "It's not me, I totally just wandered into this thread just now" lmao it's always you nigga.

>>24083999
Anon, stop harassing him. I'm here. The only posts I've made in this thread are: >>24075336, >>24080910, and >>24083584. This is getting ridiculous, and it's time to put an end to this.

First question. Who are you, and what do you want from me? Second, why are you harassing random people and derailing random threads? Third, why do you think I'm Russian?

>>24075256
Plato believed that 'the Good' was the ultimate principle, illuminating the world of Forms and guiding philosophers in understanding reality and living virtuously in harmony with oneself and society.
Essentially, if you seek goodness, you'll naturally come to a life in which you feel satisfied.

>>24083945
So, if actually willing evil is impossible, then what is evil in practice?

>>24084035
the absence of good

>>24084075
But if good is being, and evil is the absence of good, then evil is the absence of being. And what is the absence of being? Nothing. So evil is nothing. That's basically saying that there is no evil.

>>24084035
Basically just a particular good willed ignorant of or contrary to higher goods

Eating badly is choosing to eat and taste pleasure, in itself a good thing rooted in your power of eating but if you choose to do so while not considering the good of the whole body it is evil.

It's the sort of lack of harmony of goods, good moral action is generally harmonious at least partially. You are mindful of your nature, and the nature of the thing you are in context of and see how it is the good of both the things involved.

An interesting example might be a soldier fighting. A good soldier could perceive his being, his involvement with his nation and other soldiers on his side, as well as the being of the enemy but see his good and the good of his people as part of his own nature as higher and pursue that by ending the lesser good of the foreign combatant. That would be a good act.

A bad version would be say a soldier who say is just caught up in the vibe and hates the other country and their people, and when they come upon some enemy civilian women in the barn they indulge the good of their own sense pleasure, the good of their army by scaring/horrifying the other army, and their own sense of justice which again those might all be of themselves good. Failing to consider the good of his own being, as a human being, as well as the good of the civilians though and the harm he is doing to himself and them, without any real justification (it primarily being rooted in some base desire), makes it evil.

It's kind of what socrates said with evil being rooted in ignorance, but it's not just simple ignorance. If you are a base vicious person you can habitually make it so it's basically impossible for you to consider the other goods in context, which gets it into moral vs physical evil of how culpable you are for the moral evil.

The whole trolley problem is kind of about this, that was invented for bioethics for abortion.
The idea there is two sort of approaches, you can intend primarily to kill the baby, which is evil, or primarily intend to save the mother, incidentally killing the baby.
In the later case the good of the mother, and the good of the baby are both considered and saving the life of the mother at the cost of possibly killing the baby is seen as justified. In the one the good you are seeking of factors in the different involved goods, but even doing the exact same things for different intentions can make it evil.

If your desire is just to kill the baby for some lesser good (liberty, individual desires/passions) then it's evil.
It's sort of being wise or a good rational moral agent is being mindful of the goods of the things involved, and acting such that your good and the good in the thing in question is most manifest to the extent it can. Obviously there are some times when there is no clear answer.
Choosing a lesser good to the loss of a greater one is basically what evil is though. (i dont care about health cake tastes good)

>>24083999
Okay you caught me, I'm rouslan. I've actually posted every single post in this thread, including yours.

>>24075210
Well, because good as a concept inherently entails desirability.
I think your problem may have been that you imagined that by good they mean the same good. Of course they also talk about The Good, but that's something else.
Now I do think that the reasoning is a bit flawed.
But whatever.

>>24084390
nice try nigga, you stick out like a sore thumb. gonna cry?

>>24084543
please stop dude just leave me alone

>>24084549
you shit up every thread you turn everybody against you you necro threads and you crash out like a little bitch all the time just end it

>>24084638
please stop... you dont know waht im going through right now im just trying to be relax andp ost

>>24084656
ok ill show mercy this time... lol but i'll find you again muahahaha

>>24084032
Exactly: it's not a subjective thing.

>>24075250
>Plato is only claiming that nobody desires after what they perceive as evil to themselves but instead as what they perceive as good.
That's not what Socrates is saying, though. He says that everyone desires after the good itself, and here lies my problem with it.

>>24080926
>What else is there to desire?
Power

>>24084081
good is therefore it lives; evil is not therefore it perishes

Bump.

>>24075210
Some mix of slave morality and mimetic desire

Basically humans tyrannize each other by pretending to be increasingly moral until it climaxes and they start killing each other for a while instead

Everyone is a bankrupt full of shit motherfucker

Its just politics I guess, deny the monkey mind while fully engaging in it until it boils over

>>24084384
If there is no such thing as evil then there is no such thing as lesser or greater goods. That's the problem. It's all being therefore it's all good. There is no method or measure without the worse (aka the evil).

>>24081073
reminder that nobody ever experience this dogmatic ''good'' rationalists have been talking about and went into mental gymnastics after being told so

I'm waiting for some answers but I don't know if people will reply to them at this point.

>>24085730
No in a couple ways, some I think you will agree with, some I think you might not:
The good of parts is inferior to the good of the whole. The part only has it's existence in reference to the whole so it's good/structure needs to be seen in reference to the whole.
That's sufficient to give most of the human moral stuff.

Another aspect would be sort of the individual/particular aspect as I said. You as a particular existing individual have certain attachment and obligations to other particular individuals. You owe part of your existence to your parents, to your nations, etc. Treason and betraying your nation is bad because it's contrary to your good as well as the good of the nation.
In this sense from the actor, acting for his nation is a higher more harmonious good than acting for another nation. In that in conforms to the other beings he is in relationship with.
That doesn't mean the other nation's order isn't good, just that it's not something the actor as directly participates in and as a rational agent he has to put his will towards his own good as he is in relation to other things.

Also there is just the hierarchy of being.
A human is just better than a rock and God is better than a human. There's probably some good arguments for this but it seems kind of pointless to argue for, if someone views themselves equal to a piece of shit I wouldn't bother arguing with them.

>>24086369
We have to go beyond mere beings, then, to speak about good and evil. More being is good. Less being is bad. (Both in terms of the whole, of course). Evil then becomes a relation, intent, direction, and/or goal.

Now, whether relations, directions, intents, etc., are beings in themselves is another story. But I think we now have a better framework to play around with now. What do you think?

>>24086385
So you have to make clear the distinction between moral evil and existential/physical evil.

There is evil in the sense of a rational agent not knowing and choosing the good, which would be moral evil.

There is the sort of other sense of evil that is more just about the expression of a particular things essence being manifest or not (think of a sick tree vs a healthy one).

These are analogous but for moral evil there is involvement of the moral agent, it's in some sense relative but in an absolute sense, in that it's a question of relationship between the agent and the good in question.
A father has a moral relationship with his children, and a moral relationship with children of his community. Ultimately all goodness and being is particular, since it is only manifest through particular individual substances.

With moral evil, the evil is just in the substance of the moral agent. You are kind of giving yourself a broken leg, you are intentionally breaking and messing up one of your standard functions. You should be able to see the good you share in with your children over and above children of your community or children of africa.
There is a sense in which their good IS your good, if your children are raised well and have good lives it's good FOR YOU, and is a better expression of your being.
It is extremely selfish in some sense, but selfishness with the context of the goodness underlying all being is not what people really think of in relation to it.
Moral agents acting well is about having their will, intellect, and parts in proper arrangement. It's not about "doing good things". It's literally about the formal structure of the being being expressed. When you choose to say shoot an innocent dog for no reason, it's not evil because you are breaking some rule, it's evil because in order to do so you have to misalign your internal powers in such a way that your formal nature is being impeded from being expressed. Like eating unhealthy food. All moral evil resolves into that.

The individual participates in common goods with others, and through the intellect sees the possible good of others (say you see an injured/sick dog, you are able to understand it's nature and how good a dog it can be, and in order to be a well-structured organism you need to be grateful for that good that was manifest to you through your understanding of it's nature, and align your will in such a way that you bring about the flourishing of that dog.)
It's ultimately all internal to the organism, it's just about how the organism organizes itself in relation to the objects it's powers gives it access to.

That's the physical/natural evil side whatever you want to call it. They are ultimately the same thing. Everything we talk about moral evil is just the ways in which that sort of existential evil can come about in rational moral agents. It always just gets back to the formal structure of individual substances though.

>>24075282
platonism and buddhism are closer than most people realise. almost all serious philosophy and religion is an attempt to speak about the nonconceptual reality that we are. any differences are all surface play with no consequence once the true reality has been attained.

>>24075210
Because of ignorance. For Plato, virtue is mostly knowledge.
You never desire evil, you desire things that you think are good. If you are ignorant, then those things may be evil without your knowledge, and you wouldn't desire them if you weren't ignorant.

>>24076777
Let's put a more simple example.
If a person says that roses are red, and another person says that roses are yellow, does that mean that roses has two colours? Or that one of them is wrong?
Under platonism there must be a form of "the rose". Does that mean that there are multiple versions of the form "the rose" just because one person says that roses are yellow and not red?

>>24086423
I don't know if I can buy into that. Your comments about the holistic understanding of the good as extending beyond the self are on point. But the ontology isn't sitting right with me.

The evil-denying ontology (which is what I call it, since it tries to recast evil into a nothingness) seems to go hand-in-hand with a deterministic (especially in terms of knowledge) and impedes on the matter of free will. What the hell was Satan's problem, then, considering that he knew everything?

My attempt to recast evil as both a relationship to the world and a choice to move it in a direction (towards the lesser) seems like a better move if you want to preserve the moral stakes of a decision without unknowingly wiping out any ontology of evil. Whether relations are beings, like I pointed out in my last post, still needs to be evaluated though.

>>24084747
Power for what

>>24076276
This. Absolutely nobody on this board reads anything.

File: file.png (17 KB, 253x183)

17 KB PNG

>>24086576
>What the hell was Satan's problem, then, considering that he knew everything
I think the whole gratitude focused aspect of it is really clarifying, honestly Heidegger's what is called thinking is one of my favorite books and is all about this.

Part of the sort of fundamental think that rational action falls under is, our being and the being of all things are ultimately gifts and we are obliged to be responsible to whatever is made present to us.

There is some sense in which it does undermine free will, if you have a mistaken view of it as absolute liberty. Proper moral rationality does see the possible goodness of the things you come into contact with as obliging. If you are a father and have children your "free will" is obliged to them, at the cost of the your rational structure being undermined. The specific means and how you bring it about is something depending on who you are as a person, your desires, passions, etc. If you have a passion for art you might use that to bring about the good you are obliged to.
It's a freedom of means rather than a freedom of ends.

The satanic freedom of ends basically rejects all that obligation and gratitude. All knowledge is fundamentally a moral thing, do you love and have gratitude towards the good as it is manifest to you, or do you hate the obligation it sets on you since you prefer your base passions or pride?

We are thrown into a situation where we have numerous obligations and responsibilities to our people, history, nation, family, friends, land, pets, etc. etc. Determining the path of narrative unity among that to best bring about the good is the sort of creative/living artist path of man and where the freedom is most manifest.

Frankly I just don't see what evil adds to any of this, this seems to basically account for everything and I just don't really see where the gaps are. I think there is something fundamentally perverse and disordering in trying to understand or even caring about evil as well, it's not what we were made for.

>>24086527
>You never desire evil, you desire things that you think are good. If you are ignorant, then those things may be evil without your knowledge (...)
Do you see the contradiction? It's saying that evil things desired without your knowledge are not evil.
>>24086539
Surely one of them is wrong, given that there's only one form of the rose. But that's not what Socrates said. He said all beings desire the good. So given the propositions
P1. Multiple beings desire the good.
P2. Multiple beings desire different things.
we come to the conclusion that the good is different things.

>>24086510
But Platonism posits Forms. Buddhism posits the inexistence of them, no? How isn't that a major fundamental difference?

>>24086803
You have to be trolling or maybe I am not getting something.
One of them is wrong about the rose. Doesn't it crosses your mind that the form of the rose in this case can be changed with the good?
One person says that the good is this, another says that the good is that. Only one of them is correct. Then, does that mean that the other person doesn't desire the good? No. He desires good, but because he is ignorant about what's good, his actions doesn't lead him to the good.
Here is your logic applied to the form of the good but applied to the form of the rose:
P1. Multiple people see the colours of the rose
P2. Multiple people see different colours
we come to the conclusion that the rose has multiple different colours
Do you see how your logic only applies if everyone is correct about the rose? The fact is that not everyone is correct.

>>24086803
I'll write an example that is impossible to not get:
John is a guy who desires good. He believes that trying out a drug will be a good thing for him because he heard it's relaxing. John then becomes addict and uses all his money to get this drug, because he believes that he will have a better life by drugging himself. There comes a time in which John becomes unemployed, he hasn't talked to his family or friends in a while, and he has no money. John thinks that it's good for him to have money at any cost to buy drugs, so he starts robbing people because he will have a good life that way. John then gets arrested and spents some time in prison. He gets anally raped and influenced by other prisoners to commit even more evil.

Do you see how, even though John always thought what he was doing was good for himself, it was not? This is because John was ignorant of what truly is good. He did not commit evil to himself out of desire. He never desired to make his life worse, he never desired to have a bad life. He always desired to have a good life, but because he was ignorant of good his actions lead him that way.

>>24086651
>Frankly I just don't see what evil adds to any of this
It adds polarity. It adds stakes. It adds dimensionality. Frankly, morality does not make sense to me without those elements. If it's just ignorance then nobody is to blame. Thus morality isn't real without evil being real in a non-trivial way.

>>24087064
14 “For it will be as when a man going on a journey called his servants and entrusted to them his property; 15 to one he gave five talents,[a] to another two, to another one, to each according to his ability. Then he went away. 16 He who had received the five talents went at once and traded with them; and he made five talents more. 17 So also, he who had the two talents made two talents more. 18 But he who had received the one talent went and dug in the ground and hid his master’s money. 19 Now after a long time the master of those servants came and settled accounts with them. 20 And he who had received the five talents came forward, bringing five talents more, saying, ‘Master, you delivered to me five talents; here I have made five talents more.’ 21 His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant; you have been faithful over a little, I will set you over much; enter into the joy of your master.’ 22 And he also who had the two talents came forward, saying, ‘Master, you delivered to me two talents; here I have made two talents more.’ 23 His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant; you have been faithful over a little, I will set you over much; enter into the joy of your master.’ 24 He also who had received the one talent came forward, saying, ‘Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you did not winnow; 25 so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. Here you have what is yours.’ 26 But his master answered him, ‘You wicked and slothful servant! You knew that I reap where I have not sowed, and gather where I have not winnowed? 27 Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest. 28 So take the talent from him, and give it to him who has the ten talents. 29 For to every one who has will more be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away.[b] 30 And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth.’


How I think of it more. Evil is essentially a lack of gratitude, a lack of willing the goodness of things to the possible good completion. It's turning away from the possibility of the goodness you are capable of.

>>24087143
It can't be a mere lack of gratitude. Whatever we are trying to describe by "evil" signifies more than an absence of something (whether it is gratitude or whatever). It's a willingness in the opposite direction. That's what evil is. Some people are just lazy. Laziness isn't good but it isn't the same as having a penchant for destruction. Some actively want to see the world burn. Your criteria can't distinguish between the two.

>>24087149
Pleasure isn't a bad thing. Eating good food isn't a bad thing. Leisure isn't a bad thing.
A serial killer pedophile is still acting to attain some good however misguided it is. Same for school shooters or whoever your "most evil" people are.

I don't think this is "under-selling" evil as I know some people portray, I think it's rather showing how important gratitude is. The difference between you killing a child and not is a combination of habit/training to help you see better along with the intention and habit of seeing things and their good and willing to bring them about. We have a very tenuous grasp with the good and the difference between you not helping a family member when you should and the most horrific human act is a difference only in degree, not in kind. You have that in you.
You giving up and giving into your base passions once has the same fundamental structure as someone doing the worst crime you can think of, you just don't see it because you are out of touch with the good as everyone is.

I do think an important factor w/ evil and the habits around it that get formed is it becomes much more difficult to perceive and focus on the good so those people become more vicious and acting out of base passion and irrationally. There is still a fundamental rational organization in their structure they are to an extent responding to.
Otherwise the whole idea of being able to act rationally for some particular end doesn't make sense.
Why you have a mouth? So you can speak. Why do you speak? etc. continue on that you'll arrive at some perceived good they are working towards even if they can't communicate it because they've made themselves brain damaged and insane by committing immoral acts.

>Laziness isn't good but it isn't the same as having a penchant for destruction
But yeah one of the key thing from the medieval is the difference in "evil" between even a saint and the worst person in the world is merely a matter of degree and that everyone at some level is capable of those great evils. Hence by the grace of God go I.

So yeah you being lazy or looking at porn or whatever is in some sense the same as the horrible things you are thinking about. They just seem comfortable to you because you find them pleasurable, or you do them blindly out of habit. (There is degree and severity of course, but in principle it's the same thing)

>>24087175
>But yeah one of the key thing from the medieval is the difference in "evil" between even a saint and the worst person in the world is merely a matter of degree
The difference between red and blue light is a merely matter of degree (of frequency) but yet it is still a massive qualitative and quantitative difference. Orders of magnitude matter in an ontological and phenomenological way.

>>24087277
They'd attribute our seeing them as so different more to our habit and comfort with them rather than there actually being that big a difference.
As people commit more and more grave evil acts their ability to see what their doing diminishes, they are less capable of doing good things and more habituated against them so they are less culpable for the evil they do vs a person with good habits who chooses to do evil. They have far more awareness of the good and still turn their will contrary to it.
This kind of gets the idea across pretty well...

>I have brought up children and exalted them; but they have despised me.
>What does the sinner do when he commits mortal sin? he afflicts him. In the first place, mortal sin is an insult offered to God. The malice of an insult is, as St. Thomas says; estimated from the condition of the person who receives, and of the person who offers, the insult. It is sinful to offend a peasant; it is more criminal to insult a nobleman; but to treat a monarch with contempt and insolence, is a still greater crime. Who is God? He is Lord of lords, and King of kings.1 He is a being of infinite majesty, before whom all the princes of the earth and all the saints and angels are less than an atom of sand. As a drop of a bucket. . . as a little dust.2 The Prophet Osee adds, that compared with the greatness of God, all creatures are as insignificant as if they did not exist. All nations, he says, are before Him as if they had no being at all.3 Such is God; and what is man? He is, according to St. Bernard, a heap of worms, the food of worms, by which he shall be soon devoured. He is miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked.4 Man is a miserable worm, that can do nothing: he is so blind that he knows nothing, and so poor and naked that he possesses nothing. And this miserable worm voluntarily insults a God! “Vile dust,” says the same St. Bernard, “dares to provoke such tremendous majesty.”5 The angelic Doctor, then, had just reason to say that the sin of man contains, as it were, an infinite malice. And St. Augustine calls sin “an infinite evil.”6 Hence, were all men and angels to offer themselves to death and annihilation, such an offering would not satisfy for a single sin. God punishes sin with the pains of hell; but all theologians teach that this chastisement is less than sin deserves

If we actually understood what the good is, and the gravity of evil the gap between the two makes all kinds of evil basically the same as any number compared to infinity.

>>24086847
>Doesn't it crosses your mind that the form of the rose in this case can be changed with the good?
>changed with the good
I don't understand your question.
>Then, does that mean that the other person doesn't desire the good?
Yes. This other person only thinks he desires the good, but objectively speaking, desires the non-good.
>Do you see how your logic only applies if everyone is correct about the rose? The fact is that not everyone is correct.
The correct syllogism would be:
P1. Multiple beings see the true colour of the rose.
P2. Multiple beings see differents colours.
C. The rose has multiple colours.
I see the problem. The problem is assuming everyone desires the good, or that everyone is seeing the true colour of the rose. P1 is false for both my and your syllogisms.
>>24087027
This example is good to show what I'm trying to say. John didn't desired the good itself. He just thought he was desiring the good. To desire means to know something and want that. He never knew the good or good things, otherwise he'd not have done what he did. Just because you think you desire the good, doesn't mean that you truly desire it. You yourself said that John desired doing this drug (even if indirectly). So:
>He always desired to have a good life
That's true, but it's also true that he desired doing drugs, which is not a good thing or the Good.

>>24087389
>John didn't desired the good itself. He just thought he was desiring the good.
Then you agree with what I have been saying. There is only one good, but if you are ignorant about what's good then you'll not achieve a good life. We all have desire for good, but most of us are ignorant of the good.
>That's true, but it's also true that he desired doing drugs, which is not a good thing or the Good.
In my example John didn't desire drugs. John desired good and he falsely thought that trying out a drug was a good thing. John was incorrect, just how the guy who said roses were violets was incorrect. This doesn't mean there are multiple goods or roses' colours, this only shows some people are knowledgeable about good and roses' colours and others are ignorant of it. John desired good, but he was badly influenced by evil people, so he thought an evil act was a good act. This doesn't mean he desired his life to become worse.

>>24087416
>There is only one good, but if you are ignorant about what's good then you'll not achieve a good life.
NTA. Knowledge doesn't condition the Good, although the Good conditions knowledge.

>>24087416
>>John didn't desired the good itself. He just thought he was desiring the good.
>Then you agree with what I have been saying
That's not what Socrates is saying though. He says that everyone does desire the good itself. That's where the problem is lying.
>We all have desire for good, but most of us are ignorant of the good.
I don't think we do; some of us just think they do.
>In my example John didn't desire drugs.
Then what motivated him to do drugs? Wasn't this action caused by the desire to do so?

>>24087496
Homie you're too stubborn. People seek the good but mistake the good for what feels good and seems to be the good. Everyone has felt the good and once you feel the good you will subconsciously seek it. But to comprehend the good you need to rationalize, use wisdom and question yourself in order to actually get closer to the truth

File: artworks-gCPoIFy3jnrsDDQe(...).jpg (17 KB, 240x240)

17 KB JPG

>>24087516
>Homie you're too stubborn

>>24087530
You're acting too dumb. How do you not understand? There isn't a problem. Do you really think Socrates and Plato spent their life on this if this was such a problem? Do you think the ancients athenians were knuckle-draggers?

>>24087354
Idk bro, I just can't buy the consequences of what you're saying. Seems nihilistic and ignorant to me. I need at least a middle ground between what you're saying and what I'm saying.

>>24075650
>Who determines whether he was wrongly imprisoned?
The good. It is better to teach a man and have him turn from his ways than it is to imprison him because of his ignorance of the good.
>It wouldn't make sense to allow evil. Punishment, as all actions, is justified by being good. At least in theory.
Nobody is saying to allow evil. You are offering the false-dichotomy of punishment or free rein crime. Enlightenment is always an option. And if the ignorant man chooses to live in ignorance then it is up to the moral person to leave the ignorant man behind—not to imprison him.
You need to read more because none of the supposed problems you purport to find are problems at all. Also, you are just fucking trolling.

>>24087516
>Homie you're too stubborn
I don't think so! I really just think it's a strange saying of Socrates that everyone (multiple beings) DESIRE the good. As I said, desiring means knowing and wanting. How could they desire something they don't even know? Just seems very off to me.
>People seek the good
I can contemplate that possibility, yes.
>but mistake the good for what feels good and seems to be the good.
Okay.
>Everyone has felt the good and once you feel the good you will subconsciously seek it.
How do you know that anything abouy the good if a proper, functional (at least in my opinion) definition has not even been provided yet? Good can't be what everyone desires because that would mean multiple different things. It's like saying that the ideal colour is that which everyone desires. People have different tastes of colour!

Ignore this fool: >>24087530. He's not me. Anyway.

>>24087516
Don't bother with Rouslan, he's just fucking with you cause he's bored

>>24087747
Shut up Rouslan lmao

>>24087677
>It is better to teach a man and have him turn from his ways than it is to imprison him because of his ignorance of the good.
That's arbitrary. Another person could say otherwise and call it just. How would you prove that your action is the just one? People have different opinions about things, so a good cannot be established. And for this exact reason, the good hasn't even been properly defined. Moreover, I just gave ONE simple example of a random situation that people disagree over. Imagine the lots of other situations where there is disagreement. Do you think a concept of good can be established like Socrates defined?
>Nobody is saying to allow evil.
Then what means to use evil to punish someone?

>>24087755
That's not me you fucking retard. I don't know what's worse, the fact that you randomly gave me a Russian name, or the fact that you can't figure out who I am, even though I literally *tell* you who I am. I've been *only* debating here:
>>24087175
>>24087277
>>24087354
>>24087568
Honestly, your obsession with me and other /lit/posters is going to shit up this board. There's more the one person in the classics threads you obstinate troglodyte. You're going to be known as the schizo stalker guy, and everybody is going to hate you for it.

>>24087755
Also, not everybody is a waste of oxygen like you. Some people actually *do* give a fuck about these topics, like probably everybody else in this thread. I resent the accusation, and I consider it nothing but a massive case of projection from you considering you do nothing but harass people and *maybe* offer Wikipedia-tier replies while struggling with basic literacy.

>>24087558
Don't get dragged down by >>24087530. That's not the person you were arguing with. He's my schizo stalker who unfortunately thinks that you're arguing with me because he's fucking retarded. And that's why he tried to blow up your conversation.

Very bizarre, I know. But we're dealing with a egomaniac who's been trying to stalk me and sabotage my threads for 19 months because I told him he had a Wiki-tier understanding of Aristotle (which was objectively true). He has been picking fights with random people thinking its me ever since.

>>24087755
How can you tell it's me from my posts? Please stop i came here to be alone

>>24087883
sorry I'm going to keep pretending to be you and scared of him anytime I see him post

>>24087982
>>24087984
Honestly that would be pretty funny. You have my full blessing.

>>24087747
>I don't think so! I really just think it's a strange saying of Socrates that everyone (multiple beings) DESIRE the good. As I said, desiring means knowing and wanting. How could they desire something they don't even know? Just seems very off to me.
Desiring means experiencing and wanting. Knowing is not a given. A child can experience love and want it, but whether it knows and comprehends love in itself does not matter. Experience gives rise to desire.
>How do you know that anything abouy the good if a proper, functional (at least in my opinion) definition has not even been provided yet? Good can't be what everyone desires because that would mean multiple different things.
Definitions don't matter. Experience does. Everyone has experienced the good because the good emanates itself everywhere because it is good. The presence of evil also helps to be aware of the good. When evil befalls one then they are able to compare two different experiences and judge one good and another evil; and in this way they go through all of life. Sometimes judging evil good because it is superficially akin to some good they experienced before. Always desiring the good and not evil.
>That's arbitrary. Another person could say otherwise and call it just. How would you prove that your action is the just one? People have different opinions about things, so a good cannot be established. And for this exact reason, the good hasn't even been properly defined. Moreover, I just gave ONE simple example of a random situation that people disagree over. Imagine the lots of other situations where there is disagreement. Do you think a concept of good can be established like Socrates defined?
It doesn't matter if one agrees or disagrees. That is not what defines the good. The good is what everyone experiences and knows to be good. Through your lack of knowledge you do not acknowledge the good as good. It is only a testament of your current understanding. Forgiveness and mercy are good. Forgiveness and mercy trump punishment. Nobody would punish a baby for a wrong done by them since it is evil. You need to teach them the right path. Repaying evil for evil is not good. Enlightening the bedarkened is good. It would be evil to not show them the right path and to come to an understanding of it. You need to understand that all are infants in matters concerning the good.

Also forgive me for getting mad. I got upset too easily and lashed out. Sorry; I shall be leaving now I think. Good luck and God help you.

>>24088015
>Desiring means experiencing and wanting. Knowing is not a given. A child can experience love and want it, but whether it knows and comprehends love in itself does not matter. Experience gives rise to desire.
I think we're talking about the same thing. Experience leads to knowledge. After the kid experiences love, he ends up knowing love; that's the effect of experience on the kid. It's not possible to want something without knowing it. Think about it. How would you think about something unknown to you?
>Definitions don't matter.
I argue that without them, you don't even know what you're talking about. That's the point of defining words. You say "good". Without defining it, it's just an empty word, with no connection to the real world. We need to define it as a first step to reflection and understanding.
>It doesn't matter if one agrees or disagrees. That is not what defines the good
According to Socrates, everyone desires the good. If the good is not multiple things, we can conclude that everyone would agree on the same thing being the good, which is evidently not the case. So it matters if people disagree about things being good or bad: if they do disagree, then the good is not defined as Socrates intended it to be.
>The good is what everyone experiences and knows to be good.
I don't, for example. I (unfortunately) have no formal demonstration that say murder is evil because I don't even have a definition of the good, although my goal is to find a good one.
>Also forgive me for getting mad. I got upset too easily and lashed out. Sorry; I shall be leaving now I think. Good luck and God help you.
No problem, thanks for the reply anyway.

>>24088154
>I think we're talking about the same thing. Experience leads to knowledge. After the kid experiences love, he ends up knowing love; that's the effect of experience on the kid. It's not possible to want something without knowing it. Think about it. How would you think about something unknown to you?
I think experience leads knowledge, yes. After the kid experiences love, he ends up knowing the experience of love; it is not necessarily true that he ends up knowing love in itself although it wouldn't be impossible. I think the point of conflict is that people regard the experience of the thing in itself as the knowledge of the thing itself. Experience, knowledge and comprehension. Experience leads to knowledge and knowledge when perfected leads to comprehension and comprehension when perfected leads to true experience.
>I argue that without them, you don't even know what you're talking about. That's the point of defining words. You say "good". Without defining it, it's just an empty word, with no connection to the real world. We need to define it as a first step to reflection and understanding.
I perhaps don't know what I am talking about; and a definition would only advance that notion. The good is what we experience and know as good when compared to the evil. It is something we inherently know as good. We know good and evil inherently. It is more inherent than seeing, hearing, tasting and touching. And it is what we desire.
>According to Socrates, everyone desires the good. If the good is not multiple things, we can conclude that everyone would agree on the same thing being the good, which is evidently not the case.
Again, because people confuse the experience of the good as the knowledge of the good and they imagine the knowledge as perfected and thus as comprehension of the good and when they imagine the comprehension perfected then they imagine a true experience. In truth, not many go as far this and rather stop knowledge
>I (unfortunately) have no formal demonstration that say murder is evil
You have no demonstration that a formal demonstration leads to truth or that a formal demonstration is a path to the truth or that it is the only path; do you require a formal demonstration of experience or do you take experience as experience and use it in conjunction with other tools towards the path to truth?

Bump.

>>24088232
>I perhaps don't know what I am talking about; and a definition would only advance that notion.
If you define a word, you'll know what you're talking about, because you'll be able to see the relation between the word in the correspondent object in the real world.
>The good is what we experience and know as good when compared to the evil. It is something we inherently know as good. We know good and evil inherently. It is more inherent than seeing, hearing, tasting and touching. And it is what we desire.
Good and evil aren't physical objects, they're abstractions. You say we know good compared to evil. But do we really know what evil is like? We can feel unpleasant sensations associated with certain objects of reality and label this set of objects "the evil", but how do you know we would be correct? I argue that to know evil, which I think is most frequently defined by people as something like "the opposite of the good", we have to know the good first. Otherwise we'd have a definition that mentions a concept we don't know what it is.
>Again, because people confuse the experience of the good as the knowledge of the good and they imagine the knowledge as perfected and thus as comprehension of the good and when they imagine the comprehension perfected then they imagine a true experience. In truth, not many go as far this and rather stop knowledge
But are you in agreement that you cannot desire the unknown? Because if yes, then it's seems you agree with me and disagrees with Socrates.
>You have no demonstration that a formal demonstration leads to truth or that a formal demonstration is a path to the truth or that it is the only path; do you require a formal demonstration of experience or do you take experience as experience and use it in conjunction with other tools towards the path to truth?
I use axioms which don't need to be demonstrated. So one of them could be " reality is accessible through formal logic" or something like that. But saying that "murder is evil" is unfortunately not an axiom. The justification for that must rely on the definition of the good (which could be an axiom) and the logical steps to demonstrate it. Unfortunately I don't have the steps to demonstrate it.

Bump.

>>24089283
>If you define a word, you'll know what you're talking about, because you'll be able to see the relation between the word in the correspondent object in the real world.
Again, a definition isn't everything and it doesn't mean much—an experience may be ineffable. What would a definition avail then?
>Good and evil aren't physical objects, they're abstractions. You say we know good compared to evil. But do we really know what evil is like? We can feel unpleasant sensations associated with certain objects of reality and label this set of objects "the evil", but how do you know we would be correct? I argue that to know evil, which I think is most frequently defined by people as something like "the opposite of the good", we have to know the good first. Otherwise we'd have a definition that mentions a concept we don't know what it is.
Yea, we know evil because we know good inherently. Everyone already knows the good because they have experienced the good. Although not perfectly, not distilled, not purely. And that is because experience accompanies the things of this world. And so it is hard to distinguish between the image and the thing in itself. Good is justice, mercy, forgiveness, steadfastness, honesty, good-heartedness and the like. You don't need a defintion to recognize the good. Someone may speak to you of good even if you never even thought about it, and you would immediately perceive the idea as something which you knew but never recollected.
>But are you in agreement that you cannot desire the unknown? Because if yes, then it's seems you agree with me and disagrees with Socrates.
Socrates doesn't say that... Socrates claimed the soul was immortal and had perfectly known the good and comprehended the good because it was one with the good before; Socrates claimed that learning was recollection of the soul; that the soul was recollecting what it already knew.
>I use axioms which don't need to be demonstrated. So one of them could be " reality is accessible through formal logic" or something like that.
Again, axioms are formal logic so you are using formal logic to justify formal logic... If this is fine with you then there is no reason to deny the defintion of evil being the opposite of the good. The defintion still makes sense even if we don't know what the good is because all we are claiming is that the good is the opposite of evil. We haven't assumed anything about the good or evil. Also, if formal logic is a part of the good (and I believe it is) then you are assuming that reality is accessible through a part of the good. But if reality, the true reality, is the entire good and if a part of the good isn't enough access the whole good then it would be foolish to assume that formal logic is huge marker of anything. Which is already redundant to claim since you used (good) experience outside of formal logic to justify formal logic even though you imagine it to be formal logic justifying formal logic.

>>24089283
Also, you just need to read more Plato and understand what he is saying. Because while I recognize you are sincere, the contention is something which I would expect from a troll. You don't have to believe or be convinced of what Plato is claiming, but you need to at least understand what he is claiming. I understand what you are trying to say, but I don't understand how you can't immediately dispell of that erroneous notion and see how it doesn't hold any water.

>>24090898
>Again, a definition isn't everything and it doesn't mean much—an experience may be ineffable. What would a definition avail then?
If the good is ineffable, indescribable etc (impossible to be defined) then Socrates' attempt was a lost cause (since his goal was to define it). But for describable objects, definitions avail the possibility of doing philosophy with them and also justifying decisions on topics that regard these objects: for example, if evil is ineffable, one cannot explain to others why murder is evil. If evil is describable, then a definition of it is useful to prove to others that murder falls under the things described by that definition, and thus, that taking the decision to not murder was justified.
>Good is justice, mercy, forgiveness, steadfastness, honesty, good-heartedness and the like. You don't need a defintion to recognize the good.
To mention some examples of good things according to your account, when two people disagree over what is a just, merciful, honest or good-hearted action, the Socratic definition is already not possible, since they would have to agree in order to "know the good equally". When you ask people what these concepts mean, people answer with many different accounts, especially when you're giving them examples of specific actions and asking them if these actions were just, merciful, honest or good-hearted. So saying that everyone knows the good (at least in the same, equal way) isn't possible, because people disagree on these very concepts.
>Socrates doesn't say that... Socrates claimed the soul was immortal and had perfectly known the good and comprehended the good because it was one with the good before; Socrates claimed that learning was recollection of the soul; that the soul was recollecting what it already knew.
When I said that Socrates' "good" would imply people knowing something they don't know, I said that because if people know "different goods", then it's most likely they don't truly know the good.
>Again, axioms are formal logic so you are using formal logic to justify formal logic...
Axioms are not justified. They are just accepted propositions to work with.
>If this is fine with you then there is no reason to deny the defintion of evil being the opposite of the good.
Yes, no problem.
>The defintion still makes sense even if we don't know what the good is because all we are claiming is that the good is the opposite of evil.
But precisely because the definition of "evil" is derivative from the concept of "good", if we don't know the good, then it follows that we don't know evil.
>Also, if formal logic is a part of the good (and I believe it is) then you are assuming that reality is accessible through a part of the good.
Okay.

(1/2)

>>24090898
>>24091344
>But if reality, the true reality, is the entire good and if a part of the good isn't enough access the whole good (...)
Why wouldn't a part of the good be enough to access the whole good? I'm not anywhere saying that a part is equal to the whole. I'm just saying that you could access reality through logic (in order to express reality).
>then it would be foolish to assume that formal logic is huge marker of anything.
It's not a marker in the sense that it doesn't determine if murder is wrong (it would be wrong even if no one demonstrated, I think). But it is a marker in the sense that it can communicate it to others.
>Which is already redundant to claim since you used (good) experience outside of formal logic to justify formal logic even though you imagine it to be formal logic justifying formal logic.
I wasn't trying to "justify formal logic". My point is just that if I wanna know why murder is evil and be able to communicate it to others, I need to first know what good and evil means, and then demonstrate somehow that murder is evil based on the definitions previously taken.

>>24090923
>(...) I don't understand how you can't immediately dispell of that erroneous notion and see how it doesn't hold any water.
Are you talking about my claim that the good as Socrates defined is impossible to be established?

>>24075210
From the Platonic viewpoint, evil does not ontologically exist. Therefore fragmentation of the individual wills and their different pursues can be understood as "partial goodness", or shadows of the ultimate good.

>>24091344
I guess his goal was to find out what others thought they knew they were talking about and see if they did in fact know. He also sought to know the good by defining the goods emanating from it (justice, mercy, peace, etc). You could describe and define these goods quite well, but that doesn't mean you'll get the real definition. You could also not define them at all, but that doesn't mean you won't go farther than the one with a definition. A defintion will not hold you back, but it also might not advance your understanding.
>To mention some examples of good things according to your account, when two people disagree over what is a just, merciful, honest or good-hearted action, the Socratic definition is already not possible, since they would have to agree in order to "know the good equally".
No, evil is the opposite of the good. Nobody ever argued that the good and evil are the same. One person might argue that this image is good and that other image is evil while another person might argue that this image is evil and that other image is good, but no person will argue that the good in itself is evil and that evil is the good in itself. You keep arguing with shadows, images and things which fall short. Socrates isn't. That is Socrates' point. People only argue about images. Never about the thing in itself. An illustration using images is useful for those which cannot understand the study of the thing in itself but if they don't understand that this is a concession because of their lack of understanding then they might continue arguing about images using arguments such as "This one calls this image good and this other one calls the very same image evil. So how can you claim universal knowledge of good and evil?" You need to look deeper.
>When I said that Socrates' "good" would imply people knowing something they don't know, I said that because if people know "different goods", then it's most likely they don't truly know the good.
Again, you are talking about images. The good emanates itself everywhere. What are these different 'goods' and are they both really goods? Or is one evil and another good and that through lack of understanding one imagines the this image as good and that other image as evil? The imprisonment example was already refuted. Imprisonment is evil and enlightenment is good. You gave no reasoning as to why it wasn't in >>24087769 besides calling it arbitrary using images as your reasoning, "another person could say otherwise and call it just." But why would they call it just? What is their hypothetical reasoning? This is just an empty claim and has yet to refute my reasoning in >>24087677

>>24091344
>>24091349
>But precisely because the definition of "evil" is derivative from the concept of "good", if we don't know the good, then it follows that we don't know evil.
>It's not a marker in the sense that it doesn't determine if murder is wrong (it would be wrong even if no one demonstrated, I think)
Do you see what I am seeing? Nobody needs to demonstrate the good or evil formally. It's not something which requires formal demonstration. Every being desires the good and seeks (in this world of images) what they imagine as the good. Nobody seeks what they imagine as evil. Could you give an example of someone who sought what they thought of as evil and not what they thought of as good? Because even junkies seek relief, peace and pleasure, but they know they don't seek drugs and it is rather their bodies which are addicted to it. They don't seek drugs, but they seek the relief, peace and pleasure which it brings and that if it were otherwise they would forego drugs and inject relief, peace and pleasure itself.
>Why wouldn't a part of the good be enough to access the whole good? I'm not anywhere saying that a part is equal to the whole. I'm just saying that you could access reality through logic (in order to express reality)
Because the good emanated itself into different many different parts. Every part of the good shares an essence, but inherit different goodness. You can imagine the whole good as the sun and the parts of the good as the sunlight, warmth and growth which it facilitates. Studying warmth in itself will not lead you to a complete understanding of the sun nor will it lead you to a complete understanding of sunlight or the growth which it facilitates. It will lead you closer, but it won't perfectly lead you there.
>I wasn't trying to "justify formal logic". My point is just that if I wanna know why murder is evil and be able to communicate it to others, I need to first know what good and evil means, and then demonstrate somehow that murder is evil based on the definitions previously taken.
But you already know what good and evil are except that you limit yourself to images and argue with images, "This person calls it just and this other person calls it unjust." And you stop right there instead of continuing the search and asking yourself, "Why does this person call it just and why does this other call it unjust?" And, "What would I call it?" You take it at face value that people know what they are talking about and that you yourself know what you are talking about; but I am telling you that you do not know and rather use images as your reasoning.

Bump.

>>24091742
>I guess his goal was to find out what others thought they knew they were talking about and see if they did in fact know.
Sorry, I meant that it was Plotinus' goal to define it. In the first Ennead, eighth tractate, he defines it at the beginning of the text, making reference to Plato's Phiebus whose excerpt in question I posted in the OP. But even Socrates is trying to indirectly define it. When he says "all beings desire the good", it's just the reverse form of saying "the good is what all beings desire".
>No, evil is the opposite of the good.
I agree.
>Nobody ever argued that the good and evil are the same.
Yes. I didn't mean that. I meant that some (say two) people disagree about what is a just, merciful, honest or good-hearted action. Therefore one of them can consider one action good and the other person can consider the same action evil. Obviously our goal is to consider an action as only good or only evil. But to Socrates, there is no disagreement about any action, which doesn't match with reality.
>(...) That is Socrates' point. People only argue about images. Never about the thing in itself.
How did you get that from the excerpt in the OP? Because Socrates refers to the good itself and doesn't use any words like "images".
>What are these different 'goods' and are they both really goods?
People disagree over what is good. But all of them think they know the good. Therefore, there are different objects for each person regarded as the good. That's what I called "different goods". As I said, obviously our goal is to find just one good. But this good can't be the same known by everyone, because each person thinks different of the good.
>The imprisonment example was already refuted. Imprisonment is evil and enlightenment is good.
Say that, for example, another person considers the imprisonment of a criminal something good. To them, that's part of the good. And they think they know the good. Whether they know the good or not, we don't know. But that's what they want and desire.
>But why would they call it just? What is their hypothetical reasoning?
Entire theories of law have been developed to justify the punishment of someone who's committed crime and to reckon their imprisonment as something good. You seem to have a specific view. But I ask, why should your reasoning count more than all the others existing, as if it were the absolute one and the others were mere opinions?

(1/2)

>>24092884
>>24091768
(2/2)
>Do you see what I am seeing? Nobody needs to demonstrate the good or evil formally.
Good and evil must be properly defined, not demonstrated. What I said that must be demonstrated is whether a specific action is good or evil.
>Every being desires the good and seeks (in this world of images) what they imagine as the good.
If by "world of images" you mean what they imagine to be good or evil, then I agree. But that's not good itself or evil itself. They don't desire the good itself, only what they think is the good, which we don't know if it's the good.
>Nobody seeks what they imagine as evil.
Yes, because what they imagine to be evil is not necessarily evil.
>Could you give an example of someone who sought what they thought of as evil and not what they thought of as good?
But my point is exactly that they just seek what they think is good, not the good.
>Because even junkies seek relief, peace and pleasure (...)
And why would these sensations be good given the circumstances they are in? It can be just an illusion to call these sensations good, at least with that context.
>Studying warmth in itself will not lead you to a complete understanding of the sun nor will it lead you to a complete understanding of sunlight or the growth which it facilitates.
I agree. I just don't think it's a good analogy to logic and reality. Logic is just a way to express reality. I'm not claiming that by studying logic you will have a complete understanding of reality. I just think you can explain to yourself and others why murder is evil using logic. For example. Let's suppose that evil is defined as what causes suffering. Then we could say that if murder causes suffering, it is evil. All I'm saying is that syllogisms like this are needed to demonstrate it, and that demonstrations matter to me. When I said "access reality through logic" that's what I meant.
>But you already know what good and evil are
I don't; I can just think some things are good and others are evil, but I don't know if I'm right or wrong.
>You take it at face value that people know what they are talking about and that you yourself know what you are talking about
How do you mean? I said the opposite: I think people don't know what they're talking about because they don't even have a functional definition of the good. I said that without a definition, the word "good" is empty.

>>24091667
That doesn't answer OP's question.

>>24092884
>When he says "all beings desire the good", it's just the reverse form of saying "the good is what all beings desire".
Alright, but matter is evil; so when one desires evil is it the matter which is doing the desiring or is it the being? Plotinus doesn't believe matter to be good since matter is nothing (ie evil). The things that are, are everlasting. Like the soul, the good, the rational principle and the like. The body desiring some image of the good or some image of evil doesn't invalidate Plotinus' or Socrates' definition of the good.
>Yes. I didn't mean that. I meant that some (say two) people disagree about what is a just, merciful, honest or good-hearted action. Therefore one of them can consider one action good and the other person can consider the same action evil. Obviously our goal is to consider an action as only good or only evil. But to Socrates, there is no disagreement about any action, which doesn't match with reality.
He doesn't say that... he even acknowledges that the average citizen conflict about such things; but he considers them to be conflicting over images and not the thing in itself. No citizen considers the good evil and evil the good. Nobody is conflicted over the thing in itself, but they are conflicted over images.
>People disagree over what is good. But all of them think they know the good. Therefore, there are different objects for each person regarded as the good. That's what I called "different goods"
People disagreeing isn't indicative of anything. Socraes says that through reasoning they can recollect the good as it is in itself. People know the good, but get lost within images and argue about images and shadows.
>Say that, for example, another person considers the imprisonment of a criminal something good. To them, that's part of the good. And they think they know the good. Whether they know the good or not, we don't know. But that's what they want and desire.
But why do they consider it good? You haven't offered any reasoning. Who wants imprisonment? The soul or mere matter? Who considers it good? The soul or mere matter?
>Entire theories of law have been developed to justify the punishment of someone who's committed crime and to reckon their imprisonment as something good. You seem to have a specific view. But I ask, why should your reasoning count more than all the others existing, as if it were the absolute one and the others were mere opinions?
This is a non-answer. There must needs be laws concerning the world, but the world isn't considered true being. It is a shadow, an image and a dream. The world is matter. Why not just give me the reasoning of the world if you can't provide your own? If the theories of law seem comparative to mine own then provide it. But I'll prove to you that imprisonment is a concession on their part, and we'll consider the matter. You can't be vague; alluding to the reasoning of other's but never providing it. That isn't reasoning.

>>24092889
>Good and evil must be properly defined, not demonstrated. What I said that must be demonstrated is whether a specific action is good or evil.
A specific action may reflect an image of the good or be evil. But the good permeates through a good act and we see the image, not the thing in itself. In order to see the thing in itself we need to look beyond the darkly image which we see reflected by the shadow of matter. This means looking inwards and seeing with your mind's eye.
>But my point is exactly that they just seek what they think is good, not the good.
An image is never the thing in itself, but if they subconsciously believe that there are only things in themselves then they think what they have is the thing in itself and not an image. They will think they have the good in itself and not the image of the good in itself. They seek the good in itself.
>And why would these sensations be good given the circumstances they are in? It can be just an illusion to call these sensations good, at least with that context.
Because they feel uneased, uncomfortable and anxious without its use. None of these feelings are good and it is a result of the evil matter. But even matter seeks the good even if it is a paltry substitute or illusion of the thing in itself. Again, you are thinking in terms of shadows and images. Relief, peace and pleasure are good in themselves. The matter is evil.
>All I'm saying is that syllogisms like this are needed to demonstrate it, and that demonstrations matter to me.
Then why not just adopt Plotinus' definition of the good? If the good is what everyone desires and needs and if not everyone desires to be murdered and to murder then to be murdered and to murder is not the good. If the good is what everyone desires and needs and if everyone desires and needs justice, mercy, forgiveness, steadfastness, health, honesty etc then justice, mercy, forgiveness, steadfastness, health, honesty etc are the good. Notice the good is all of these things in their unity. Any one of these by themselves cannot be said to be the good.
> I can just think some things are good and others are evil, but I don't know if I'm right or wrong.
That's not what I mean. You are still talking about images. I mean you already know that justice, mercy, forgiveness etc are good.
>I think people don't know what they're talking about because they don't even have a functional definition of the good.
The good is mercy, forgiveness, honesty , steadfastness etc (ie what every being desires and needs). Everyone recognizes this, but some choose to live in their ignorance and their evil because they rather live in the body and not the soul.

Bump.

>>24093806
>Alright, but matter is evil; so when one desires evil is it the matter which is doing the desiring or is it the being?
Wait, so he doesn't consider the body to be part of the being?
>Plotinus doesn't believe matter to be good since matter is nothing (ie evil).
Strange definition for evil, since we defined it as the opposite of the good, not as "the nothing".
>The body desiring some image of the good or some image of evil doesn't invalidate Plotinus' or Socrates' definition of the good.
How not? Socrates says that every being desires the good itself, not an image of it.
>Nobody is conflicted over the thing in itself, but they are conflicted over images.
If an image is what they think is the good and they desire what they think is good, then they desire the image, not the good itself.
>People know the good, but get lost within images and argue about images and shadows.
If they don't recollect the good yet, how do they know it? If they knew it, why would they get lost within images and shadows?
>But why do they consider it good?
>You haven't offered any reasoning.
>This is a non-answer.
I'm not this hypothetical person. But many claim that the role of imprisonment is not to better the individual imprisoned, rather it's just to protect the rest of the society. But that's just one example. So to these hypothetical people, it would be better for society as a whole to be protected than to be under the danger of this criminal if he was free in the streets just to give the possibility of enlightening them in this way. Also, you are discarding or forgetting the possibility of enlightenment and learning to happen through the time in prison.

>>24093890
>In order to see the thing in itself we need to look beyond the darkly image which we see reflected by the shadow of matter. This means looking inwards and seeing with your mind's eye.
That's one way, maybe a mystical one? I wouldn't know. My point is that another way (and one that allows communicating what the good is to another person) is to define it. If you access the good "with your mind's eye", you may not be able to explain it to others. If you define it precisely, more people will be able tp understand as well.
>Relief, peace and pleasure are good in themselves.
I wouldn't know. And to me they seem more neutral in themselves than good. They seem good in certain situations and bad in other situations. The context added to them makes the combination be completely different objects. In the case of drug addiction, they seem bad: not using drugs will be uneasing, uncomfortable and anxiety-inducing, but these things added to the context of trying to quit a vice are (or seem) good.
>Then why not just adopt Plotinus' definition of the good? If the good is what everyone desires and needs and if not everyone desires to be murdered and to murder then to be murdered and to murder is not the good.
Oh, but some people desire to murder and to be murdered. That's why I can't adopt Plotinus' definition of good either. It's just another formulation of the same Socratic definition. Not everyone desire "justice, mercy, forgiveness, steadfastness, health, honesty etc". As I said, even those who think they do may be mistaken, desiring other things instead. Images, to use your word, delude people. And I don't know if even these things everyone wants: there are people who don't like mercy to others or even to themselves (see people who torture others or people who commit seppuku (no mercy given for themselves)); there are people who don't desire health just wanna have bodily pleasures, there are even those who want to die. So it's not that simple.
>You are still talking about images. I mean you already know that justice, mercy, forgiveness etc are good.
Just because I like these things, doesn't mean that I know that they are good or why they are good.
>Everyone recognizes this
As I said, not everyone. There are those that don't want these things, and by the Socrates'/Plotinus' definition, everyone wants the good.

>>24075210
Because even when people do evil, they're usually seeking something that seems good to them, no?

>>24094198
>Wait, so he doesn't consider the body to be part of the being?
No, because being is eternal. The body is just matter. It has no thoughts, no ideas, no morals.
>Strange definition for evil, since we defined it as the opposite of the good, not as "the nothing".
The good is everything since the good is being—its opposite is non-being i.e. evil
>How not? Socrates says that every being desires the good itself, not an image of it.
Yea, the rational principle (to borrow from the Stoics) and the soul desires the good in itself. The body has no say since it is evil and ignorant.
>If an image is what they think is the good and they desire what they think is good, then they desire the image, not the good itself.
How do you not understand? The true good obviously shines through things and we perceive an image of the true good. A person who doesn't self-analyze still desires the good, but imagines the image of the good as the good in itself. So he finds enjoyment in it (naturally since it is an image of the good), but what he needs and desires is still the good in itself. If he had experienced the good in itself then he would realize his mistake in thinking the image as the thing in itself and would hopefully see what he couldn't see before. He would see the image and the light which shines through the image, the thing in itself.
>If they don't recollect the good yet, how do they know it? If they knew it, why would they get lost within images and shadows?
They know it because they experienced it since the soul is immortal and was one with the good. They get lost within images and shadows because they live within images and shadows.
>But many claim that the role of imprisonment is not to better the individual imprisoned, rather it's just to protect the rest of the society.
Yea, as I said nobody thinks it's good, but they imprison as a concession since they cannot achieve the greater good of enlightenment.
>So to these hypothetical people, it would be better for society as a whole to be protected than to be under the danger of this criminal if he was free in the streets just to give the possibility of enlightening them in this way.
Again you are thinking in images. One, to be selfless is good and to care for others is good. Dying is immaterial since the soul is immortal and the flesh cannot destroy the soul. Enlightenment is better since it is good. You are letting images get in the way of your reasoning. I.e. talking about letting a criminal rein free. That doesn't matter since I said that enlightenment is good and not the possibility of it.
> Also, you are discarding or forgetting the possibility of enlightenment and learning to happen through the time in prison.
But even then nobody is saying that imprisonment is good, but that enlightenment and learning are good and that this redeems the act of imprisonment. If it were otherwise and guaranteed to succeed, they would solely choose enlightenment.

>>24075210
I haven’t read Plato in a while, but I just read Boethius, who was steeped in Plato.

He says that unwise people seek either power, pleasure, fame/honor, or wealth, as a primary objective. We can even verify this for ourselves by talking to people in life. They say, “It’s all about that money! Stay grindin!” or “I’m just tryna get home and get high/drunk/laid”. People with some money already usually lust after power and rank, or fame. And even ordinary folk today spend a lot of time chasing pseudo fame on social media, thinking it will give them happiness.

So it is the way of the fool to pick one particular aspect of The Good, which for Boethius is God, rather than seeking The Good/God itself.

Their mistake is thinking the Good can be divided. But the truth is that the Good is inherently One, because division is bad. So you can’t get the Good by seeking one of its parts.

>>24094199
>That's one way, maybe a mystical one? I wouldn't know. My point is that another way (and one that allows communicating what the good is to another person) is to define it. If you access the good "with your mind's eye", you may not be able to explain it to others. If you define it precisely, more people will be able tp understand as well.
The real good in itself has to be seen with the soul, the rational principle and wisdom.
>I wouldn't know. And to me they seem more neutral in themselves than good. They seem good in certain situations and bad in other situations. The context added to them makes the combination be completely different objects. In the case of drug addiction, they seem bad: not using drugs will be uneasing, uncomfortable and anxiety-inducing, but these things added to the context of trying to quit a vice are (or seem) good.
You are still talking about images and shadows when you talk about 'context'. I am asking you if relief, peace and comfort are evil in themselves. Not when they are embodied in matter in a specific circumstance.
>Oh, but some people desire to murder and to be murdered.
Could you give an example? Because even suicidal people commit suicide as a means to relief, peace or as an end to their sadness. You are getting lost in the images again. Suicidal people seek the good, but do not know how to achieve it and know that killing themselves will put an end to awareness and their sadness since they subconsciously know that matter is evil. Everyone desires mercy, but the body desires evil. Anybody who tortures has no reasoning behind their acts besides hatred, anger and wrath. These aren't reasons. These are things that are not and which bring to nought.
>Just because I like these things, doesn't mean that I know that they are good or why they are good
You know they are good because you need and desire them. Else you would die without them.
>As I said, not everyone. There are those that don't want these things, and by the Socrates'/Plotinus' definition, everyone wants the good.
The definition of the good is what every being DESIRES and NEEDS. Do you agree that every being needs to be else it wouldn't be? If a being has no desire or need for honesty, mercy or forgiveness then it doesn't desire or need honesty, mercy or forgiveness to be shown it. Thus it will be undone and come to not be. A being needs being and not un-being ( lies, mercilessness and unforgiveness). If it desired un-being and things which were not then it has no being to begin with. Whenever a person desires that in this world which is not, be assured that that is the matter speaking and not the soul which is. Because matter is not while the soul is since it has being.

>>24094204
>Because even when people do evil, they're usually seeking something that seems good to them
Exactly. They desire what seems good, not necessarily the good itself.
>>24094260
>The good is everything since the good is being—its opposite is non-being i.e. evil
I don't get it. How is murder supposed to be non-being? Seems like a strange system to me.
>Yea, the rational principle (to borrow from the Stoics) and the soul desires the good in itself.
How do we know or notice that? Are the things which the person says to desire only the things that the body desires or are they the things that the soul desires?
>A person who doesn't self-analyze still desires the good, but imagines the image of the good as the good in itself.
You're saying that:
1) The person imagines the image of the good to be the good in itself.
2) The person desires the good.
Do you see how that implies them desiring the image of the good? It would only make sense if the image of the good was the good itself, but that is not the case.
>They know it because they experienced it since the soul is immortal and was one with the good.
I see, but isn't possible to stop knowing in the process of forgetting? Because to me if the person forgot, they no longer know the good.
>nobody thinks it's good [to imprison a criminal]
How do you know? I know plenty of people who think otherwise.
>Enlightenment is better since it is good.
Why wouldn't imprisonment be good too? You claim in >>24087677 # that the one is better than the other. But why is that?
>nobody is saying that imprisonment is good, but that enlightenment and learning are good and that this redeems the act of imprisonment
Not necessarily, they can think of imprisonment as good precisely because it would allow the possibility of enlightenment.
>If it were otherwise and guaranteed to succeed, they would solely choose enlightenment.
Okay, but as I said, maybe the enlightenment depends on the imprisonment, so they choose it and find it good for that reason.

>>24094307
>The real good in itself has to be seen with the soul, the rational principle and wisdom.
Even so, can people know it as in remembering it?
>I am asking you if relief, peace and comfort are evil in themselves. Not when they are embodied in matter in a specific circumstance.
To me, they seem not good or evil; they seem neutral.
>even suicidal people commit suicide as a means to relief, peace or as an end to their sadness
Yes, but it's undeniable that they desire death too. It's not that they would in any context, it's just that given the circumstances they do desire it.
>Suicidal people seek the good
Just because some things that they desire are good, it doesn't mean that the means (death) they desire in order to achieve them are good.
>Everyone desires mercy, but the body desires evil.
How do you know it's not the soul that is desiring evil?
>Anybody who tortures has no reasoning behind their acts besides hatred, anger and wrath. These aren't reasons. These are things that are not and which bring to nought.
Yes, but they can desire something without good reasons.
>You know they are good because you need and desire them.
Well, you're saying that, not me. If all the gist of the good was desired by everyone, then everyone would desire the same gist of the good. And the things I desire are different from the things you desire, which in turn are different from the things that another person desire and so on.
>The definition of the good is what every being DESIRES and NEEDS.
That may be your definition, but the word "needs" is not in Plotinus or Socrates.
>Do you agree that every being needs to be else it wouldn't be?
I don't know. Maybe they'd be even without needing. And I also don't know if needing comes before wanting. You see a lot of people wanting things they don't need, and even not wanting things they in fact need.
>A being needs being and not un-being ( lies, mercilessness and unforgiveness).
How do you know that these things correspond to un-being?
>Whenever a person desires that in this world which is not, be assured that that is the matter speaking and not the soul which is. Because matter is not while the soul is since it has being.
It's strange to me evil things not being. For example, doesn't murder have being?

>>24094282
>But the truth is that the Good is inherently One
But if people want different and opposing things, do you reckon that the Socratic definition of the good in the OP is not possible to be established?

>>24094588
>I don't get it. How is murder supposed to be non-being? Seems like a strange system to me.
Because the good is a light which shines and evil is darkness. Darkness has no form, but light does. Darkness fades when light shines bright, but darkness cannot engulf light. Evil brings to naught the things that are not but cannot harm the things that are.
>How do we know or notice that? Are the things which the person says to desire only the things that the body desires or are they the things that the soul desires?
With reasoning and inquiries and knowledge.
>You're saying that:
>1) The person imagines the image of the good to be the good in itself.
>2) The person desires the good.
No I am saying that the good shines through and we perceive an image of the good, but that a person who only takes in images imagines the image as the good when it is in fact the good itself which is making him recognize the good and not the image of the good which is readily perceived by the senses.
>I see, but isn't possible to stop knowing in the process of forgetting? Because to me if the person forgot, they no longer know the good.
No, they still know the good but since they are surrounded in a world full of images and shadows and imagine themselves as images and shadows the higher powers of perception are dull. Only the good can perceive the good. Evil cannot understand the good. Darkness cannot comprehend the light. If then everyone has the power to perceive the good then they have been good. And so they can know it; though only when they give up their worldly nature and adopt the higher one.
>How do you know? I know plenty of people who think otherwise.
No, nobody who is thinking with the higher perceptions (the true perceptions) think imprisonment is good. The people you are talking about speak from a place of vengeance and not goodness.
>Why wouldn't imprisonment be good too? You claim that one is better than the other. But why is that?
Imprisonment is evil because it seeks revenge and it bars the rights of the ignorant. Nobody who actively bars someone's right as a free creature is good. The good thing to do would be to teach him the error of his ways and to endeavour to make him a better person. Evil will only foster evil. Punishment will inspire punishment. Repaying evil for evil will lead to him wanting to repay it back. It doesn't teach anyone anything about the good. The criminal doesn't become good. He just becomes an ex-prisoner and not an ex-evil-doer.
>Not necessarily, they can think of imprisonment as good precisely because it would allow the possibility of enlightenment.
No, that isnt logical. The possibilty is always there. You don't need to hold someone against their will to have the possibility present. One of the pros of enlightenment is that it is always possible to enlighten. It is not something unique to imprisonment. Imprisonment has only evil pros. It accomplishes vengeance, the completion of hatred and the perfection of selfishness.

>>24094598
>Okay, but as I said, maybe the enlightenment depends on the imprisonment, so they choose it and find it good for that reason.
Again, imprisonemnt isn't good... enlightenment is. You can just as easily get enlightenment without imprisonment so why do you imprison? It is out of evil and through a lack of the good.
>Even so, can people know it as in remembering it?
That is how they remember it (besides experiencing it in its fullness again, a miracle)
>Yes, but it's undeniable that they desire death too. It's not that they would in any context, it's just that given the circumstances they do desire it.
No, they desire freedom from the body which is evil. They desire the good that the idea of death brings (peace, comfort and the life).
>How do you know it's not the soul that is desiring evil?
The soul which has being seeks that which also has being (eternal existence); the body seeks perishable 'goods'.
>Well, you're saying that, not me. If all the gist of the good was desired by everyone, then everyone would desire the same gist of the good. And the things I desire are different from the things you desire, which in turn are different from the things that another person desire and so on.
Again, the body and soul desire different things since they have different principles (being and non-being). An inquiry into the truth would dispel the notion of us desiring different goods.
>That may be your definition, but the word "needs" is not in Plotinus or Socrates
>>24075275
>The Good is that upon
>which all beings depend and that ‘which all beings desire’;4 they have it
>as their principle and are also in need of it. (...)"

I am tired now, but you need to read more Plato because your questions will only disappear with age and thinking; you can read any type of philosophy as it help you regardless. And read any type of thinker (philosophical, theological, logical or mystical). That is all, thank you and God bless you.

>>24094650
>Imprisonment is evil because it seeks revenge
Or enlightenment, as I said.
>Evil will only foster evil. Punishment will inspire punishment. Repaying evil for evil will lead to him wanting to repay it back. It doesn't teach anyone anything about the good.
You're assuming it's evil and that it won't teach about the good.
>The criminal doesn't become good. He just becomes an ex-prisoner and not an ex-evil-doer.
That's another assumption, I know people who said to have become better after prison.
>You don't need to hold someone against their will to have the possibility present.
I agree, I should've said "creates the possibility" instead of "allows the possibility".
>>24094676
>You can just as easily get enlightenment without imprisonment so why do you imprison?
Again, you're assuming that.
>No, they desire freedom from the body which is evil. They desire the good that the idea of death brings (peace, comfort and the life).
Through death. If they didn't desire death they wouldn't try to die.

And sorry, you're right, the word "needs" is indeed in Plotinus. What I meant is that needing doesn't imply knowing thag is good: the drug addict can need the drug, buf it doesn't mean that it's good.

So many words in this thread

>>24075210
Everyone is desiring different things under the descriptions of being good, and they desire them only insofar as they believe them to possess the attribute of goodness (=the good).
But, given that, if things are not believed to possess the attribute of goodness then they are also not considered to desirable, "to desire" = "to desire goodness/the good. Therefore, everyone who desires, desires goodness/the good.

>>24095356
>Everyone is desiring different things
>"to desire" = "to desire goodness/the good
That implies that the good is multiple, subjective things, not one single universal thing.

>>24075210
>How can oranges by orange if carrots are orange also

>>24096187
?