From the previous two posts on goodness we have made several propositions and allusions. We state that all things exist with a meaning or qualia, and from a backdoor approach using human intuition we state that this qualia that we speak about is indeed the essence of goodness. We then proceed to identify two distinct perspectives of value that persist throughout creation. From this we borrowed the concepts of objectivity and subjectivity, and stated that all things have an objective metaphysical value as well as a subjective purpose relative to the perspective of man. We state that these two viewpoints are one in essence, and the proposition of subjective goodness actually stems from the outcome of the diverse permutations of determinism. It is from the infinite permutations of determinism that freedom (and free will) manifests, and it is in this freedom the subjective view that we may see how objective entities (i.e. a stone) may have an added qualia towards the individual. As these two perspectives are fundamentally based on the principle of determinism and causality, therefore both quale may be inter-converted, and it becomes perfectly valid to state that the objective purpose of the stone was for my benefit to build my house.
Along the way we have made an important discovery. From the infinite permutations of determinism, just like via the infinite domain of databases of a computer- we see that the essence of human life holds a potential infinitely more diverse, complex and profound than the purposeful outcome of a single deterministic principle. From this statement we see the objective potential of mankind- as an entity completely free to expand on his domain, just as long as it does not clash with fundamental deterministic principles (i.e. time travel or defying the fundamental laws of nature). Yet we know that potential of man does not necessarily equate that man is infinitely good. We intuitively know that there is a difference of ‘possibly’ and ‘actually’; similarly, from the infinite permutations of determinism we know that some lifestyles are still objectively ‘better’ than others.
Now, this has been the crux of the living best postulate. From the beginnings of Project RN (T) we have already observed that there are certain lifestyles that will be better than others. This difference is evident as we compare the lifestyles of the retro junkie without love or care as compared to the decent child filled with love and spunk (you know who I am referring to). While both lifestyles are lived by humans- with an infinite potential of meaning and goodness, yet we know that it was the different combination of factors that had led (them) to live objectively different lifestyles.
At this point of time, some of us would argue that the free will we advocate is actually no more than an illusion created in determinism. There are many possible permutations (lifestyles) that we may lead, but in actual truth there is only one combination of lifestyle that had actually built up our individualities as we see to today. The retro junkie can therefore be not convicted of drug abuse, since although there was an infinitely possible ways for him to act otherwise, he was still in a way compelled by a chain of circumstances that had led to the eventual action of him sniffing glue in the toilet on the 12th May. This argument, as argued, is valid as it has seen practical usage in jurisdictions: certain convicts are pardoned owing to the reason of malady that disallows him to make a free choice at that point in time. If we were to introspect the psychological spectrum across individuals, we would see that all men are in some form obstructed by mindsets and emotions that would pose limit to his ‘freedom’.
What if man was not free? Such a realization would definitely devalue the qualia of man himself, putting him no higher than the qualia of sticks and stones; except probably that we have underwent much more deterministic processes. Yet, the distinction between both theories lie fundamentally upon the issue of conviction, or at least how much the proponent believes he has the ability to break free from circumstantial outcomes. We know for a fact that life in essence was a move against the natural laws of thermodynamics (metaphysically, this tends to the eventual sub-state of being- in line with the outcomes of circumstantial causality). It is in this phenomenon of life that subjective conviction had arisen- as a means of ‘going against the flow’. Indeed, such freedom may initially be an illusion- but it is the conviction of this illusion that allows the proponent’s subsequent actions to manifest. Now, it is in these manifestations made real that proves that the initial ‘illusion’ of conviction must exist, since existence cannot manifest from voidness without real intent.
Similarly, how do we know that human achievements are real? It is fundamentally from this set of convicting beliefs that allow us to acknowledge our existence. And from the manifestation of actions in our ‘belief that we are alive’ we can see and confirm the truth and validity of life and work. Definitely, we have heard many times before that the freedom to change can only manifest from the conviction of the soul, or when we believe that we can. The difference between wishful thinking, and truthful actions, would thus lie in the faculty of conviction- and subsequent manifestation from that initial conviction.
What then lies in the heart of human conviction? Intuitively, this answer has to be goodness. Since goodness, conviction and intent come hand in hand to form being, truth and progress. It was from the intent of creation that creation itself can manifest, just as how it was the dream of success of a businessman that had sparked out his campaign to realize that dream. Now, if human conviction is analogous to goodness, or qualia- and it is in this conviction manifestation may occur, to where are we leading ourselves exactly?
Surely many of us would have heard of the concept of the soul. The soul has been defined by many religions to be a transcendent of the material body- encompassing the entirety of one’s consciousness and personality. The soul and the psyche are synonymous, although the former is usually referred to in a metaphysical dimension while the latter has physical connotations. In essence, the soul and psyche are both idealistic embodiments of the self, while the material body forms up the materialistic counterpart. In part 3 on identity, we had collectively addressed this idealistic embodiment as a psychological entity. We will, however, redefine this idealistic embodiment in light of goodness.
Strictly speaking- the relation of the soul to the psyche is synonymous to that of the intent and the mechanism. While the psyche is subject to physical analysis and determinism, a collective feedback between self projection and social influences; the soul transcends this mere ‘psychology’ of the self to encompass elements of qualia, goodness, meaning and purpose. In other words, the psyche and the soul accounts for a truthful mechanism, and the qualitative meaning of humanity respectively. This postulation is partially derived from goodness-truth theory of life.
It is no wonder that Christianity advocates the existence of the soul at the point of conception, way beyond the human psyche may even take complete form. It is also of no wonder why the church stands against the legalization of abortion. Should the above postulation hold truth, then it is no more than commonsense that the purpose for man must be formed before the corresponding action-mechanisms of the psyche may manifest. It is in this realization that the arguments against abortions may be unified: The intent of one man overwrites the natural (God’s) intent, through the arbitrary denial of the psyche (and the physical body) to the child to manifest- originally meant for goodness. Such a move can now be seen as a move of treason against the progress of goodness.
Finally, it’s now clear why the human life was formed at conception and is regarded as sacred qualitatively.
Let us return back to our discussion of the soul and the intent. From the above paragraphs, we now realize that the soul is actually the seat of higher intents, as well as the seat for human conviction and qualitative experiences. Just as how the psyche is the seat of self and social projections of humanity in general. As we attempt to tie in human conviction through the belief of free will, we see that it is actually the soul, or at least the human spirit, that allows us to see a higher purpose in life that transcends the deterministic nature of sticks and rocks. It is from the soul, or con-anima, that man has the capacity to convict on top of reasoning logically. While the psyche reasons out, playing out the traits of the individual implicitly through subjective interpretation of facts, the soul provides the mechanism of intent and conviction to believe, invoke and see meaningful interpretation in the experiences that the body (and psyche) feedbacks.
Likewise, it is now of little wonder why humanity has distinct the ‘heart’ from the ‘mind’ since the beginning of civilization. A man who follows his beliefs was previously said to be a ‘strong in heart’.
We know now that these two terms actually transcript to the ‘soul’ and ‘psyche’ respectively. And just as how goodness and truth come hand in hand (with the body, which we will come to in the theory of Beauty) to give purpose and being to existence; add on to the fact that man was created with an added purpose as a co-creator and steward, we now see that the soul is indeed the source and intent of human convictions.
It has been said that what makes a human truly human is a person not only with feelings and emotions. Feelings and emotions, in the strictest definition, are no more than chemical plays on the human mind. They too can be reproduced and manipulated scientifically (in the form of drugs) to actually fool people with empty emotions. Rather, as we now slowly begin to realize, what defines and distinguishes man as a ‘sacred’ entity is actually the purposeful conviction (to the self) that these emotions entail. This it is in this conviction that realizes our difference from objects undergoing thermodynamic causality, our higher potential for life, and our ultimate realization of our meaning of life.
All these within a state of being of the transcendental soul.
23 January 2010
16 January 2010
The Reconcilation of Meaning in Causality and Choice
Surely it might be slightly arbitrary to unite the concept of meaning- of value and of worth, with the concept of its inherent goodness within a few paragraphs of discourse. The concept of meaning is indeed a very important dimension that applies towards all things; all things can be described in terms of its meaning, of its value and worth, just as how all materials can be evaluated to a certain price. On the other hand, the concept of (objective) goodness as we conventionally know lies in some la-la land between the ideals of true love and the perfection of God. By these standards, it is extremely difficult to see how money and love can actually be one unified concept. If love and money speaks of valuation and goodness, then why does the love of money be the root of all evil?
From the last post we had taken another induction to this statement, implicitly. We have not fully justified that goodness to man is actually in essence similar to metaphysical goodness, but rather implied, through the intuition that ‘man values what is inherently good to him’, that what we treat as worth must be good. But we do not know for a fact if such an intuition is an objective truth or is it no more than a subjective notion inculcated on human standards. After all, if goodness by value can be objective and subjective (we will see to the rigorous proof soon), then definitely value is based, to a certain extent, by perspectives and viewpoints. If we acknowledge the validity of the claim (in the last post) that humans are the stewards of creation and that the monotheistic God is the master of creation. Surely both views would consequent in different goodness by value towards the same object- just as how our nineteen year old girl will mean differently to her sister and her parents simultaneously.
Is this statement exactly true? By our definition of metaphysical goodness, we are speaking of the value the object holds at the point of creation. While some may argue that the value at creation may be relative, since it may find different purposes with the progress of time, it is often forgotten that determinism (or the logical proceed of events that in a way speaks of inevitability) would naturally ensure that meaning itself will remain fixed. What actually seems to be relative would then be the different permutations of causality towards different individuals, and of course from within, the phenomenon of free choice. Now, what are we leading to exactly?
If we hypothesize that change is the only constant mechanism for the universe, then naturally there would be only one type of change that can occur. The logic to this conclusion is trival, since if change itself may have two differing natures, then there would arise different permutations (transcendentations) of change in time. In other words, change would not be constant since change it itself may be changed to a constant (i.e. no change). The universe could be an intergalactic cosmos today, and a pear tomorrow. Two rocks upon collision may or may not change its physical orientation and construct, since one type may advocate a certain change, and the other advocate another type of change simultaneously. The outcomes of this issue would then only be resolved by creating two parallel dimensions, each denoting a possible outcome. Unless we blatantly advocate the notion of parallel dimensions and are willing to accept the fact that there are infinite dimensions created today, then we can generally conclude that the above hypothesis is correct. This change that we know of today then lies in our definition of deterministic change.
Deterministic change in essence is change via the theories of truth (i.e. the laws of physics and probability); and insofar, every change that had occurred before is in essence a change lead by determining factors and causes. From rocks to humans, it has been argued that it is indeed ultimately the rule of deterministic principles that govern all motion, being, intent and will. This argument is the crux of causality.
Now immediately we see a slight contradiction. On one hand we advocate subjectivity and choice- we state from the above that goodness (in human standards) is relative and we preach an underlying message to change for the better. Now if determinism and causality is the sole mechanism of evolution since the days of creation, then doesn’t it make the concept of subjectivity and free will falsifiable? The strife for a better would be a logical paradox, since there can be no chance of escape from determinism. Also, there would be no need for any further change, since goodness and intent itself would be absolute (constant throughout all dimensions of time i.e. absolutism), and all derived products would be metaphysically as good as the day the universe was created.
On one hand we can now see a clear reason to the statement that all things that exist today have an inherent degree of goodness and purpose. If we were to re-conceptualize the above conclusion with the analogy of space rocks and the concept of change as Functions in a mathematical process (i.e. f(x)), then the inherent (metaphysical) qualia of the a space rock would be unchanging since its first encounter with determinism, since all functions cannot degrade the quality of answers, but rather transmute them from a state of being to another (which is in essence a consequence of beauty).
On the other hand, we have yet to address the contradiction with the concepts of choice, human autonomy and potential. From our previous project, we had utilized the preset model of compatibilism to explain that free will and determinism coexist. We had stated then that compatibilism holds that free will is a 'hypothetical ability to have chosen differently if one had been differently psychologically disposed by some different beliefs or desires.' However, today we will be giving the specific reason of free will, and from there the official statement of reconciliation between human subjective goodness and metaphysical objective goodness.
It is imperative for us to understand beforehand that the phenomenon of choice and belief, contrasted to causality and truth, is not two mutually exclusive alternative projections, but actually one in the essence of change. Subjectivity itself is not a slave of objectivity, but is rather a phenomenon created out of the infinite permutations of being and (deterministic) change. Currently, our understanding of this issue would probably lie in the domain of machines and free will- from the vast permutations of programmes and command processes within robots we often hypothesize a single programme that may one day cause the machine to loop back its own outputs as inputs, creating a form of sentience within itself, and subsequently an autonomous being.
Indeed, it had been on the same lines of such determinism that sentience and subjectivity had arisen. It was known that the fundamental chemical reactions that brought life were self-sustaining reactions. And from the infinite subtle changes of determinism we had seen the diversity and evolution of life. Biblically, the formation of the true human consciousness (or the metaphysical realization of the soul) was arbitrarily emplaced on the sixth day. This can be compared philosophically, since a single choice within a domain of possible choices, as the domain increases infinitely, tends from a choice out of mere probability, to a choice out of intent. From the previous post, we state that there must be a meaning for existence, since there is infinitely more possible for inexistence to occur. If we may draw analogies between these two examples, and bear in mind the statistical law that an outcome will not occur if it’s probability of occurrence is exceedingly low, then by now we can see that man, in his infinite deterministic options of actions before, creates for himself a new phenomenon of intent when a particular action is considered at any time. In other words, it is actually in (not from) determinism that free will, intent and choice had existed.
As an integratory conclusion, we can also see that since there needs to be an infinity of possibilities to be considered before determinism becomes free will, just as how an infinite superposition of 2D images may lead to a 3D image of an object, the nature of free will (i.e. 3D) would naturally transcend the nature of determinism (i.e. 2D). This is aptly reflected in the bible, since religion tells us that man has potential, and as an additional entity (a soul) that is one-step-higher than other forms of creation. For the record, man was created on the last day, and if we were to see that each day denotes a transcendentation of events over the next, then naturally we can see more than the simple correlation of theories.
So insofar we have seen the nature of human will and intent, now if we are to return back to our discrepancies between human goodness and metaphysical meaning, now we can introspect these two domains (which is in essence one) in a much clearer light.
In light of determinism and free will, subjectivity would be the slight discrepancies arising via the multitude deterministic options undertaken in life. The constant nature of feedback in life would then allow current deterministic causes to affect subsequent decisions, emotions and beliefs, personalizing each of them to form a collective set of traits unique to the individual. Each subsequent reaction then would hold meaning and intent, since although it is in essence still determinism in action (the presence of a motorcyclist cutting across our lanes causes us to slam our brakes and raise our middle finger) the infinite possibility of previous experiences and possible reactions in our collective domain would transcend each meaningless cause to an action of intent and purpose. The psychological term of this collective domain would of course be individuality.
As we experience qualia objectivity in subjectivity, we begin to see that a single objective choice, or entity would hold a multitude of subjective perceptions based on experiences from the past. The quale of the human life itself is objective, fixed and metaphysical, but it is our infinite permutations of causality, through the constant feedback of introspection and attitudes, that lead us to view this objective goodness in a more subjective and dynamic sense. As we begin to arbitrarily assign qualia toward the objective things around us, an object, say a snake may be thought as a good pet to some, but to those who have been bitten before by snakes, the concept of 'pet' would most probably be replaced by ‘pest’. Although the inherent metaphysical qualia of that (one) snake is objective, our mindsets naturally transmutes this qualia based upon our standards.
In the same sense, it is our now-intended actions that subjectively denote how good we are- we know that our nineteen year old girlfriend has an objective meaning to life, and it is that objective qualia that qualifies her as a human being proper. But on the other concept of conventional goodness, what we have denoted as the meaning to man, the goodness she would pose to someone as an obedient child, or a potential bride (awww….) would be objectively subjective to the individual domains of the people around her, or at least their thoughts and beliefs; and hence we conclude earlier that meaning, or goodness to man is indeed relative.
It is from here we may finally see truth and reconciliation in the statement: “you are who you are”, and the statement “all man are equal”. We also begin to see some light in the phrase: “love convicts (brings meaning) the soul to objective goodness.” Since love allows us to subjectively recognize each other as objective individuals with an objective qualia, naturally such an action would bring a certain meaning and goodness to ourselves.
As a simplified conclusion, we have tackled various issues regarding meaning, intent and goodness. While determinism allows all things to be fundamentally good as they were upon creation, it was the ‘chosen’ outcome amongst infinite possibilities that brought up a higher state of intent, goodness, or potential to man than just entities of creation. The objective meaning (goodness) of man then is objectively immense and subjective, and from the constant feedback of life, this leads to the slight differences between his actions of discrimination and introspection to the goodness of things. To each his own, and as we then compare each objective qualia (or potential) on a relative scale, we can finally see what we have termed as conventional goodness, or the meaning to man. Such is the construct of events, leading us to the earlier conclusion that goodness is objective and subjective at the same time.
In our next post we will introspect the workings of conventional goodness. As we utter that idealistic ‘change for the better’ we get to see what does that phrase actually means. Hopefully we may then see a direction to goodness, and subsequently, the meaning of life. On a lighter side, it is also about time for us to realize that the title of this post is actually a clever pun by itself.
From the last post we had taken another induction to this statement, implicitly. We have not fully justified that goodness to man is actually in essence similar to metaphysical goodness, but rather implied, through the intuition that ‘man values what is inherently good to him’, that what we treat as worth must be good. But we do not know for a fact if such an intuition is an objective truth or is it no more than a subjective notion inculcated on human standards. After all, if goodness by value can be objective and subjective (we will see to the rigorous proof soon), then definitely value is based, to a certain extent, by perspectives and viewpoints. If we acknowledge the validity of the claim (in the last post) that humans are the stewards of creation and that the monotheistic God is the master of creation. Surely both views would consequent in different goodness by value towards the same object- just as how our nineteen year old girl will mean differently to her sister and her parents simultaneously.
Is this statement exactly true? By our definition of metaphysical goodness, we are speaking of the value the object holds at the point of creation. While some may argue that the value at creation may be relative, since it may find different purposes with the progress of time, it is often forgotten that determinism (or the logical proceed of events that in a way speaks of inevitability) would naturally ensure that meaning itself will remain fixed. What actually seems to be relative would then be the different permutations of causality towards different individuals, and of course from within, the phenomenon of free choice. Now, what are we leading to exactly?
If we hypothesize that change is the only constant mechanism for the universe, then naturally there would be only one type of change that can occur. The logic to this conclusion is trival, since if change itself may have two differing natures, then there would arise different permutations (transcendentations) of change in time. In other words, change would not be constant since change it itself may be changed to a constant (i.e. no change). The universe could be an intergalactic cosmos today, and a pear tomorrow. Two rocks upon collision may or may not change its physical orientation and construct, since one type may advocate a certain change, and the other advocate another type of change simultaneously. The outcomes of this issue would then only be resolved by creating two parallel dimensions, each denoting a possible outcome. Unless we blatantly advocate the notion of parallel dimensions and are willing to accept the fact that there are infinite dimensions created today, then we can generally conclude that the above hypothesis is correct. This change that we know of today then lies in our definition of deterministic change.
Deterministic change in essence is change via the theories of truth (i.e. the laws of physics and probability); and insofar, every change that had occurred before is in essence a change lead by determining factors and causes. From rocks to humans, it has been argued that it is indeed ultimately the rule of deterministic principles that govern all motion, being, intent and will. This argument is the crux of causality.
Now immediately we see a slight contradiction. On one hand we advocate subjectivity and choice- we state from the above that goodness (in human standards) is relative and we preach an underlying message to change for the better. Now if determinism and causality is the sole mechanism of evolution since the days of creation, then doesn’t it make the concept of subjectivity and free will falsifiable? The strife for a better would be a logical paradox, since there can be no chance of escape from determinism. Also, there would be no need for any further change, since goodness and intent itself would be absolute (constant throughout all dimensions of time i.e. absolutism), and all derived products would be metaphysically as good as the day the universe was created.
On one hand we can now see a clear reason to the statement that all things that exist today have an inherent degree of goodness and purpose. If we were to re-conceptualize the above conclusion with the analogy of space rocks and the concept of change as Functions in a mathematical process (i.e. f(x)), then the inherent (metaphysical) qualia of the a space rock would be unchanging since its first encounter with determinism, since all functions cannot degrade the quality of answers, but rather transmute them from a state of being to another (which is in essence a consequence of beauty).
On the other hand, we have yet to address the contradiction with the concepts of choice, human autonomy and potential. From our previous project, we had utilized the preset model of compatibilism to explain that free will and determinism coexist. We had stated then that compatibilism holds that free will is a 'hypothetical ability to have chosen differently if one had been differently psychologically disposed by some different beliefs or desires.' However, today we will be giving the specific reason of free will, and from there the official statement of reconciliation between human subjective goodness and metaphysical objective goodness.
It is imperative for us to understand beforehand that the phenomenon of choice and belief, contrasted to causality and truth, is not two mutually exclusive alternative projections, but actually one in the essence of change. Subjectivity itself is not a slave of objectivity, but is rather a phenomenon created out of the infinite permutations of being and (deterministic) change. Currently, our understanding of this issue would probably lie in the domain of machines and free will- from the vast permutations of programmes and command processes within robots we often hypothesize a single programme that may one day cause the machine to loop back its own outputs as inputs, creating a form of sentience within itself, and subsequently an autonomous being.
Indeed, it had been on the same lines of such determinism that sentience and subjectivity had arisen. It was known that the fundamental chemical reactions that brought life were self-sustaining reactions. And from the infinite subtle changes of determinism we had seen the diversity and evolution of life. Biblically, the formation of the true human consciousness (or the metaphysical realization of the soul) was arbitrarily emplaced on the sixth day. This can be compared philosophically, since a single choice within a domain of possible choices, as the domain increases infinitely, tends from a choice out of mere probability, to a choice out of intent. From the previous post, we state that there must be a meaning for existence, since there is infinitely more possible for inexistence to occur. If we may draw analogies between these two examples, and bear in mind the statistical law that an outcome will not occur if it’s probability of occurrence is exceedingly low, then by now we can see that man, in his infinite deterministic options of actions before, creates for himself a new phenomenon of intent when a particular action is considered at any time. In other words, it is actually in (not from) determinism that free will, intent and choice had existed.
As an integratory conclusion, we can also see that since there needs to be an infinity of possibilities to be considered before determinism becomes free will, just as how an infinite superposition of 2D images may lead to a 3D image of an object, the nature of free will (i.e. 3D) would naturally transcend the nature of determinism (i.e. 2D). This is aptly reflected in the bible, since religion tells us that man has potential, and as an additional entity (a soul) that is one-step-higher than other forms of creation. For the record, man was created on the last day, and if we were to see that each day denotes a transcendentation of events over the next, then naturally we can see more than the simple correlation of theories.
So insofar we have seen the nature of human will and intent, now if we are to return back to our discrepancies between human goodness and metaphysical meaning, now we can introspect these two domains (which is in essence one) in a much clearer light.
In light of determinism and free will, subjectivity would be the slight discrepancies arising via the multitude deterministic options undertaken in life. The constant nature of feedback in life would then allow current deterministic causes to affect subsequent decisions, emotions and beliefs, personalizing each of them to form a collective set of traits unique to the individual. Each subsequent reaction then would hold meaning and intent, since although it is in essence still determinism in action (the presence of a motorcyclist cutting across our lanes causes us to slam our brakes and raise our middle finger) the infinite possibility of previous experiences and possible reactions in our collective domain would transcend each meaningless cause to an action of intent and purpose. The psychological term of this collective domain would of course be individuality.
As we experience qualia objectivity in subjectivity, we begin to see that a single objective choice, or entity would hold a multitude of subjective perceptions based on experiences from the past. The quale of the human life itself is objective, fixed and metaphysical, but it is our infinite permutations of causality, through the constant feedback of introspection and attitudes, that lead us to view this objective goodness in a more subjective and dynamic sense. As we begin to arbitrarily assign qualia toward the objective things around us, an object, say a snake may be thought as a good pet to some, but to those who have been bitten before by snakes, the concept of 'pet' would most probably be replaced by ‘pest’. Although the inherent metaphysical qualia of that (one) snake is objective, our mindsets naturally transmutes this qualia based upon our standards.
In the same sense, it is our now-intended actions that subjectively denote how good we are- we know that our nineteen year old girlfriend has an objective meaning to life, and it is that objective qualia that qualifies her as a human being proper. But on the other concept of conventional goodness, what we have denoted as the meaning to man, the goodness she would pose to someone as an obedient child, or a potential bride (awww….) would be objectively subjective to the individual domains of the people around her, or at least their thoughts and beliefs; and hence we conclude earlier that meaning, or goodness to man is indeed relative.
It is from here we may finally see truth and reconciliation in the statement: “you are who you are”, and the statement “all man are equal”. We also begin to see some light in the phrase: “love convicts (brings meaning) the soul to objective goodness.” Since love allows us to subjectively recognize each other as objective individuals with an objective qualia, naturally such an action would bring a certain meaning and goodness to ourselves.
As a simplified conclusion, we have tackled various issues regarding meaning, intent and goodness. While determinism allows all things to be fundamentally good as they were upon creation, it was the ‘chosen’ outcome amongst infinite possibilities that brought up a higher state of intent, goodness, or potential to man than just entities of creation. The objective meaning (goodness) of man then is objectively immense and subjective, and from the constant feedback of life, this leads to the slight differences between his actions of discrimination and introspection to the goodness of things. To each his own, and as we then compare each objective qualia (or potential) on a relative scale, we can finally see what we have termed as conventional goodness, or the meaning to man. Such is the construct of events, leading us to the earlier conclusion that goodness is objective and subjective at the same time.
In our next post we will introspect the workings of conventional goodness. As we utter that idealistic ‘change for the better’ we get to see what does that phrase actually means. Hopefully we may then see a direction to goodness, and subsequently, the meaning of life. On a lighter side, it is also about time for us to realize that the title of this post is actually a clever pun by itself.
5 January 2010
The Meaning of all things is Goodness
What is the actual meaning of Goodness? Is Goodness something that is subject to our interpretation, just as Beauty lies in the eyes of the Beholder? Or is there indeed an objective Good (as we have alluded to over the past few posts)? If Goodness is subjective, then will there be any meaning to state that ‘this or that thing is inherently good’? If Goodness is objective, then what is the meaning of feeling good; and why do people feel differently towards a common proposition?
Insofar, we have arrived to an introductory conclusion that Goodness is the meaning of things. If we extrapolate this statement a little more to include all possible thing that can have a meaning, we immediately see that everything that exists must have a certain meaning for it’s existence. Indeed, if existence is analogized to a ripple arising from a seamless homogeneity of non-existence within three dimensional space, then naturally there must be a certain reason for the ripple’s existence at that point in space and time. Some philosophers may argue that there is no reason for the existence of existence itself, and from there they assume that the Universe (i.e. the 3 dimensional space of existence and non-existence) had persisted infinitely. However we know that our universe was created not out of a steady-state, but rather quite arbitrarily with a bang. Naturally, there has already been reason for existence within this universe. And today, we will qualitatively see to that reason of existence.
Conventional Science does not confer any sort of explanation for the reason of existence. Science generally adopts the empirical method of investigation, and from project RN (T) and from the natures of Truth we know that Truth merely describes existence in general. For the record, the Truth behind the meaning of existence requires a certain form of inquiry that transcends the conventional ‘what is’ that Truth introspects. As we have discussed slightly in our previous post on objectivity and subjectivity (or in the footnotes the concept of transcendentalism) there is a convergence towards a unified (objective), and a divergence to infinite subjectivity. Philosophy in this respect transcends science, since it also deals with issues on a more ‘macro’ matter by borrowing theories of science and coming up with theories that attempt to incorporate more natural phenomena (i.e. morality). Definitely, we call science a philosophy, but we definitely do not call philosophy a science.
So we now do have a proposition that all existence must hold a certain meaning. And we know very well that Truth on its own will lead us to an objective-less chase. While we attempt to understand the value of an object- say: a stone, we can break it down to its components and describe them in all detail, but that will not answer the question in the very least. The only possible method of inquiry would be to compare the value of the stone against current monetary standards, or to gauge the potential goodness it may provide to another object- say now: a man intending to build a house. Before we go on, we must understand that comparing the value of the stone against monetarily standards is in essence gauging it’s potential goodness to another object. Money has existed as an arbitrary form of transaction of value (or qualia) between objects, and the international standard gold actually was valued because it was found attractive to man.
Now hold on a minute. In the previous post we have made an allusion that there is a link between money and goodness. But if we are allowed to go on with the analogy of the stone, we find out that there are two actually possible methods to introspect its value. The natural meaning of existence the stone on its own would be a metaphysical goodness as described earlier, just as how there must be a reason for its existence; it’s meaning to man would probably then be transcribed based on its usefulness to man, and reflected by amount of monetary value it holds.
Yet we see that there is actually very little difference between the two forms of valuation. It is more than common sense to state that man values things that are inherently good to him, or at least his intentions at that point in time. And it is definite that if something is considered worthily good to a person, then it naturally does hold a certain meaning to the person. We value a television because we find it meaningful to our well-being- since a television has potential to alleviate boredom by providing entertainment. Similarly, from the above reason we now see why people in the past value gold. Now, if we return back to part four of our discussion, we see that people value love because it gives them a certain sort of ‘goodness’ in their lives- to be cared for and re-affirmed towards, just as how they may care and re-affirmed others in turn. To this we now see why: “love convicts the individual soul towards goodness”.
If we recognize the validity of realism (i.e. there is a real world out there that is independent of our mental constructs), we find out that man only exists within the world as a certain steward. We were not creators of this universe, and neither do we have a role in ending this existence we exist within. In other words, it can be said that we are merely borrowing the authority of creation- by our idealistic philosophy as reflection to the natural philosophy of the world. If so, then the true amount of meaning an object possesses definitely does not lie on our valuation of it. To say a stone from a certain rock at a certain place from a certain time has a certain meaning of existence does not fully make sense, since different people may have different needs for it, and since meaning to man is independent to meaning of existence.
In a way we can now see the subtle link between both meanings. If we go with a monotheistic doctrine that all creation stems from a God, then meaning of existence would simply transcribe to the meaning it possess from a divine point of view. The meaning to man, since man now has become another object of creation, would then be the relative meaning it holds with respect to other objects. This concept of meaning can be fully replaced by the concept of goodness. The objective goodness of an object would definitely be metaphysical, and the goodness an object has to a person would definitely become no more than certain relativity.
From here we can definitely spin off a couple of issues. It now becomes very evident why Christianity stresses the strife for objective goodness over the strife for money, even though both propositions are in essence values. It is also evident why we are encouraged not to judge this world by our human standards, but rather by the objective standards of goodness. Just as how truth strives for a subjective correlation towards objectivity, the truth of goodness (a transcendental truth) naturally still does in a way follow the theories of truth to the objective and the unified.
On the other hand, we can also see another justification to the proposition that conventional success can never bring qualia to life, as stated in: on love and work. Conventional success is based on the value it has with respect to human standards; such standards are relative, and hold little objective meaning at all. The life of worthwhile meaning cannot be based on the value it has to human standards, because humans are not created to be subject to other humans- (recall the post on authority, that it has to based on the objective good.)
Interestingly, from the previous post, we have Plato striving for the understanding of our natural philosophy of social constructs. In a way we can now see reason for this movement as a correspondence of subjectivity to objectivity. Should that hold, then our strive for goodness would then be a strive to seek the objective good. This give us a little clue for what the objective good is, and we will look at it in greater detail in the posts to come.
So what is the meaning of goodness? The meaning of goodness is no more than a logical paradox, a question that answers itself, since the objective meaning of creation is goodness, and goodness itself is the ultimate meaning to things. While the meaning of goodness is undefined, the meaning of all existence naturally becomes goodness. It is in this respect we see that it is from infinite goodness we are created, naturally, if we are created in goodness, then we are all to a certain extent, good and meaningful within this objective world.
In this post we now see a convergence between human goodness and natural metaphysical goodness. This convergence is not complete yet, as we have not yet found a proper method of correspondence. But while we attempt to further define that link between human goodness and natural goodness, we see that humanity; along with all forms of existence (or creation) have a reason for existence. It is in this reason all things have a meaning, and by either standards- the meaning of all things is Goodness.
Insofar, we have arrived to an introductory conclusion that Goodness is the meaning of things. If we extrapolate this statement a little more to include all possible thing that can have a meaning, we immediately see that everything that exists must have a certain meaning for it’s existence. Indeed, if existence is analogized to a ripple arising from a seamless homogeneity of non-existence within three dimensional space, then naturally there must be a certain reason for the ripple’s existence at that point in space and time. Some philosophers may argue that there is no reason for the existence of existence itself, and from there they assume that the Universe (i.e. the 3 dimensional space of existence and non-existence) had persisted infinitely. However we know that our universe was created not out of a steady-state, but rather quite arbitrarily with a bang. Naturally, there has already been reason for existence within this universe. And today, we will qualitatively see to that reason of existence.
Conventional Science does not confer any sort of explanation for the reason of existence. Science generally adopts the empirical method of investigation, and from project RN (T) and from the natures of Truth we know that Truth merely describes existence in general. For the record, the Truth behind the meaning of existence requires a certain form of inquiry that transcends the conventional ‘what is’ that Truth introspects. As we have discussed slightly in our previous post on objectivity and subjectivity (or in the footnotes the concept of transcendentalism) there is a convergence towards a unified (objective), and a divergence to infinite subjectivity. Philosophy in this respect transcends science, since it also deals with issues on a more ‘macro’ matter by borrowing theories of science and coming up with theories that attempt to incorporate more natural phenomena (i.e. morality). Definitely, we call science a philosophy, but we definitely do not call philosophy a science.
So we now do have a proposition that all existence must hold a certain meaning. And we know very well that Truth on its own will lead us to an objective-less chase. While we attempt to understand the value of an object- say: a stone, we can break it down to its components and describe them in all detail, but that will not answer the question in the very least. The only possible method of inquiry would be to compare the value of the stone against current monetary standards, or to gauge the potential goodness it may provide to another object- say now: a man intending to build a house. Before we go on, we must understand that comparing the value of the stone against monetarily standards is in essence gauging it’s potential goodness to another object. Money has existed as an arbitrary form of transaction of value (or qualia) between objects, and the international standard gold actually was valued because it was found attractive to man.
Now hold on a minute. In the previous post we have made an allusion that there is a link between money and goodness. But if we are allowed to go on with the analogy of the stone, we find out that there are two actually possible methods to introspect its value. The natural meaning of existence the stone on its own would be a metaphysical goodness as described earlier, just as how there must be a reason for its existence; it’s meaning to man would probably then be transcribed based on its usefulness to man, and reflected by amount of monetary value it holds.
Yet we see that there is actually very little difference between the two forms of valuation. It is more than common sense to state that man values things that are inherently good to him, or at least his intentions at that point in time. And it is definite that if something is considered worthily good to a person, then it naturally does hold a certain meaning to the person. We value a television because we find it meaningful to our well-being- since a television has potential to alleviate boredom by providing entertainment. Similarly, from the above reason we now see why people in the past value gold. Now, if we return back to part four of our discussion, we see that people value love because it gives them a certain sort of ‘goodness’ in their lives- to be cared for and re-affirmed towards, just as how they may care and re-affirmed others in turn. To this we now see why: “love convicts the individual soul towards goodness”.
If we recognize the validity of realism (i.e. there is a real world out there that is independent of our mental constructs), we find out that man only exists within the world as a certain steward. We were not creators of this universe, and neither do we have a role in ending this existence we exist within. In other words, it can be said that we are merely borrowing the authority of creation- by our idealistic philosophy as reflection to the natural philosophy of the world. If so, then the true amount of meaning an object possesses definitely does not lie on our valuation of it. To say a stone from a certain rock at a certain place from a certain time has a certain meaning of existence does not fully make sense, since different people may have different needs for it, and since meaning to man is independent to meaning of existence.
In a way we can now see the subtle link between both meanings. If we go with a monotheistic doctrine that all creation stems from a God, then meaning of existence would simply transcribe to the meaning it possess from a divine point of view. The meaning to man, since man now has become another object of creation, would then be the relative meaning it holds with respect to other objects. This concept of meaning can be fully replaced by the concept of goodness. The objective goodness of an object would definitely be metaphysical, and the goodness an object has to a person would definitely become no more than certain relativity.
From here we can definitely spin off a couple of issues. It now becomes very evident why Christianity stresses the strife for objective goodness over the strife for money, even though both propositions are in essence values. It is also evident why we are encouraged not to judge this world by our human standards, but rather by the objective standards of goodness. Just as how truth strives for a subjective correlation towards objectivity, the truth of goodness (a transcendental truth) naturally still does in a way follow the theories of truth to the objective and the unified.
On the other hand, we can also see another justification to the proposition that conventional success can never bring qualia to life, as stated in: on love and work. Conventional success is based on the value it has with respect to human standards; such standards are relative, and hold little objective meaning at all. The life of worthwhile meaning cannot be based on the value it has to human standards, because humans are not created to be subject to other humans- (recall the post on authority, that it has to based on the objective good.)
Interestingly, from the previous post, we have Plato striving for the understanding of our natural philosophy of social constructs. In a way we can now see reason for this movement as a correspondence of subjectivity to objectivity. Should that hold, then our strive for goodness would then be a strive to seek the objective good. This give us a little clue for what the objective good is, and we will look at it in greater detail in the posts to come.
So what is the meaning of goodness? The meaning of goodness is no more than a logical paradox, a question that answers itself, since the objective meaning of creation is goodness, and goodness itself is the ultimate meaning to things. While the meaning of goodness is undefined, the meaning of all existence naturally becomes goodness. It is in this respect we see that it is from infinite goodness we are created, naturally, if we are created in goodness, then we are all to a certain extent, good and meaningful within this objective world.
In this post we now see a convergence between human goodness and natural metaphysical goodness. This convergence is not complete yet, as we have not yet found a proper method of correspondence. But while we attempt to further define that link between human goodness and natural goodness, we see that humanity; along with all forms of existence (or creation) have a reason for existence. It is in this reason all things have a meaning, and by either standards- the meaning of all things is Goodness.
A Little On Plato- The Social Living Best
In this post we will be touching lightly on some theories formulated by the philosopher Plato. While we will not be going in-depth, we will be borrowing some of his ideas, and critically revise the possible implications of his philosophy with respect to the theories of Truth and Goodness. For a more in-depth expansion of Plato’s utopia, please do research his works within your personal domains.
Plato had explicitly stated in the Republic, that the two primary concerns of humanity are in essence: Politics and Ethics. In a nutshell, politics and ethics make up the two fundamental means of direct relation between individuals within a republic. Plato also encouraged men to go beyond the semantic level of merely being political or resolving moral issues; he proposed that the forces of politics and ethics could be understood with epistemology and metaphysics. The understanding of these two concepts can allow one to transcend to a higher level, so that one may no longer be entwined with the workings of society.
Of course we may by now succinctly restate this notion with the theories we have acquired insofar. The premise of ethics is based on the conviction of love, and from there politics and love come hand in hand to form both the epistemic, and ontological means of relation between individuals. If we recall Project RN (T) - epistemology and ontology, realism and idealism, with objectivity and subjectivity form the three major dimensions of truth. Naturally, we can induce from the moderation doctrine that there must be an idealistic component for ethics and love; Plato defined these two concepts as epistemology and metaphysics. Do note that Plato’s epistemology and metaphysics, in comparison to ethics and politics, has an added element of objectivity on top of idealism. The idealistic mastery of the forces that compel us brings about a certain sort of transcendence to the unified.
We will not be comparing the validity of both theories- in a way both theories do capture the essence of truth slightly. Idealism- or the equivalent mental reconstruct of realism is in a way the champion achievement of life. From beauty theory we see that it was from the infinite state of being that sentience can manifest. Subsequently, it is from the fullness of sentience the feedback of human philosophy and natural philosophy can occur to form what we call as realism and idealism.
On Plato’s account, if we are able to master the concepts of epistemology and metaphysics. If are able to attain to a stage of sentience- to the point of giving the idealistic recount of (natural) ethics and politics; then we will be able to understand the workings of natural philosophy- and subsequently lead our lives in full understanding of the truth behind it.
It is on these grounds man had always seek and preached the word ‘enlightenment’. It is also of no coincidence that theology holds that man in his prime has the potential of God Himself, since it was in God’s image man was created from. From here, we can now see that the truly enlightened person is then a person whose domain is in harmony with the domain he is within. We now arrive back to the living best postulate- to the fundamental reason why we ought to live our lives in truth, and back to the reason why Project RN (T) was initiated back on the 21st December 2008.
In a way we can now officially sit back and congratulate ourselves for having seek the living best- be it objective in project RN (T), or subjective as stated in insofar in project RN (T2). From the natural theory of truth we have built up a sentient identity, integrate it within society, and come to an idealistic understanding (enlightenment?) that the true way of living (social and personal) is by living it in harmony with the natural way of life. With respect to the theory of living, we had indeed found the living best to life.
Pause that notion for a moment- as we have raised the question in: Beyond the United Self, we see that the construct of goodness and meaning cannot be explained by the theories of truth. We also recall the question of ‘best’ in the living best. Now, if we have congratulated ourselves for having found out (with a little affirmation from Plato) the living best, on what grounds do we say that the way of truthful harmony is the best way of living?
On the other hand, it is very curious why Plato had incorporated the added dimension of objectivity and subjectivity to his strife. Plato believed that the living best was a state of being that tended towards a mental reconstruction of the world- a mental nirvana where we may explain everything, be infinitely knowledgeable, mature and ethical. From the ‘lower’ levels of sentience to the ‘higher’ levels of sapience- from merely being aware to the forces of nature, to the active participation towards progress itself. While the formal definition of progress is exceedingly complex, we see that the nature of progress has something to do with the concept of ‘tending towards objectivity’. If that is so, then the living best- the end product of the progress towards goodness, is naturally ultimate objectivity.
But what is the meaning of objectivity? Why is progress towards objectivity, and not subjectivity? On a more personal note, why did we have to borrow the theories of Plato to induce the idea of progress and objectivity to complete our quest for the living best? It is evident from those many cautions beforehand that Truth theory can account for the living best, but cannot bring the living best to our lives. It is also evident from the many allusions that there is a sort of link between goodness and meaning. We have kept this notion in vein for the past four posts, but today we will see to the true reason behind this.
It is quite easy to see that progress has to have an objective meaning for it to be called progress. An action towards any randomly orientated intention may contain some meaning of its own, but while there are infinite possible intentions, there cannot be an infinite form of progress. If we are to go along these lines, then the only action that we can deem as progress has to be an action that strives for a greater meaning. If meaning was to be taken as a value, then progress would be an action that constantly strives towards a greater value.
Then and again, what is that ‘value’ that we talk about? Earlier on, we did state that love convicts the soul towards goodness. In other words, the conviction of love brings meaning to the individual- meaning for existence, and value to life. While humans arbitrarily enschrew value into precious metals and paper money, the natural transaction of value, or meaning, or qualia, actually lies in the essence of goodness. (We will see through the relation of both values in the next faculty)
If we were to combine both ideas together, then all progress strives towards a greater goodness, and ends within the objectively good. While truth can be unified to a singularity and diversified to infinity, (and a lot of confusion) the objective good is a definite (objective) that holds the maximum amount of meaning and qualia.
It is on the value of objective goodness Plato had recognized that made him strive towards his objective idealism. The understanding of epistemology and metaphysics was encouraged simply because it gives more meaning to life (more goodness) than living within politics and ethics. If we are to subtract all the philosophy from this post, we can actually very conveniently restate this as: “because it is better”. After all, common intuition tells us that it is always much more fun play a game than to watch someone play.
We end this post on two notes today. On one hand we see to a social moderation doctrine complimentary to the personal moderation doctrine in project RN (T). This does not come to us as much of a surprise, since every proposition must contain an element of truth, and the theory of truth has seen that each proposition must have an element of epistemology, ontology, realism and idealism. On the other hand, we see that the quest for the living best does not end with this theory. While we borrow Plato’s philosophy to induce the need for goodness in order for progress to truly materialize. We see that there is still a long way to go before we may truly grasp the meaning of goodness itself.
In the next post, we will transit on from this preliminary introspection of truth and goodness to dwell into the concepts of goodness proper. We will see to the proposition (highlighted today) that the natural value of all things is goodness. We will start from our last premise of love, and from there have greater insight to theory of goodness.
Plato had explicitly stated in the Republic, that the two primary concerns of humanity are in essence: Politics and Ethics. In a nutshell, politics and ethics make up the two fundamental means of direct relation between individuals within a republic. Plato also encouraged men to go beyond the semantic level of merely being political or resolving moral issues; he proposed that the forces of politics and ethics could be understood with epistemology and metaphysics. The understanding of these two concepts can allow one to transcend to a higher level, so that one may no longer be entwined with the workings of society.
Of course we may by now succinctly restate this notion with the theories we have acquired insofar. The premise of ethics is based on the conviction of love, and from there politics and love come hand in hand to form both the epistemic, and ontological means of relation between individuals. If we recall Project RN (T) - epistemology and ontology, realism and idealism, with objectivity and subjectivity form the three major dimensions of truth. Naturally, we can induce from the moderation doctrine that there must be an idealistic component for ethics and love; Plato defined these two concepts as epistemology and metaphysics. Do note that Plato’s epistemology and metaphysics, in comparison to ethics and politics, has an added element of objectivity on top of idealism. The idealistic mastery of the forces that compel us brings about a certain sort of transcendence to the unified.
We will not be comparing the validity of both theories- in a way both theories do capture the essence of truth slightly. Idealism- or the equivalent mental reconstruct of realism is in a way the champion achievement of life. From beauty theory we see that it was from the infinite state of being that sentience can manifest. Subsequently, it is from the fullness of sentience the feedback of human philosophy and natural philosophy can occur to form what we call as realism and idealism.
On Plato’s account, if we are able to master the concepts of epistemology and metaphysics. If are able to attain to a stage of sentience- to the point of giving the idealistic recount of (natural) ethics and politics; then we will be able to understand the workings of natural philosophy- and subsequently lead our lives in full understanding of the truth behind it.
It is on these grounds man had always seek and preached the word ‘enlightenment’. It is also of no coincidence that theology holds that man in his prime has the potential of God Himself, since it was in God’s image man was created from. From here, we can now see that the truly enlightened person is then a person whose domain is in harmony with the domain he is within. We now arrive back to the living best postulate- to the fundamental reason why we ought to live our lives in truth, and back to the reason why Project RN (T) was initiated back on the 21st December 2008.
In a way we can now officially sit back and congratulate ourselves for having seek the living best- be it objective in project RN (T), or subjective as stated in insofar in project RN (T2). From the natural theory of truth we have built up a sentient identity, integrate it within society, and come to an idealistic understanding (enlightenment?) that the true way of living (social and personal) is by living it in harmony with the natural way of life. With respect to the theory of living, we had indeed found the living best to life.
Pause that notion for a moment- as we have raised the question in: Beyond the United Self, we see that the construct of goodness and meaning cannot be explained by the theories of truth. We also recall the question of ‘best’ in the living best. Now, if we have congratulated ourselves for having found out (with a little affirmation from Plato) the living best, on what grounds do we say that the way of truthful harmony is the best way of living?
On the other hand, it is very curious why Plato had incorporated the added dimension of objectivity and subjectivity to his strife. Plato believed that the living best was a state of being that tended towards a mental reconstruction of the world- a mental nirvana where we may explain everything, be infinitely knowledgeable, mature and ethical. From the ‘lower’ levels of sentience to the ‘higher’ levels of sapience- from merely being aware to the forces of nature, to the active participation towards progress itself. While the formal definition of progress is exceedingly complex, we see that the nature of progress has something to do with the concept of ‘tending towards objectivity’. If that is so, then the living best- the end product of the progress towards goodness, is naturally ultimate objectivity.
But what is the meaning of objectivity? Why is progress towards objectivity, and not subjectivity? On a more personal note, why did we have to borrow the theories of Plato to induce the idea of progress and objectivity to complete our quest for the living best? It is evident from those many cautions beforehand that Truth theory can account for the living best, but cannot bring the living best to our lives. It is also evident from the many allusions that there is a sort of link between goodness and meaning. We have kept this notion in vein for the past four posts, but today we will see to the true reason behind this.
It is quite easy to see that progress has to have an objective meaning for it to be called progress. An action towards any randomly orientated intention may contain some meaning of its own, but while there are infinite possible intentions, there cannot be an infinite form of progress. If we are to go along these lines, then the only action that we can deem as progress has to be an action that strives for a greater meaning. If meaning was to be taken as a value, then progress would be an action that constantly strives towards a greater value.
Then and again, what is that ‘value’ that we talk about? Earlier on, we did state that love convicts the soul towards goodness. In other words, the conviction of love brings meaning to the individual- meaning for existence, and value to life. While humans arbitrarily enschrew value into precious metals and paper money, the natural transaction of value, or meaning, or qualia, actually lies in the essence of goodness. (We will see through the relation of both values in the next faculty)
If we were to combine both ideas together, then all progress strives towards a greater goodness, and ends within the objectively good. While truth can be unified to a singularity and diversified to infinity, (and a lot of confusion) the objective good is a definite (objective) that holds the maximum amount of meaning and qualia.
It is on the value of objective goodness Plato had recognized that made him strive towards his objective idealism. The understanding of epistemology and metaphysics was encouraged simply because it gives more meaning to life (more goodness) than living within politics and ethics. If we are to subtract all the philosophy from this post, we can actually very conveniently restate this as: “because it is better”. After all, common intuition tells us that it is always much more fun play a game than to watch someone play.
We end this post on two notes today. On one hand we see to a social moderation doctrine complimentary to the personal moderation doctrine in project RN (T). This does not come to us as much of a surprise, since every proposition must contain an element of truth, and the theory of truth has seen that each proposition must have an element of epistemology, ontology, realism and idealism. On the other hand, we see that the quest for the living best does not end with this theory. While we borrow Plato’s philosophy to induce the need for goodness in order for progress to truly materialize. We see that there is still a long way to go before we may truly grasp the meaning of goodness itself.
In the next post, we will transit on from this preliminary introspection of truth and goodness to dwell into the concepts of goodness proper. We will see to the proposition (highlighted today) that the natural value of all things is goodness. We will start from our last premise of love, and from there have greater insight to theory of goodness.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)