Would You Rather Be Happy Or Good?

[Vrecknidj]

I teach university-level philosophy courses. I've done so since 1990 and am always on the lookout for new and engaging questions for my students.

Here is my latest:

"Would you rather be happy or good?"

Of course, being a philosophical question, it isn't supposed to be answered in the usual way. If you reply with either "happy" or "good," you've missed the joy of the question.

If you answer with "neither" or "both," you might also have missed the joy of the question.

If you answer with something like "I don't like the way you phrased that," or "I don't think those are fair options," or "I think that you can't really be happy unless you are good," then you're much closer to having fun with this.

So, here's an exercise for everyone. Think about the relationship between happy and good. There are, after all, lots of potential meanings of both. For example...

• Consider what people think when they ask a 5-year old "Have you been good today?"
• Relatedly, there is the tendency of the self-absorbed (i.e. most Americans) to think of themselves this way: "I'm a good person," even if that person doesn't have any clear justification for what this means.
• What does it mean to say that good opposes evil? (Especially in a theological claim like "God permits evil even though He's good.")
• Anyone who has been paying attention would know that Michael Jordan was a good basketball player. (Indeed, one of the best ever.)
• There is the question of whether something is good for something else (like what kind of scissors is good for cutting denim).

Consider also what it means to be happy. Some folks would say that to be happy is to be: satisfied, pleased, joyful, lucky, content and others.

But, there is some vague, nebulous sense in which both "good" and "happy" appeal to our intuitions. However, I suggest that many of us don't have this worked out in a satisfactory way, that, as it were, we "haven't really thought about it."

You folks are INTPs and like to think about things. So, what do you think about this issue?

As an addendum, consider some ancient Greeks' positions on this.

Socrates said (through Plato), more than once, that a good person cannot be harmed by an evil person. He also said that a good person never knowingly chooses evil.

Aristotle suggested that the aim of human life is eudaimonia (a term often mistakenly translated as "happiness," but the English meaning of that word misses what "eudaimonia" suggests). Eudaimonia comes closer to meaning "thriving," or "flourishing" or, as some folks might say, "truly living." This, he said, was the ultimate good.

Epicurus said that the good life is a life of pleasure. Again, pleasure isn't exactly happiness, and one could, it seems, feel pleasure and be unhappy at the same time.

Dave

 

[Zeke Johnson]

I accept your challenge!

• Consider what people think when they ask a 5-year old "Have you been good today?"

Good and Evil don't actually exist, they're just recent human notions bought about by christianity, in other religions there is no clear division, Shiva etc. Good in our sense is merely, behavioural patterns that promote survival of the species, Acting kind to others, protecting the weak, veering away from violence, it's a key factor in developing a safe-society. The truth is Good and Evil are the actually the same thing. I don't think I need to explain this further? Illusion of duality etc, winning is losing, life is death.

• Relatedly, there is the tendency of the self-absorbed (i.e. most Americans) to think of themselves this way: "I'm a good person," even if that person doesn't have any clear justification for what this means.

This is a belief system used as a safety mechanism for the ego to justify it's acts, any acts. Gott mitt eins is a good example. The splitting of our ego occurs the moment we are born, 'Ye shall enter heaven only as a child' is refering to developing a whole personality again, one that incorporates are shadow aspects as well. Again I don't think this needs further explaination?

• What does it mean to say that good opposes evil? (Especially in a theological claim like "God permits evil even though He's good.")

Good is just a human conception, a notion. For humans to speak on behalf of god is pretty stupid isn't it?. 'Good opposes evil'?, well 'Evil opposes good' I don't understand. It's like stating the 'sky is up', surely your reasoning is in question here? 'God permits evil even though he's good', Is he? what about the eastern religions, to analyse this claim shows a clear disposition towards the christian religion doesn't it?.

• Anyone who has been paying attention would know that Michael Jordan was a good basketball player. (Indeed, one of the best ever.)

The supposition here is that 'goodness' creates success. how about 'Mcdonalds is a bad corporation', 'Hitler was a bad genius', There is no logical correlation between 'goodness' and success, or that 'god favours the good'. Such judgemental childish thinking is in serious error. We have only to look to life to see that 'bad guys' don't always lose, or that 'good guys' don't always get the girl. Life is obviously not that simple.

• There is the question of whether something is good for something else (like what kind of scissors is good for cutting denim).

Good in the sense of it's effectiveness?. Interesting point. You could say 'Mike is good for Sally', this just implies a symbiotic relationship, a beneficial relationship. A non-conflictive relationship, but whether this is true or not is in doubt. Conflict is a major component of life, conflict is a neccessary thing, so is something really good for something else?.


I enjoy your posts Dave, keep up the 'good' work,


Zeke Johnson ( Ex-Captain )

 

[Ermine]

Well, in my opinion, true good, not necessarily the good people define for you, eventually equals happy. For example, though it's nice to feel pleasure, it isn't necessarily good for you, Some pleasure is like eating too much dessert. It tastes great, and it's in abundance, but it makes you fat or sick afterwards.

Also, there's the concept of fighting or sacrificing for something good. It's not exactly pleasurable, but it makes you happy in the end.

I just don't like the wording of the question. I don't think the question is directed at the essence of good as much as it's directed at the many uses of the word "good".

Consider what people think when they ask a 5-year old "Have you been good today?"

In this scenario, the word "good" really means cooperative. The only "good" that 5 year olds can discern is that which pleases their parents. They simply use the word "good" because it's easier for little kids to grasp than cooperative or submissive.

Relatedly, there is the tendency of the self-absorbed (i.e. most Americans) to think of themselves this way: "I'm a good person," even if that person doesn't have any clear justification for what this means.

Again, the word "good" is being used to embody what the self-absorbed person thinks is good for him or her. The word "good" in this case could mean anything from claiming that he or she is truly living (according to Aristotle) to being morally good, to doing what is best for them. It could be anything that is in their own interest. This isn't necessarily pure good.

What does it mean to say that good opposes evil? (Especially in a theological claim like "God permits evil even though He's good.")

I think this question is somewhat tainted in the interpretation of the theological claim. God certainly is good, and wants good to prevail. In the process, there can be bad without evil. There's a fine line between the two. Bad can benefit us if it is overcome. There is no way evil can benefit us. Also, it's a matter of timing and perspective. God, in his being different than mortals, would have a different perspective on what happens, as well as a different timetable.

Anyone who has been paying attention would know that Michael Jordan was a good basketball player. (Indeed, one of the best ever.)

In this context, I think good really means beneficial, both for himself as well his team.

There is the question of whether something is good for something else (like what kind of scissors is good for cutting denim).

In this context, I think good means adequate, or complimentary to.

 

[loveofreason]

It occurs to me that adhering to someone else's definition of 'good' can cause the deepest misery. In fact the external imposition of a moral 'good' could be considered the greatest evil.

However, if what is good is for a creature/person to unfold according to it's nature, then it must perforce engender 'happiness', even though that state may outwardly appear unpleasant. So, happiness is perhaps the state of existing according to one's internal blueprint, and is synonymous with that being's 'good'.

 

[Yozuki]

Yozuki would rather the other. Happiness is the seretonine receptor, inhibiting the many sadness the activity. Blastart! Yozuki cannot believing the nueral receptors, Yozuki is the disorder the mental and non the happiness!

No trying the funny stuff seretonine brain receptor! Yozuki is a getting the wise you and taking control the mind that it is.

Yozuki is thinking the good is mental projection on the other human mechanical. For did not Edward D. Morrison the quote,

"Truly, if there is evil in this world, it lies within the heart of mankind."

Too much the enjoyable quote the game, Tales of Phantasia.

 

[Alie]

This question seems to be a question of your attitude towards other people and how your relationships are formed and kept. A good person is probably more outgoing and enjoys interaction with others. Others might view them as being trustworthy because they would not want to go against their morals. However a happy person is probably more self-centered and more concerned with their own feelings. I don't mean that they are arrogant and snobby, just simply that they are more focused on achieving their own hierarchy of needs.

Although you might be one or the other, who is to say that you can not be both good and happy?

 

[mm1991]

I am going to miss the joy of the question and say both. =]

 

[Wisp]

Happy. THe definition of good is too fickle.

 

[Cabbo Pearimo]

This might take a while, as with all the others.



Goodness, as in benevolence, can help a person to be happy. For example; Every day, I get up in time to walk down the street, give jerry, the local tramp, two pounds sterling and a smile, go into my local supermarket to buy a healthy, organic and green sandwitch and a bottle of orange juice. I say hello and occasionally small talk to the recognizable faces. I am a well-loved individual with a deep understanding of personality.
One day, a man stops me in the street outside the supermarket, asking for all the money I have. Now, being a perfectionist and that, I have not even a penny on me, due to the fact that I have already spent everything I wanted to that morning. The man tries to stab me, but here he comes, jerry, the friendly neighborhood tramp, out to kick some evil ass. Being of the street persuasion, jerry easily disarms and neutralizes the threat of the mugger.

Consider otherwise. I am a mean bastard. I laugh every day at the sight of a helpless, namless tramp. I steal the shopping from other people's trollies. I carry plenty of money so I can show off to anyone at any time. I get stabbed and die that day due to lack of oxegen circulation visa vis blood loss.


Okay, so it's a bit of a stretch, but hopefully you know where I'm coming from. On the other hand, consider the happiness of the two individuals. The good guy sticks to his routine and lives his life every day the same. The mean guy allows himself luxuries the good guy wouldn't dream of taking, due to his green opinions. The evil guy probably has sex with the most attractive, and as of the day of the stabbing, richest gold-digger in the world every night of his life. The good guy never smokes, the mean guy smokes 2 lighters a day and died of a stabbing. The good guy will live to die a horrible, confused death, while the mean guy died knowing what was happening, equally fearful however probably a good bit more comfortable.
Or maybe the good guy is a hippie who gets stoned and has sex 20/7, with 2 for sleep and 2 for shoppin'.




So, happy or good? Happy and good, as long as the good makes sense.

 

[Wisp]

Yes, it has to be your own definition of good, because society's good is twisted.

 

[Cabbo Pearimo]

that too.

 

[Wisp]

If I followed society's good, then I wouldn't be myself, but some twisted mirror of society... *shudder*

 

[Cabbo Pearimo]

Which is exactly why punks exist. Although, again, punks have become a social stereotype, and often fit themselves into it for some reason, so that might not be the best statement.

 

[Wisp]

The word "punk" is an oxymoron now.

 

[Cabbo Pearimo]

One way of putting it. I can't remember it exactly but there is a word...

 

[Wisp]

Pointless?

 

[Cabbo Pearimo]

That only explains part of it, but thanks for trying to help.

Intense group psychology leading to a group identity, leading to a stereotype.

 

[Ermine]

I call it conformity to nonconformity. Just to shake things up.

 

[Chimera]

I wanted to reply to this earlier, but my mind has been way too overrun with troublesome emotion lately. So...

To be good, in my definition, is to follow what others believe that you should do. Such as the 5-year-old example in the first post, to be good in that situation, the kid would have to follow whatever rules his parents had to be considered "good." The kid might not have had fun, but that is the price one must pay to be "good." Maybe he had the worst day of his entire life. And what if the satisfaction of being "good" didn't last for him?
A further thought to that example, what happens as the child grows up? To be considered "good", it is no longer as simple as just following simple directions from his parents like "Come here" or "Put away your toys." When he gets to school, he has a new set of orders he must follow to be "good." The same goes for his job, when he's old enough for one.
My point is, to be good is to please people around you, not yourself. If you are pleased by pleasing others, then go ahead and be a sheep. Eventually people will start taking advantage of your desire to please, and then they'll leave you behind as soon as you've done whatever task they ask of you.
To be happy, however, is to be concerned about pleasing yourself. The people around you can hate you, and you can still be happy if you wish to be. To be happy, you need not rely on the other people around you. To be happy is to have fun, to do what you want to.
In short, I would much, much rather be happy than good.

 

[Linsejko]

To be truly good is to be selfless. This is, I think, easily the most true definition that all the other common usages pervert.
The irony that exists is, if happiness is caused by goodness, those who seek to be happy cannot be happy until they no longer seek their own happiness above the happiness of others.

(many others have made fine points as well. I see nothing to add outside of my own thoughts.)

.L

 

[Olba]

Now, now, let's see.

Good
Depends very much on the opinion of the individual viewing. This, in turn, makes good a rather weak attribute. Which decreases its points by a lot, in my opinion.

Happy
Happy is a very funny thing, actually, because it has a clear counter-attribute attached to it, unlike good. This results in happy being the more likely choice if you were to pick one. However, to be happy, you need to admit the absolute existence of the unhappy. Which makes happy very contradictory. How exactly can you be happy if you are constantly aware of the existence and potential of the unhappy in every single thing you do? Right, you cannot.

Thus, I would simply conclude that I wouldn't pick either one because they are too questionable. Which is also the reason I don't like religion and some fields of science, such as probability and theoretical physics.

 

[Linsejko]

However, to be happy, you need to admit the absolute existence of the unhappy.

Which makes happy very contradictory. How exactly can you be happy if you are constantly aware of the existence and potential of the unhappy in every single thing you do?

Right, you cannot.

Actually, you don't have to acknowledge those things to be happy. Thus, ignorance is bliss.

That aside, I still don't agree that knowledge of existence & potential unhappy degrades happy.

Your statement only sounds logical, but it isn't. :P

Then again, I do have a love/hate relationship with religion, so, maybe our conflicting view points find a common source.

(And of course, my view on good presented above conflicts with yours, but no reason to repeat myself.)

.L

 

[Olba]

Actually, you don't have to acknowledge those things to be happy. Thus, ignorance is bliss.

But that's where you're wrong. If we define happiness as a feeling of everything being in harmony with yourself and your opinions, this eventually leads into a situation where you have to admit that unhappiness exists.

And by the simplest of logic, if there is an attribute, there always have to be a counter-attribute to it. So, if we have happiness, unhappiness must also exist. After all, the counter-attribute is simply adding a prefix to the definition of the original word. Which, I believe, should be something you can easily do for each and every word.

Your statement only sounds logical, but it isn't. :P

Or then the flaw is in your lack of thought, as my statement is completely logical, as I explained above.

 

[Vrecknidj]

I find it interesting how differently people define terms. When I posed the admittedly loaded question, I didn't intend to offer this question:

"Would you rather follow someone else's rules or please yourself?"

For me, that's an entirely different question. But, then, I wouldn't define "being good" as "following someone else's rules."



Dave

 

[WildC]

Olba, you did not explain the supposed logic behind your original statement. The latest post was more a matter of semantics than logic.

"If we define happiness as a feeling of everything being in harmony with yourself and your opinions, this eventually leads into a situation where you have to admit that unhappiness exists."

Just because unhappiness may exist, we do not necessarily have to be subjected to it just by being subjected to happiness. The difference between accepting the existence of something and subordinating yourself to it is massive.

Theism exists, as does atheism. I subject myself fully to the definition of atheism that I know, while not in any way aligning myself or dealing with theism.

 

[Linsejko]

And by the simplest of logic, if there is an attribute, there always have to be a counter-attribute to it.

That's absolutely not true. There is no counter attribute to being blue, or located at a particular longitude/latitude, or being neutral.

If we define happiness as a feeling of everything being in harmony with yourself and your opinions, this eventually leads into a situation where you have to admit that unhappiness exists.

Admitting unhappiness exists is not something that has to disrupt your happiness. You logic is so clearly flawed because of the existence of this truth: people are, at times, happy. You statements claim that cannot happen, because of what the reality of happiness is.

Which means you either have poor logic, or poor perception; I think the latter. I think your definition of happiness is severely lacking and completely theoretical. Obviously people don't have to have everything in harmony with their self, and their opinions. That's just silly. That can never happen.

So either happiness doesn't exist, or you are wrong.

Happiness does exist, thus, you're wrong.

Which, I believe, should be something you can easily do for each and every word.

There is such a prefix, in Esperanto. "Mal". Bela=beautiful. Malbela=ugly. This is perfectly consistent, and there is no alternate prefix, as in English with its plethora of options.

Still, to say 'should', is strong. At least in English, I think it's one more thing that makes this language a beautiful patchwork. If we made it conform to so many rules, it would be so much less colourful.

.L

 

[Olba]

That's absolutely not true. There is no counter attribute to being blue, or located at a particular longitude/latitude, or being neutral.

Not a single attribute, but at least a group of them. Or wouldn't you say that "not being neutral" has several different attributes that can be used?

Admitting unhappiness exists is not something that has to disrupt your happiness. You logic is so clearly flawed because of the existence of this truth: people are, at times, happy. You statements claim that cannot happen, because of what the reality of happiness is.

But of course admitting unhappiness will disrupt your happiness. It makes for a possibility that your happiness ends and is replaced by its complete opposite, which itself is an unhappy event. And if you fail to admit that such a thing is possible, your perception of reality is severely flawed.

And thus, being 100%, completely happy isn't possible. Because the possibility exists.

Which means you either have poor logic, or poor perception; I think the latter. I think your definition of happiness is severely lacking and completely theoretical. Obviously people don't have to have everything in harmony with their self, and their opinions. That's just silly. That can never happen.

Actually, had you thought about it for a more than a moment, you would realize that the definition of what happiness is doesn't even matter at this point.

There is such a prefix, in Esperanto. "Mal". Bela=beautiful. Malbela=ugly. This is perfectly consistent, and there is no alternate prefix, as in English with its plethora of options.

Well, the most common prefixes used in the English language would probably be a- and de- in this case.

Still, to say 'should', is strong. At least in English, I think it's one more thing that makes this language a beautiful patchwork. If we made it conform to so many rules, it would be so much less colourful.

Saying something "should" exist when an extremely simple logic says that it's an essential truth isn't "strong".

Let me take another approach at it. In philosophy, there is a concept called "object". It says that objects always have a property attached to them. This can be proved by a simple demonstration:

OBJECT is PROPERTY. This sentence clearly defines the existence of object by binding it directly to a desciptive property. Now, let's take away the property.

OBJECT is. This sentence would mean that everything exists, even if we have no ways of describing it, no matter what the property is. This goes right against sentences such as :

OBJECT is UNEXISTENT. This clearly defines the object as something that does not exist. However, if we could say that objects exist without a property, we would now have a existing material that, by its own definition, does not exist. Which is an impossible situation.

Thus, OBJECT is PROPERTY, where PROPERTY is anything that does not undo the existence of the object is always a legit way of describing something.

With this, we can say that is we have any property that does not describe the very essence of existing, we can always roll it around and have a property that undoes the original property. However, depending on the concentration of these two property, in the case they exist simultaneously in one object, we will define it as one of the two. This, again, is simple logic and perfectly acceptable.

Thus, I've proven myself.

 

[RobdoR]

I think both happiness and goodness are different for everyone, but I would bet that the different temperments have similar views. Borrowing from David Kiersey, the four different main temperments (artisans, guradians, idealists and rationals) each have a vastly different definitions of each. In fact, in his book "Please Understand Me II" Kiersey uses much better words than happiness and goodness to describe the motives behind people's actions. I think the following could be a fairly accurate description of the different types' definitions:

Happiness

Artisan: Physical pleasure, playing, and excitement
Guardian: Participating socially, gaining security, and being accepted
Idealist: Deepening relationships and knowing themselves
Rational: Understanding new things

Goodness

Artisan: giving to others
Guradian: conforming to the rules, doing right, being helpful, and bearing burdens
Idealist: Helping others, living up to their ideal self
Rational: Creating efficiency and enlightening others

You can see that the different perspectives can vastly change what happy and good mean. Then when you add in indeviduality, upbringing, and relationships the definition gets even messier.

Personally, I think happiness comes from doing what God created you to do. Many aspects are involved in this including pleasure, duty, sacrifice, learning, love, friendship, adventure, perserverance, helping others, accepting others, and so on. In the end I think it comes down to obeying God which includes the above list.

 

[Cabbo Pearimo]

"How do you sleep at night?"
"On a mountian of $100 notes surrounded by many beautiful women."


The difference between good and happy.

Although, you could use the phrase 'I'm good and happy', like 'it's good and sunny outside', but that's not 'good' in the philosophical sense, which is the sense that most strongly evokes memories of the past, which is what we base everything on.

 

[loveofreason]

Let me take another approach at it. In philosophy, there is a concept called "object". It says that objects always have a property attached to them. This can be proved by a simple demonstration:

OBJECT is PROPERTY. This sentence clearly defines the existence of object by binding it directly to a desciptive property. Now, let's take away the property.

OBJECT is. This sentence would mean that everything exists, even if we have no ways of describing it, no matter what the property is. This goes right against sentences such as :

OBJECT is UNEXISTENT. This clearly defines the object as something that does not exist. However, if we could say that objects exist without a property, we would now have a existing material that, by its own definition, does not exist. Which is an impossible situation.

Thus, OBJECT is PROPERTY, where PROPERTY is anything that does not undo the existence of the object is always a legit way of describing something.

With this, we can say that is we have any property that does not describe the very essence of existing, we can always roll it around and have a property that undoes the original property. However, depending on the concentration of these two property, in the case they exist simultaneously in one object, we will define it as one of the two. This, again, is simple logic and perfectly acceptable.

Thus, I've proven myself.

logical positivism?

Dave,

what is your answer to the question you pose?

 

[Olba]

logical positivism?

Actually, I took abuse of my very limited knowledge of onthology, coupled with some simple logic, such as "that which is, cannot be unexistent" and since the objects in onthology are defined as something that are or can be, they are never unexistent. And due to this, we are required to have a property that defines them as something else but unexistent, since otherwise objects would exist without a decriptive property, which would allow for them to exist as unexistent.

Also, it's rather logical that if we attach such a property which doesn't concern existence itself, there is always a counter-property to it. In this case, happiness-unhappiness. And since I've just proved that unhappiness exist, I've also at the same time proven that complete happiness is impossible. This, in turn, is due to the fact that as long as unhappiness exists, there is a potential for it to appear, thus your happiness is only temporary and thus never complete. Meaning it's limited.

 

[loveofreason]

And the reverse?

If we uphold your argument then absolute unhappiness should be impossible to achieve, merely because there is the potential to be happy.

What is wrong with temporal brevity? No state can be maintained - we are always in motion toward one polarity or the other. If only briefly traveling through absolute happiness invalidates the condition, then shouldn't every moment of more or less happiness/unhappiness be invalid? Couldn't we invalidate the whole of well, everything, if we take your reasoning to it's logical conclusion?


Sorry, I wasn't clear - why does temporary equate with not complete? I would argue the opposite - all we have are total, perfect, complete moments. Complete for an instant is as good as it gets, and instants are all that we have.

 

[Olba]

And the reverse?

If we uphold your argument then absolute unhappiness should be impossible to achieve, merely because there is the potential to be happy.

I don't see a problem with that.

Sorry, I wasn't clear - why does temporary equate with not complete? I would argue the opposite - all we have are total, perfect, complete moments. Complete for an instant is as good as it gets, and instants are all that we have.

You just made your last mistake, dear. "Perfect" is so much an impossible thing that the word itself is funny. For something to be perfect, it first needs to be independent of such factors as "point of view" and "opinion", meaning it has to contain every single attribute in the exact same concentration. This would logically result in a situation where every moment feels the same. Which just isn't true. There are happy moments and sad moments, for example. If anything, I would say that means that the specific moment is more so of the mentioned attribute than others. Which goes against total perfectness.

 

[kd10]

The question. Would you rather be happy or good.
Happy is a feeling.
Good, is a perspective.
This can or cannot be complicated. I believe it is more pushed towards the mindset of the moment.

Consider what people think when they ask a 5-year old "Have you been good today?"

Would this be answered the same. "Have you been bad today?"
Bad, Good, it seems to me that these questions revolve around the same concept as others have stated before. For a moment, think in the perspective of the opposite mindset. What would they reply? I am not giving conclusive answers as though the idea behind it is inconclusive in my reasoning.

Relatedly, there is the tendency of the self-absorbed (i.e. most Americans) to think of themselves this way: "I'm a good person," even if that person doesn't have any clear justification for what this means.
What does it mean to say that good opposes evil? (Especially in a theological claim like "God permits evil even though He's good.")
Anyone who has been paying attention would know that Michael Jordan was a good basketball player. (Indeed, one of the best ever.)
There is the question of whether something is good for something else (like what kind of scissors is good for cutting denim).

All of the above can be answered as I said before. Good is the perspective of the beholder.
Happy, I have not covered.
To be happy is a feeling, an emotion.
A universal feeling. Positive. When one is happy, things go smoother. Lets rephase the Main question for a second.
Would you rather be Unhappy or Bad.
note- I am not sure what is the complete oppisite of Happy.
In this You can be happy and bad, unhappy and good (in referiance to "being a good person").

I am not sure, what im trying to say, I just rambled. Some comments would be greatly appreciated.

 

[loveofreason]

I don't see a problem with that.

I didn't mean to suggest a problem. Just a consequence.

You just made your last mistake, dear.

You're too kind, mild Olba. Alas, my last mistake is nowhere in sight. I fully expect to continue to misinterpret, misunderstand and miscommunicate, sometimes willfully, sometimes due to my patchwork brain and distorting filters. But heck, a stranger's faith that I have perfected correctness and shall no longer make mistakes *sigh* "If wishes were horses..."[/quote]

"Perfect" is so much an impossible thing that the word itself is funny.

In a way I agree. It is an extraordinary word. Coined, one would think, for an extraordinary world. But my knowledge of philosophical theory is poor, and I am given to a poet's use of language.

To be "perfect". To be whole; complete; lacking nothing. To be ideal. Yes, to be independent of circumstance or influence - that says something of the condition of perfection.

For something to be perfect, it first needs to be independent of such factors as "point of view" and "opinion", meaning it has to contain every single attribute in the exact same concentration.

But from where do you obtain such a conclusion? Unless you can produce an acceptable chain of reasoning, I declare poppycock.

This would logically result in a situation where every moment feels the same. Which just isn't true. There are happy moments and sad moments, for example. If anything, I would say that means that the specific moment is more so of the mentioned attribute than others. Which goes against total perfectness.

And all this is predicated on prior unsubstantiated claim.


Perhaps I'm just being simple minded. I have a pear. I have an apple. I shall declare one to be the perfect pear, the other to be the perfect apple. Neither lacks any quality that would compromise its wholeness. Each is complete unto itself. Neither must contain any concentration of any attribute of the other in order to be perfectly what it is.

(poor example maybe, as they are genetically quite close and share many qualities...)

Regardless, the poet in me upholds the right of each and every moment to be unalike; unique in nature though enfolded and expanded in the prior and subsequent moments, and perfect.
kd10,

I think defining happy as a feeling and good as a perspective is a valuable beginning. Clear, simple insight.

 

[Linsejko]

All of the following is directed at olba; all quotes are attributed to him.

Not a single attribute, but at least a group of them. Or wouldn't you say that "not being neutral" has several different attributes that can be used?

Yes, of course. But those attributes are not the opposite. If you call those 'opposites', then you are actually arguing that any given attribute has at least one other attribute that can be used in place of it to mean something else.

And that, obviously, is true. But it is an entirely different issue.

But of course admitting unhappiness will disrupt your happiness. It makes for a possibility that your happiness ends and is replaced by its complete opposite, which itself is an unhappy event. And if you fail to admit that such a thing is possible, your perception of reality is severely flawed.

And thus, being 100%, completely happy isn't possible. Because the possibility exists.

That, actually, is not objectively an unhappy event. I am thinking of it now, and the idea does not bother me in the slightest. Thus, you are wrong. Also, your implicating sentence that follows the underlined one is pointless. I never asserted that such a thing was impossible. Are you incapable of admitting you are wrong? We're running in circles. I refuted every form of this argument you've given with the exact same answer:

That knowledge does not inherently bring with it unhappiness.

Actually, had you thought about it for a more than a moment, you would realize that the definition of what happiness is doesn't even matter at this point.

The most basic rules in LD debate are that criterion, value, and definitions are laid. Our arguing on happiness being brought into existence, and happiness dissipating, are based upon what we believe happiness to be. So it is very much important.

And please refrain from the subtly undermining comments in the future.

Well, the most common prefixes used in the English language would probably be a- and de- in this case.

I would actually rank "un-" higher than "a-". I would also give "non-" special recognition because of it's universally applicable nature.

Saying something "should" exist when an extremely simple logic says that it's an essential truth isn't "strong".

Let me take another approach at it. In philosophy, there is a concept called "object". It says that objects always have a property attached to them. This can be proved by a simple demonstration:

OBJECT is PROPERTY. This sentence clearly defines the existence of object by binding it directly to a desciptive property. Now, let's take away the property.

OBJECT is. This sentence would mean that everything exists, even if we have no ways of describing it, no matter what the property is. This goes right against sentences such as :

OBJECT is UNEXISTENT[sic]. This clearly defines the object as something that does not exist. However, if we could say that objects exist without a property, we would now have a existing material that, by its own definition, does not exist. Which is an impossible situation.

Thus, OBJECT is PROPERTY, where PROPERTY is anything that does not undo the existence of the object is always a legit way of describing something.

With this, we can say that is we have any property that does not describe the very essence of existing, we can always roll it around and have a property that undoes the original property. However, depending on the concentration of these two property, in the case they exist simultaneously in one object, we will define it as one of the two. This, again, is simple logic and perfectly acceptable.

Thus, I've proven myself.

That sounds more like linguistic theory than philosophy to me. (Speaking of linguistics, you misspelled "INEXISTENT".)

I still disagree, and think you missed the point. Languages should not necessarily be logical. Go try Lojban if you want that; I'm much more satisfied with the diverse powers of creation given to me by an imperfect, illogical language. Again, saying what English "should" be implies some kind of state it would be better in. I don't necessarily think English would be helped by modification so as to reach logical perfection.

So you really prove nothing, except that you're off topic. Arguing the nature of Objects & Tags doesn't really affect what should be in this language, seeing as English has no agenda to become either more logical, or more perfect.

It just "is".

.L

 

[Olba]

You're too kind, mild Olba. Alas, my last mistake is nowhere in sight. I fully expect to continue to misinterpret, misunderstand and miscommunicate, sometimes willfully, sometimes due to my patchwork brain and distorting filters. But heck, a stranger's faith that I have perfected correctness and shall no longer make mistakes *sigh* "If wishes were horses..."

But wouldn't that be your last mistake if you life were to end in five seconds?

In a way I agree. It is an extraordinary word. Coined, one would think, for an extraordinary world. But my knowledge of philosophical theory is poor, and I am given to a poet's use of language.

I wouldn't say that I have much knowledge of anything, I just have my way with words so that it makes me seem like I know what I'm talking about.

I would say that the word "perfect" is really a weird thing, specially if it's defined by humans, which are, by definition, imperfect. After all, if we were perfect, such concepts as "god" would've never come to being in the first place. Who needs a higher being if you're perfect?

To be "perfect". To be whole; complete; lacking nothing. To be ideal. Yes, to be independent of circumstance or influence - that says something of the condition of perfection.

But doesn't "whole" mean "lack of nothing", thus containing every single thing and their anti-so's, thus creating an impossible situation which would logically amount to zero?

But from where do you obtain such a conclusion? Unless you can produce an acceptable chain of reasoning, I declare poppycock.

If "perfect" was dependant of opinion or point of view, we could have a discussion on it. However, that would lead into a dilemma. If it's perfect, there is no room for personal interpretation. There's nothing that's been left out, so the only interpretation possible is of course "perfect" or "whole" or "complete". And for a word to define itself as itself is not allowed in classical philosophy. For example, "This sentence is a truth" is not one to be discussed, but simply; the sentence itself cannot define its own qualities. Thus, the sentence can be interpreted, right? But since perfect has been defined by itself, it is not debatable, right?

Let's look at it like this. If you don't have an attribute, you're not whole. If perfect is equal to whole or complete, something that does not have each and every attribute can never be perfect, right? And if it has more of one attribute than the others, it could be described by that very attribute, instead of being perfect, it would be something else. Which goes against it being perfect. After all, if it's perfect, it can be defined by anything without the one doing the defining being unjust.

Perhaps I'm just being simple minded. I have a pear. I have an apple. I shall declare one to be the perfect pear, the other to be the perfect apple. Neither lacks any quality that would compromise its wholeness. Each is complete unto itself. Neither must contain any concentration of any attribute of the other in order to be perfectly what it is.

But the problem here is that you've categorized your perfect. Your perfect in this case is the perfect in a pear and the perfect in an apple, not the perfect in a novel. Yes, it's contradictory towards the earlier definition of lacking nothing, but that's just how it is.

That, actually, is not objectively an unhappy event. I am thinking of it now, and the idea does not bother me in the slightest.

But isn't that a fallacy? Defining what something is or isn't by how you feel about it. That's a very self-centric way of looking at things. On another hand, it isn't completely correct to adapt to the views of the masses without giving it objective criticism.

And please refrain from the subtly undermining comments in the future.

But why should I? Is it offending you? Is it making me look like a God complexed teenager that hates their parents?

I would actually rank "un-" higher than "a-". I would also give "non-" special recognition because of it's universally applicable nature.

Well, but of course, "a-" does come from a foreign language so it isn't as imporant and frequent as the others. However, there's a whole lot of things in many fields of science that love to over-use "a-". For example, teology and biology seem to like it a lot.

That sounds more like linguistic theory than philosophy to me. (Speaking of linguistics, you misspelled "INEXISTENT".)

It surely isn't. It was one of the more fascinating things we went through in mandatory philosophy just now. And darn, I sure am feeling inferior for using the wrong prefix, specially in a word emphasized with capital letters. Please shoot me with a rifle.

I still disagree, and think you missed the point. Languages should not necessarily be logical. Go try Lojban if you want that; I'm much more satisfied with the diverse powers of creation given to me by an imperfect, illogical language. Again, saying what English "should" be implies some kind of state it would be better in. I don't necessarily think English would be helped by modification so as to reach logical perfection.

So you really prove nothing, except that you're off topic. Arguing the nature of Objects & Tags doesn't really affect what should be in this language, seeing as English has no agenda to become either more logical, or more perfect.

But the thing is, it isn't just in English. Have a look:
http://www.google.fi/search?hl=fi&q=onthology&btnG=Google-haku&meta=
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onthology

Surely, if Google finds roughly 8030 related sites within 0,04 seconds, it has to be something more than just something in English language. And surely, if it was in English language only, Cambridge would know it. But it does not, but rather advices you to try Google or Yahoo instead.

So basically, you're saying that I'm not allowed to use whatever means I'm aware of in an attempt of trying to make you realize your inferior and faulty way of thinking? But isn't that just a bit too arrogant of you?

 

[Linsejko]

But the thing is, it isn't just in English. Have a look:
http://www.google.fi/search?hl=fi&q=...gle-haku&meta=
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onthology

Surely, if Google finds roughly 8030 related sites within 0,04 seconds, it has to be something more than just something in English language. And surely, if it was in English language only, Cambridge would know it. But it does not, but rather advices you to try Google or Yahoo instead.

You're kidding me, right?

First off, I don't even know what you're talking about. I don't know of anything I said that just applied to English, so "it isn't just in English" is a sentence that shows you're arguing something unrelated to what I'm talking about.

Next, whatever you are trying to argue to me (I still am not quite sure what that would be, or how it supports a view opposed to mine), it is not well supported by your evidence.

1. If Google only finds less than 8,000 results for a thing, that's dismal. Even 50,000; even 100,000 is still not much for Google.

2. Google thought you were misspelling "Ontology," to further prove my point. It offers to let you re-search for the term you must have been meaning to type, because Onthology is so uncommon.

That's practically laughable.

Hell, my spell check is telling me "onthology" is misspelled, and doesn't recognize the word.

Not that any of that means anything, because you're not really arguing anything relevant to this discussion! This is RIDICULOUS!

--

So basically, you're saying that I'm not allowed to use whatever means I'm aware of in an attempt of trying to make you realize your inferior and faulty way of thinking? But isn't that just a bit too arrogant of you?

Tell me where I said that, and I'll give you a cookie. But first you have to apologize for being an idiot and going back to the subtly undermining comments again. See, you first have to prove my way of thinking is inferior and faulty. At this point, I think I'm pretty clearly showing you're delusional.

It's getting a bit funny, really. It's almost cute. Heck, I actually think it is cute.

--

It surely isn't. It was one of the more fascinating things we went through in mandatory philosophy just now. And darn, I sure am feeling inferior for using the wrong prefix, specially in a word emphasized with capital letters. Please shoot me with a rifle.

How 'bout I give you a fair dose of logic instead? I'm not a big fan of guns being used on people, but I'll be glad to keep giving you spelling lessons.

And I don't remember ever saying this to anyone, ever, but you're making me feel like a liar for not saying so; you are speaking in an inferior manner. Your argument is inferior. It's way out in left field, and it's ignoring what I'm saying. If this debate were being judged, you'd have lost a long time ago.

--

But why should I? Is it offending you? Is it making me look like a God complexed teenager that hates their parents?

No, actually. It's making you look like a cutesy little prepubescent boy. I feel bad being so blunt to so cute a person, actually. I'm just asking you to stop to help my conscience out, is all.

Have a little heart, buddy.

--

But isn't that a fallacy? Defining what something is or isn't by how you feel about it. That's a very self-centric way of looking at things. On another hand, it isn't completely correct to adapt to the views of the masses without giving it objective criticism.

Again, distracting the issue. Man, you've gotta get your "P" trait in line, you can't seem to keep track of what I said.

Anyways, thanks for asking! In fact, it is not a fallacy. See, if you make a blanket statement saying that, 'happiness will never exist because the realization of potential unhappiness robs said happiness', then one single example showing it not to be true illustrates that the blanket has a hole. Considering the nature of blanket statements, that kind of causes your blanket to unravel...

Let's make this really simple.

YOU SAID:

admitting [potential] unhappiness will disrupt your happiness.

I SAID: I'm admitting that right now, and my happiness isn't at all disrupted.

This is not illogical, because your hypothesis is easily testable- I can see if admitting unhappiness makes me unhappy. Doing this simple test, I find your hypothesis flawed. That idea is perfectly acceptable to me. I do not need to be convinced happiness will perpetually exist in order for said happiness to exist. With this truth being existent, your argument falls apart. All the rest is for kicks & giggles.

(In case you're wondering, it's still not bothered by that knowledge. I'm quite happy to rip an idiot's argument to shreds. I haven't had this chance in a long time. All the while, I know this will end, and this happiness will cease; yet, my happiness is still bountiful. I am not bothered in the slightest. Heck, I won't be surprised if you don't even return to this forum, though I expect this post will be too big an affront to your pride to allow that. Luckily for me, that probably means more arguments to win against asinine pricks. More happiness to come, it seems!)

--

But the problem here is that you've categorized your perfect. Your perfect in this case is the perfect in a pear and the perfect in an apple, not the perfect in a novel. Yes, it's contradictory towards the earlier definition of lacking nothing, but that's just how it is.

Then are we talking about Perfect Perfection? 'Cause it looks like you want to keep the waters muddied, you don't want an answer. See, the difference between a perfect pear and a perfect novel, is that an apple is a rather objective thing.

Put simply, there are good apples, there are bad apples. There is not much argument.

When we start talking about novels, we enter a much more subjective realm. Perfect in a subjective realm, that's something else- there is much argument over whether or not Harry Potter it a piece of literary crap or literary genius.

This just means that a novel is too broad a topic to make perfect in and of itself. Example: What is the perfect fruit? We can't answer that, because of the "everything and nothing" stuff you're mentioning. But that's because we're too broad. We can say what a perfect apple is, we can say what a perfect pear is.

And perhaps, perhaps, we can say what a perfect Harry Potter book would look like. If you say we can't, it's cause such a complex thing as a book has too many variables and complexities to simplify further.

But who cares?

I propose that Perfection can be said to be the lack of any imperfection.

(Notice how this contrasts with perfect equalling 'lack of nothing'...)

I think a moment of thought beyond, 'but that'd be boring!' leads one to realize that this is true. Anything that cannot lack clearly defined imperfections, thus, cannot be made perfect; it is too broad, too ambiguous. Perfect becomes a series of picking the 'best' options, where 'best' cannot be found because of the wide variety of different 'bests' available. It is not until we reduce to something that has one clear 'best' that a perfect and imperfect can be said to had.

Forgive me for being slightly redundant at times above, it came to me as I wrote, and it's 7AM- I've just pulled an all-nighter.

.L

(P.S., olba- for your spelling lesson for this post, it's spelled "dependent". Not "dependant".)

 

[Cabbo Pearimo]

Hey, let's all sit sown and listen to eraser. "I'm so in love with you, I'll be forever blue, that you give me no reason, you know you're making me work so hard, that you give me no, that you give me no, that you give me no, that you give me no soul, I hear you calling, oh baby please, give a little respect, to me."

 

[Olba]

You're kidding me, right?

First off, I don't even know what you're talking about. I don't know of anything I said that just applied to English, so "it isn't just in English" is a sentence that shows you're arguing something unrelated to what I'm talking about.

You said that what I said about objects, which was actually taught to me in a philosophy course, sounded like it was in linguistics. All I wanted to was to show that it wasn't that way. If you don't appreciate it, too bad.

Next, whatever you are trying to argue to me (I still am not quite sure what that would be, or how it supports a view opposed to mine), it is not well supported by your evidence.

1. If Google only finds less than 8,000 results for a thing, that's dismal. Even 50,000; even 100,000 is still not much for Google.

2. Google thought you were misspelling "Ontology," to further prove my point. It offers to let you re-search for the term you must have been meaning to type, because Onthology is so uncommon.

Whoever said I was arguing anything? I don't need you to even try to disprove me, as what I said in regards of onthology is basic philosophy, which really isn't something you should debate about in this topic.

As for Google finding results, you're again thinking too much. 8,030 is a pretty damn big number for one small area of philosophy. Of course, it's not even peanuts if you compare it to the 91,5 million results it gladly gives if you search for "rick".

As for google thinking that I am or am not misspelling it, that doesn't mean anything. If I was misspelling it, such places as Wikipedia surely wouldn't have an article on it, and it surely would not be taught as "ontologia" in my Finnish school. Surely, it would be "antologia" or something similar, right? Just because Google has a poor word-processor doesn't mean it's always right.

Hell, my spell check is telling me "onthology" is misspelled, and doesn't recognize the word.

Not that any of that means anything, because you're not really arguing anything relevant to this discussion! This is RIDICULOUS!

Actually, I'm not arguing a thing. I'm simply presenting you with the same basic theory of onthology I was thought, because I wanted to look at it from that point of view. Is that really ridiculous, wanting people I discuss with to know what I'm referring to? Ok, then let's have a discussion on a game you've never played in your life. Surely will be an enjoyable discussion when the only thing you can say is "I don't know."

Actually, to be truthful, you were right. I had an extra "h" in there. It's "ontology". Gives 9,2 million in Google and has a description on page 1003 of the newest edition to Collins Cobuild the Advanced Learners Dictionary. To save your time, I'll paste it here.

Ontology Ontology is the branch of philosophy that deals with the nature of existence.

Now do you believe me?

Tell me where I said that, and I'll give you a cookie. But first you have to apologize for being an idiot and going back to the subtly undermining comments again. See, you first have to prove my way of thinking is inferior and faulty. At this point, I think I'm pretty clearly showing you're delusional.

You are free to have an opinion on whether I'm an idiot or not, but don't go demanding things on that opinion. It's like having the opinion that the President of the United States is an idiot and claiming that he has to step down. Won't work, you have no legal rights to it.

And I've already proved your thinking inferior. You're angry at me, that's enough of proof. You don't like me saying the things I say for one reason or another. Thus, you fail to comprehend with the idea that my whole purpose might be to get a good reaction out of you. Which makes your thinking inferior, while not even touching your opinion with a 3-feet-long stick.

How 'bout I give you a fair dose of logic instead? I'm not a big fan of guns being used on people, but I'll be glad to keep giving you spelling lessons.

You would better do, since it seems you're not too knowledgeable in the field of the subtle differences between American English and British English, which are both just as correct.

And I don't remember ever saying this to anyone, ever, but you're making me feel like a liar for not saying so; you are speaking in an inferior manner. Your argument is inferior. It's way out in left field, and it's ignoring what I'm saying. If this debate were being judged, you'd have lost a long time ago.

And why exactly should I concern myself with whether my argument is inferior or not? I'm not even putting two minutes of effort into any of this, most of the stuff I'm writing is just something I felt like saying at the time. It's not called debate, it's called talking. If this was a debate, surely I would've already left because debate on a subject such as perfection is purely pointless.

No, actually. It's making you look like a cutesy little prepubescent boy. I feel bad being so blunt to so cute a person, actually. I'm just asking you to stop to help my conscience out, is all.

This mean you have knowledge of how prepubescents talk about perfection? Good, because I've never heard even a single prepubescent concern their minds with the definition of perfect.

Again, distracting the issue. Man, you've gotta get your "P" trait in line, you can't seem to keep track of what I said.

Again, as I said, I'm simply writing whatever I feel like writing on the moment, so surely slight missteps are allowed? Or do you seriously wish for me to keep on improvising while keeping my improvisation within a certain field? Oh, darn, you don't want me to improvise? Too bad.

Anyways, thanks for asking! In fact, it is not a fallacy. See, if you make a blanket statement saying that, 'happiness will never exist because the realization of potential unhappiness robs said happiness', then one single example showing it not to be true illustrates that the blanket has a hole. Considering the nature of blanket statements, that kind of causes your blanket to unravel...

Again, how about you try grabbing a brain and looking at what I said. I've talked about complete, 100% happiness. Not just the common feeling of happiness. I'm talking about seeing life as nothing but happiness. Which, by the way, is both stupid and illogical. Life has a part called future, which really isn't predictable no matter who says it is. Thus, future has a huge potential of bringing unhappiness, which will surely disrupt the happiness at the time. And if you're the kind of person who thinks about the future, surely this will add a new shadow to your happiness, this making it imperfect.

This is not illogical, because your hypothesis is easily testable- I can see if admitting unhappiness makes me unhappy. Doing this simple test, I find your hypothesis flawed. That idea is perfectly acceptable to me. I do not need to be convinced happiness will perpetually exist in order for said happiness to exist. With this truth being existent, your argument falls apart. All the rest is for kicks & giggles.

Again, do you live your life in a state where you believe everything is happy? Oh darn, you don't!

(In case you're wondering, it's still not bothered by that knowledge. I'm quite happy to rip an idiot's argument to shreds. I haven't had this chance in a long time. All the while, I know this will end, and this happiness will cease; yet, my happiness is still bountiful. I am not bothered in the slightest. Heck, I won't be surprised if you don't even return to this forum, though I expect this post will be too big an affront to your pride to allow that. Luckily for me, that probably means more arguments to win against asinine pricks. More happiness to come, it seems!)

Whether I'm an idiot or not is not even up to discussion, as it's purely opinion-centric.

And shredding it when you have no freaking clue of what I'm talking about really is quite hard.

And just like that, you're also allowed to think I'm stupid, but I surely haven't done anything that defines me as stupid by itself. Looking at my grades is pointless as I'm a procrastinator and extremely lazy, meaning I put forth minimal effort at doing things and I do them rather late. Which in turn means I tend to improvise a lot.

Then are we talking about Perfect Perfection? 'Cause it looks like you want to keep the waters muddied, you don't want an answer. See, the difference between a perfect pear and a perfect novel, is that an apple is a rather objective thing.

Oh, but answers lead to knowledge, knowledge leads to wisdom, wisdom leads to a good life. But knowledge is never faulty. And thus, there is no knowledge about whether perfection really is or not, only that it doesn't exist.

When we start talking about novels, we enter a much more subjective realm. Perfect in a subjective realm, that's something else- there is much argument over whether or not Harry Potter it a piece of literary crap or literary genius.

So you're only now realizing this? Good, you will surely do well in mandatory education.

This just means that a novel is too broad a topic to make perfect in and of itself. Example: What is the perfect fruit? We can't answer that, because of the "everything and nothing" stuff you're mentioning. But that's because we're too broad. We can say what a perfect apple is, we can say what a perfect pear is.

We can only say their common traits, we cannot touch, for example, their taste or the taste of the juice produced from them. Because those things are opinion-centric.

But yes, we can say what is a perfect apple, because apple is the fruit of a tree. We can look at from the tree's point of view and say what kind of an apple would be the best for its purpose to the tree. But bring in humans and you cannot do that. Because we have a thing called opinion, trees don't.

I propose that Perfection can be said to be the lack of any imperfection.

(Notice how this contrasts with perfect equalling 'lack of nothing'...)

Your definition is faulty. Imperfection is defined as "that which is not perfect". But since your definition of perfection already depends on the definition of imperfect, you're running in an endless circle. So redifining is in order.
[QUOTE
I think a moment of thought beyond, 'but that'd be boring!' leads one to realize that this is true. Anything that cannot lack clearly defined imperfections, thus, cannot be made perfect; it is too broad, too ambiguous. Perfect becomes a series of picking the 'best' options, where 'best' cannot be found because of the wide variety of different 'bests' available. It is not until we reduce to something that has one clear 'best' that a perfect and imperfect can be said to had.[/quote]

Again, saying exactly what perfect is without specifying a context is really foolish. You, for example, cannot say what is the perfect style of an abstract painting.

(P.S., olba- for your spelling lesson for this post, it's spelled "dependent". Not "dependant".)

Sorry, you're wrong.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=20822&dict=CALD

Also, page 376 of Collins Cobuild Advanced Learner's Dictionary.

Dependant, also dependent. Your dependants are the people who you support financially, such as your children

Dependent.1. To be dependent on something or someone means to need them in order to succeed or be able to survive. 2. If one thing is dependent on another, the first thing will be affected or determined by the second. 3. -> See also dependant.

Alright, I'll give it to you, I should probably spell it "dependent" to avoide misunderstandings, but surely "to depend on something" is what you were thinking, right? And I would say that is what all of the definitions I've give to you so far are about.

And it's rather funny that you would actually try to make me lose my cool with mere things such as misspellings. Just so that you know, I'm a top-grade student in English, a natural genius in the field. And I plan to study it further in University, which will give me the requirements to become a translator, an interpreter or an English Teacher at a high school.

If you wish to know my grades, they're all top. One of them is a 9 on the grading of 4 to 10, but I have no idea why. All others are 10. And my overall grade on English is 10, which is described as "excellent". You know, the kind that scores the best points in the Matriculation Exam? That's the kind.

So surely you should not be bashing my knowledge and skill of English, as it's obviously way above that which is required to have a fluent discussion in English and it's way above the average of people of my age. And by the way, I'm 17.

Just because you feel inferior or whatever emotion you are feeling when you look at my username, you have no reason to get all that emotional, irrational and stupid. There is simply no reason for you to try and make me look like a loser because of 1 single letter in a single word, specially since you obviously understood what I meant with it. And by its own definition, what I meant with it is what it is. And just because you don't know something doesn't mean it's incorrect. If this is the way you view at life, I'm rather surprised that someone hasn't beaten you up already, as that way of looking at things is pretty darn arrogant and ignorant. So please try fixing it.

And so far you've failed to show me a reason as to why I should view your opinion on whether ontology is really something or on the crudeness of my English as worth more than my own. Surely, you've not shown me a single doctorate in the field of Philosophy or English. Which means you're on the same level as I am. A student.

 

[Linsejko]

Olba, this is the last post I am going to address to you in this thread, for this argument.

It became an argument, by the way, when you disagreed with my disagreement, and began to defend your stance with mild defamations.

--

8,000 is not a big number, which you yourself demonstrate by saying it's a small field of philosophy, and then showing that when properly spelled, that field nets 9.2 mil (still a smallish number for Google, btw). Still, though, I never said I didn't believe onthology [sic] didn't exist (even though it doesn't, as it was actually ontology, as you corrected yourself). I was just trying to show that your evidence didn't support you.

(The reason I was confused in the last post is you were arguing against something I didn't say. I said it sounded like linguistic theory; I didn't say it didn't sound like philosophy, per se, and even if I asserted that, I wasn't thus asserting that you were lying.

Thus, my confusion as to what you were arguing about concerning "only in English".

(Perhaps if you had said "only in linguistics", I would have caught on to your mistake sooner.)

--

So basically, you're saying that I'm not allowed to use whatever means I'm aware of in an attempt of trying to make you realize your inferior and faulty way of thinking? But isn't that just a bit too arrogant of you?

To which I responded, "Ill give you a cookie if you show me where I said that. But first, [in order to get the cookie], you have to stop being an idiot."

1. You still didn't justify your original statement by further attempting to insult me.
2. I can demand of you all that I want, for you to receive my cookie. If you don't want to do what I demand, that's fine.

You just don't get a cookie. :P

--

Only time I'm going to say it- when you try and repeat yourself again, I'm not going to correct you again, so try and get it the first time.

Even if you were just trying to get a reaction out of me, that still wouldn't prove your thinking superior. If I were getting angry, that doesn't affect the quality of my argument. (Ever heard of Ad Hominem? My argument stands independent of myself; my angry says nothing of the quality of my thoughts.) "Thus, you fail to comprehend...", you say; yet the preceding argument does not support you resulting conclusion.

I.e., I've definitely considered you're just trying to get a reaction. But I don't think you're smart enough to attempt that, for one.

Second, though, you are getting emotional and starting to lose track of your own logic; if you were trying to get a reaction, you would be indifferent to my statements.

Except, if course, when you start talking like this:

Oh, darn, you don't want me to improvise? Too bad.

Again, do you live your life in a state where you believe everything is happy? Oh darn, you don't!

1. I never said I didn't want you to improvise. I can't understand why you are so driven to put these words in my mouth... you keeping doing this same thing again and again.

2. For the final time, I don't have to believe 'everything is happy' in order to be happy. You still haven't given one decent argument to my initial response.

3. I'm going to assume you're better at sarcasm in real life, in your native tongue. For your sake.

4. The attempt there to rile me up has done nothing annoy me (if not mildly entertain me, as a silver lining...)

--

Oh, but answers lead to knowledge, knowledge leads to wisdom, wisdom leads to a good life. But knowledge is never faulty. And thus, there is no knowledge about whether perfection really is or not, only that it doesn't exist.

1. Knowledge is not never faulty.
2. Knowledge does not always lead to wisdom.
3. Wisdom does not necessarily lead to a good life, though it can be a good step.
4. You final sentence is a non sequitor, a fallacy you commit quite often.

--

So you're only now realizing this? Good, you will surely do well in mandatory education.

While I did very well on assessment tests, I got terrible grades. Ironically, however, you seem to have done very well in your mandatory education.

--

But yes, we can say what is a perfect apple, because apple is the fruit of a tree. We can look at from the tree's point of view and say what kind of an apple would be the best for its purpose to the tree. But bring in humans and you cannot do that. Because we have a thing called opinion, trees don't.

No, even if we talk about what kind of apple is best for the tree, we are not talking about a perfect apple. We're talking about an apple that best serves a specific purpose. An objectively best apple, however, is something that humans can assess. Subjectivity is not inherent in being human towards all things. I do not want everything I encounter to perfectly serve my desires.

I am reminded, looking at my argument, of Platonic "Shadows".

--

My definition of perfection looked so easy to attack from that angle, I'm sure. I guess I should have worded it more clearly. "lacks any [singular quality that can be described as an] imperfection", would have more clearly illustrated what I meant.

As in, Perfect means without blemish, without flaw. An apple that doesn't have any bruises, doesn't have any asymmetry, has fully functional seeds, has no worms, is of rich colour & otherwise aesthetically pleasing (also expressed as not aesthetically displeasing, which would be an imperfection), etc.
--

The perfect style of an abstract painting, of course, falls in the same category as perfect novel; too many subjective elements that cannot all be broken down.
--

Your understanding of the difference between 'dependent' and 'dependant' is either flawed, or you are in denial. Or both.

'Dependant' is a noun. 'dependent' is an adjective. one thing cannot be 'dependant' on another thing. It 'depends' on another thing, and is thus 'dependent' on that thing.

It's ok to make mistakes, you know, it is your second language. Just say you were wrong and move on.

Now, if you're going to spend several paragraphs trying to defend a 'mere mistake' that obviously didn't bother you...

--

No, actually, I didn't care what your grades were. I sympathize with your claims to feel apathetic to the institutions grades. I agree that they are worthless; I could have cared less that I was one of four people to get the highest score possible in my state's standardized English exams out of around 700 people, actually. (When I was 16, by the way.) I am curious why, however, you feel the need to then give me worthless information?

What are you trying to prove to me? Why are you trying to prove yourself to me? I don't mean to hurt your feelings, but I don't care. Do you want me to be proud of you, to have accomplished so much by such a young age as 17?

I just turned 18; I only say this because your statement seems to imply you thought me much older. Thus, your claim of being 17 doesn't do much for me.

As far as losing rationality, I give up on you. You're completely falling apart talking to me, and there's no reason for me to continue to point out every flaw in your argument. I have nothing to gain, and I'm only going to earn myself more silly statements that require refutation. It's like the Hydra Lernaia or something; I kill one petty statement, and you respond with two more. With this post, I chop off your heads once again, and I walk away. You are a beast that takes too much effort to kill; go torture others with your faulty logic, I could care less.

--

Why are you trying to assert I feel inferior to you? How can you be so blind as to see that I can't stand how far inferior you are acting?

Where do you gather that I am rejecting something that is 'new' simply because it is new?

All of these unfounded personal attacks are, frankly, boring. I don't have time to prove every personal attack you throw at me unfounded.

--
I never claimed ontology did not exist (I didn't even try to claim onthology [sic] is something that doesn't exist, because that never even started to become important to me). I also never said you spoke crude English, only that you misspelled two words. If you are so bothered by that, why are you getting mad at me for pointing them out? Obviously you want to become better at English?

Further, for one who is so bothered by my 'arrogance', have you read what you are writing? I am sick of giving the same response. You are here trying to assert I feel inferior to yourself, and that that must be why I am growing so weary of your responses. Which sounds arrogant to you?

--

Finally,

I never claimed to be more than a student.

I only claim to be a better student than you.

.L

 

[Wisp]

...Do you two hate each other?? I am quite sure it will make neither of you either good or happy to continue this scathing argument.

 

[Linsejko]

Thus my ceasing.

I've never been pulled into an argument like that. But I haven't met someone quite that stubborn in their ignorance, either.

Maybe I'm just stressed out or something lately, I usually don't let people like that get to me.

(whatever.)

.L

 

[Olba]

I never claimed to be more than a student.

I only claim to be a better student than you.

.L

And now, what makes someone a good student? From there, what makes someone a better student that someone else? Enthusiasm towards knowledge? Good grades? Attendance?

As to answer your pondering about my texts seeming illogical, it's rather simple. It's pretty rare for anyone to ever stand up to me and try to prove me wrong in any way. For some reason, most people just don't do it or do not succeed. Also, for some reason, I've never bothered to do the required research to be well-prepared. Yet, I've always found some way to get around this lack of extensive knowledge. Maybe it's because there are barely any people who are aware of the fallacies of debating, which has allowed some of my arguments to go through unnoticed. I don't know.

 

[Cabbo Pearimo]

That's called faking it, and it doesn't work here.

 

[Linsejko]

Well, that's certainly feasible as an explanation. I do, however, humbly request you try to curb that in the future, and expect your holes to be found. The reason I asserted to be a better student than you, is that you stopped trying to cooperatively find the truth, and began trying to defend your statements.

You stopped seeking truth, instead opting to defend yourself.

Concerning the topic of what makes someone a better student (in an objective sense, the statement being detached from its original use), I'd say a balance between ability to learn & honest desire to learn.

There can be other variables, though I certainly find attendance a particular offending one (only because it reminds me of that wretched institution called the public school system....).

I'm glad that's all over...

*sigh*

.L

 

[Cabbo Pearimo]

Know when you're beat, man.

 

[Melkor]

Happy I think.
Yes, I'm evil, deal with it.

 

[Linsejko]

Nah, it's essentially human to answer as you have.

.L

 

[Dissident]

Happiness and goodness concepts are usually used as cause and efect: Be good and you will be happy. But I think its the other way around: Be happy and you will do good (and so be good).
In the first way to see it, you are doing it as a mean to an end, expecting some kind of reward for doing good, and precisely that takes all moral value from it and the goodness as well.
In the other hand if you are truly happy then you will naturally do good. Greed, violence, discrimination, etc, wouldnt cross a happy persons mind. The problem is that we dont stay happy for long, just for moments.

So id rather be happy, if i acoplish that the rest will come into place.