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.