| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Ryan Shucard
Fledgling
7 Posts |
 Posted - Jan 27 2009 : 4:30:53 PM
|
I very much enjoyed Monday's conversation regarding existence, virtue, and usefulness. Before I could muster the courage to speak with all of you philosophically inclined minds, it was time to go, but I would like to possibly provide my take on our discussion given what we have established in class. We established that existence is virtuous and that all things are inherently good. We also said there are degrees of goodness, meaning that one being could be better than another.
But then the question of usefulness arose with a great comment by Ray. This is where I wanted to offer my perspective. I believe that is something is deemed less good than another, its usefulness is extraordinary because it allows us to better define what really is better. In other words, the lousy knife that does not cut well is still very useful, but perhaps not as a knife a designed to being useful for cutting. Follow? So, that means that it may not be all that useful as a knife, but it still enables us to see that a better knife for cutting is available. Then, if we compare the two knives side by side, we see that one knife is useful for cutting and the other knife is useful because of its lack of usefulness for cutting and thus we can better define the degrees of goodness from object to object.
Let's put it in terms of relationships. Surely all of us have dated that not-so-nice person who hurt us. Well he or she may not be right for us, but he or she has still served a purpose by allowing us to identify the characteristics that we now know we don't want. Therefore those awful people who hurt you were useful to you because they helped you realize what you ought to be looking for. Perhaps what I'm talking about is a rather complex process of elimination. I'll be interested to see what you all think of that.
[Lightly edited to enhance readability -TT] |
|
|
Nick Candler
Fledgling
6 Posts |
|
|
Carrie Williams
Fledgling
11 Posts |
Posted - Feb 01 2009 : 3:15:41 PM
|
If we are taking the word "good" and using it interchangeably with the word "useful," as we were in class, I would say that all things can be perceived as good or aspiring to be good. We have the power as humans to aspire to be the best we can be, and the actions one follows towards this end can be good.
As a biologist, I definitely see viruses as useful. Whether you have inadvertently obtained one when shaking the unwashed hand of a stranger or purposely inoculated yourself with a variant form of one as a means to vaccinate yourself, both these instances can be perceived as useful. The case of accidental virus loading, well, your body will recognize the invader and develop immunity to that particular virus so that in the future you are well prepared to fight that virus from the moment it slimes its way into your blood stream. In the second case, you are purposely getting the flu shot or choosing to become biologically infected with this virus in order to secure future immunity. Either way, you are preparing for the inevitable action of coming into contact with a particular virus or multitudes of similar forms of viruses. The existence of the virus is not the problem; it's the perception that any one virus is a threat to your health or well-being. In many ways, there can be a positive result of coming into contact with viruses. Humans are physiologically adaptable, and our perception of what might be a threat and what is useful should adapt with the circumstance.
Viruses are not a good example of a health threat; they do not always cause disease. I can see where a person might try to argue the same lack of good/usefulness regarding disease in general--e.g., cancer, strokes and heart disease. You could first define these conditions in general terms. Cancer--a proliferation of particular types/groups of cells. Stroke--A sudden loss of brain function caused by a blockage or rupture of a blood vessel to the brain, characterized by loss of muscular control, diminution or loss of sensation or consciousness, dizziness, slurred speech, or other symptoms that vary with the extent and severity of the damage to the brain. Also called cerebral accident, cerebrovascular accident. And finally, heart disease--a general term that refers to any disease or condition of the heart, including coronary heart disease, hypertension, heart failure, and congenital heart disease, disorders of the heart valves, heart infections, cardiomyopathy, conduction disorders, and heart arrhythmias.
So, after you define your terms, you look for similarities among these conditions. The predominant similarity is that all of them require a lack of normal function or abnormal functioning of the body that a healthy person might not otherwise show signs of or experience. You can say that abnormal functioning is definitely not an efficient or useful way of being; therefore these diseases are all bad.
However, the chosen perspective I wish to state concerning these conditions is that they are seemingly preventable. I mean to say that If one wishes to become the most useful human being, i.e., the best of all on the planet, one will do all that is in one's own power to prevent these diseases from striking in the first place. To become knowledgeable about the causes of them externally or by action, and if these do indeed run in one's family to do all it takes to reduce one's risk factors.
Yes, we humans are fallible, and one cheeseburger might not shove us over the edge and into disease territory, but a little prevention can go a long way.
Isn't being good, and virtuous and useful mostly about the path to getting there? One can be good or great even if one follows direct action that will lead to the achievement of good? If so, I say you can call yourself virtuous, or good, or useful by merely doing the things logically you know will lead you as far as possible from the bad and get you as close as possible to what you deem to be good things. In this case, we are calling a healthy and clean-as-a-whistle lifestyle all that is good or the ultimate in the aspiration of virtue.
I understand this as a process or way of life and not something that you are pre-ordained to be. I can see this perception of acquisition of good in the lives of nuns, monks, Buddhists, anyone who strives to be the best he or she can be in this life.
[Lightly edited to enhance readability -TT] |
 |
|
|
Zach Ramey
Newcomer
4 Posts |
|
|
Mariah Blevans
Fledgling
13 Posts |
Posted - Feb 02 2009 : 3:11:48 PM
|
I have a question.
So, are we defining everything that is inherently good as that which exists and is useful? So everything "not good" or "bad" would be everything nonexistent and not useful? |
|
|
|
Carrie Williams
Fledgling
11 Posts |
|
|
Nick Candler
Fledgling
6 Posts |
Posted - Feb 03 2009 : 6:58:27 PM
|
Surely the existence of something that kills people, then only saves people from itself, cannot be good, can it?
|
Edited by - Nick Candler on Feb 03 2009 7:03:11 PM |
|
|
|
Carrie Williams
Fledgling
11 Posts |
Posted - Feb 03 2009 : 9:24:52 PM
|
Nick,
Just to be clear...are you saying that viruses save people from themselves? When I mentioned the good of viruses, I said that viruses are good because they can help to enhance your immune system, and a strong immune system helps you remain healthy. Isn't the capacity to remain healthy a good and virtuous thing? I was also pointing out that you cannot make the broad statement that All viruses are bad because they kill people, because not all of them kill people. In fact, some save people (from other viruses). I never drew the conclusion that viruses save humans from themselves. I simply said that they offer protection and most common viruses benefit one's immune system.
In regards to whether something is a good and useful thing, I decided to add on to your comment with the opposing view. I brought up the fact that you deemed something bad simply because of just one of it's known features. I wanted to open your mind to the idea that because something has the capacity to do bad things, it also has the capacity to do good things. Following this thought, you can call it good at what it does. Back up a little, and start with the thought that all life is good. Viruses are DNA, which is the main constituent of life. All things that contain DNA constitute life, therefore it must be good. Saying viruses are bad, is the same as saying all humans are bad. Both are comprised of DNA, both are living, therefore both are good. However, this logic is not complete. The main fallacy, is that I did the same thing that you did with my argument because I said that ALL life is good. You can complete this thought by saying that all things that have the capacity to be good, are good. You come back to that spectrum thing again where you are running from the bad with arms outstretched until your fingertips touch all that is good. No one thing is only bad or only good. There is no morality, or judgement here. Who cares if something is bad, or good. I don't. However, just as much as things have the capacity to be good, they also have the capacity to be bad. Its the aspiration towards the good or the virtuous that counts. You can strive to be bad or not a very good version of whatever you want. If this is your endeavor, well, you are one your way towards the bad. If you are aspiring to be the most useful human being, the most virtuous human being, you can logically call yourself good. The purpose of this whole way of thinking is to simply put things where they belong on that spectrum instead of crossing out one half of it and calling everything to the right of that line all that exists. That's where my brain goes on that topic. Striving towards excellence, or diving into the doldrums of mediocrity. Either state has a place in existence. |
|
|
|
Ryan Shucard
Fledgling
7 Posts |
|
|
Carrie Williams
Fledgling
11 Posts |
Posted - Feb 04 2009 : 08:35:16 AM
|
I do beleive that our own degrees of goodness differ, as well as own perception of these degrees of goodness. It is relatively easy to come to the conclusion that our actions or beliefs are good or bad in a morally jdugemental way because that is how we have been conditioned to think and percieve in civilized society. We are told to beleive all of these moral rights and wrongs which is what we use to steer our own paths in life. There is no right or wrong when you are referring to the good, bad, and virtuous etc. Take for example, the orator. We were discussing in class, that a great speech is one that moves people, right? Is Obama a great orator because he moves people with his speeches? Well, some would say yes because everything he says has some emotional, sentimental or relatable edge to it. I think he is a great orator in the context of how politicians give speeches. He keeps the audience thinking, guessing, questioning what he might propose, and then he follows most of what he says with valid conclusions so that you could trust that what he says might not be said to simply appeal to people's pet agendas. He seems truthful and pbjective...for the most part. Which is what we hope for in a politician. And I think it is safe to say that America has set the expectation of what to expect of a politician very low. He is a great example of exceeding expectation and raising our expectations for the future. He is exemplory. So, you can deduce he aspires to be the best of his kind, and it follows that his aspiration towards the best make him the best. He isn't good simply because he moves people, he is good because he is a great example of what he is supposed to be. McCain moves people, but he also talks in circles and evades touchy subjects. He is also good at repeating the same rherotic over and over....which I would suppose is not a spectacular example what we would hope an orator to accomplish with their speeches. Anyway, I know politics can be a touchy subject, but I just wanted to illustrate how I think the process of reasoning goes in regards to measureing goodness, as you say. It is definitely an innately individual thing. I also think it comes down to what was brought up in class about questioning someones beliefs. As long as the beliefs are solid and consistent, the arguement should hold. Otherwise, a reevaluation should be done.
This is my long-winded way of agreeing with you. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Existence, Virtue, Usefulness
Forum Locked
