Part IV – ARE THESE TRUTHS UNIVERSAL?

If as in the previous posts you can accept that, 

1)      There are negative concepts that would not exist except that there is an antecedent positive. 

2)      These concepts are not without being assigned a value.

3)      The values of “good” and “bad” or “evil” are found to exist broadly and historically.

4)       “Good” and “Evil” cannot be equivalent opposites since one is dependent upon the other.

5)      Just as you push “Evil” forward and find chaos, so too you push “Good” back and you find purer forms of same.

Then comes the question, “What is the ultimate perfect “Good?”

ORIGIN OF ULTIMATE “GOOD”

Following are some options that you might choose.

The Spiritual or New Age Truth Paradigms would suggest that ultimate and pure “good” is found within and thus has been there all along.  However, such is highly subjective and the subjective will eventually break down.

The Postmodern Truth Paradigms rejects all notions of the existence of all universals to include "good" or "normal."  So then the concept of "good" is purely individual.  Again, this is highly subjective and thus fragile.

The Evolutionary Truth Paradigm would suggest that “good” is not as pure in the past as it will be as man continues up the evolutionary trail.  The problem here is that there is no constant notion of “good” as it is ever changing.

The Secular or Modernism Truth Paradigms would suggest that “good” though currently not quantifiable one day will be measurable and thus processes for improving “good” will follow.  The problem in this view is that today’s good is not tomorrow’s good.

The Materialistic Truth Paradigm suggests that “good” will develop and it is simply a matter of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis.  The obvious problem here is that in their purest form one cannot combine “good” and “evil” in order to develop some sort of a "grey area" synthesis.

However, there is one more truth paradigm which may provide a more stable understanding of “good.”

The Divine Truth Paradigm suggests that “good” is based upon divinely revealed truth.  Because this truth is rooted in a holy book like the Jewish Scriptures, the Christian Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Quran, or some other holy writing, there is a stable platform.

That stable platform does not change and thus provides the one who reads and obeys that particular writing with the criterion for valuing something or even someone as being “good” or “evil.”  What is interesting is those same standards apply today as they did 2,000 years ago or even at its writing.

 

Will the standards of “good” and “evil” differ from belief to belief?  Of course, but that is not the point nor is it to be discussed at this juncture.  The simple point is that people with a Divine Truth Paradigm have a more stable standard of “good” and “evil” by which to order their lives.

OUTCOMES

Some years ago I had a car that the driver had to be ever vigilant. It was, “always looking.”  That is to say that it could never find a spot in the lane where it would become stable.  

So it is with many of the truth paradigms presented above.  Though they would all agree that there is such a thing as “good’ they would not agree as to the origin and stability of same.  It is as with that car, there is always a quest.  It may by an overt attempt at finding “good” or it may almost be subconscious, but none-the-less it is there.

In order to confidently function in life, one needs a steady platform.  As it turns out there is but one which maintains a truth paradigm in which one might have confidence.  That is the final one presented above, the divine truth paradigm. 

Perhaps that is why approximately 82% of the earth’s population embraces some form of a divine truth paradigm. Just maybe it is because such a truth paradigm provides what is needed for the individual to establish and maintain a sense of well-being, a sense of confidence, and a sense of purpose.  

Viewed another way, if such stability is not present when problems arise, there is little stability upon which to rely.  It is as the Bible says, "The winds blew, the rains beat upon the house, and it stood firm."  Why?  Because it was built upon a stable foundation--a foundation of Truth. 

Part III – ARE THESE TRUTHS UNIVERSAL?

Previous two posts have noted, 

1. There are negative concepts that would not exist except that there is an antecedent positive word.  For example, “misuse” requires “proper use.” 
2. The principle found in Number 1) is not without some valuing which is that “proper use” is positive or good and “misuse” is negative or bad. 
3. The values of “good” and “bad” are found to exist broadly and historically. 
4. Pushed out further one finds this is same difference in the notion of “good” and “evil” for without “good,” there would be no concept of “evil.” 
5. “Good” and “Evil” cannot be equivalent opposites since one is dependent upon the other for its existence.

Continuing the Discussion

If the previous points are accepted or at least assumed, then one faces another problem.  It is the chronology of the concepts.  If one concept is necessary to the other, then which came first? 

The logical answer is that the “proper use” preceded “misuse,” and “good” preceded “evil.” Of course if the order was reversed then “misuse” or “evil” would be without meaning.  Looking further then, one can plausibly argue that since “evil” has no meaning apart from there being “good” that “good” preceded “evil.” 

The Common Factor

Consideration has already been given to there being concepts such as “good” and such as “evil” in various truth paradigms.  The question then arises as to how it is that such concepts be so broadly accepted?

One could understand it in a revelation paradigm that relies upon some form of Scriptures, however what about the broad spectrum of other truth theories?  The seven truth paradigms referenced in the first article though radically different from one another and though they have different ways of valuing, still in all they accept that there is “good” and “bad” etc. 

If you think about it such paradigms have only two things in common.  First the notion of “good” and related antecedent terms are common to all.  Second, in order for there to be a paradigm there must be at least one person to postulate that paradigm, even if such an one does not develop a following.  More about that later.

The Good and the Normal

Another way to view these antecedent words and deviant words is in terms of normal and abnormal.  When one considers the notion of “abnormal” one then has to assume that there is an antecedent word, “normal.”  Therefore “good” and “normal” share the same position.

It then can be argued that with “good” as “normal” that “evil” then is the “abnormal.”  For those who might wish to argue against this one only need ask the question as to the last time they questioned “Why is it that ‘bad’ things happen to ‘good’ people?” 

Could it be that generally man’s internal compass is set toward “good?” In fact the notion of "good" is so prevalent that it would seem that such is "hard wired" into one's DNA.  If such is so that would mean that the just asked question points to “evil” in its various forms grating against one's moral sensitivities no matter his truth paradigm.

Push Forward:  Ever Degrading Perversion

Now, consider the word “chaos” along with other perverted words.  There is in the perverted words the decent toward chaos.  That is to say such words as abnormal, bad, evil, etc. are not homeostatic but degrading.   Eventually, as time goes forward, such chaos will further disorganize and degrade.  Carried to the logical ends, there comes a point that such chaos reaches a state of “entropy.” 

It might be worth thinking about that that eventually the prevalence of chaos will be of such magnitude that it will become so extreme that it will outstrip man’s capacities to intervene.  Thus, no matter how innovative and resourceful he might be there will be the descent into more chaos.

Push Back:  Antecedent Words

If one considers the chaotic outcomes of perverted words going forward in time, then it seems plausible that one should consider the antecedent words pushing back in time.  That is to say that if one could time travel to moments just after the “big bang” or “creation” or whatever fits into one’s truth paradigm, such antecedent words would be in a purer form.  Thus the concept of “good” would be a much more purer form of good than is known today.

 ~More to follow~

Part II - ARE THESE TRUTHS UNIVERSAL?

“Some Words Are Only Possible Because of Their Opposite”

Review of Original Post

In the previous post of 24 October, the suggestion was posited that there are some words that are only possible because there was an antecedent word.  As C. S. Lewis observed the second concept is only possible because of the first. 

Note:  One point to keep in mind is that the words employed in the discussion are simply ways of identifying concepts. 

The next point was that despite whichever truth paradigm one chooses to embrace those words would have meaning.  The specific item or reference that elicits a “proper use” response may differ from paradigm to paradigm but the basic notion of “proper use” would be the same.  As well that could be said about “misuse.”

From there consideration was given to how these words have accrued values.  For example “proper use” is associated with positive and/or good.  As well “misuse” being the opposite has come to be associated with negative and/or bad.   Then there were posed three questions.

The Questions

If there are concepts that transcend any and perhaps all truth paradigms, how is it that they have come to be valued as they are?  Why is it that none of the truth paradigms listed above view “misuse” in the positive?  Could it be that there is a universal truth paradigm that transcends all lesser truth paradigms?

Notions of Good and Bad

One can identify subjectively or even objectively something as “good” or “bad” but these are only words used to identify concepts.  Therefore, it is possible to conclude that one might experience these concepts but on the other hand they are not tangibles.  One would look a long time and never find a jar full of “good” or a jar full of “bad.”  They exist conceptually in one’s thinking but not in the physical realm.

To understand why they have been valued, one has to look at the matter of how utilitarian a notion and its antithesis might be.  A useful item is most often viewed as “good.”  The opposite for the concept of “misuse.” Another criterion might be in terms of benefit.  An individual or universal benefit prompts “good” as opposed to individual or universal detriment.  This then goes to the question of why the opposite of the positive is always viewed in the negative.

Extending the Discussion

 Look then at the notions of “good” and “bad” and move the discussion to “good” and “evil.”  Using the original Lewis quote, one cannot have “evil” without there being “good.”  Now in extending the discussion we encounter another problem.  I call it the problem of opposites.

It is contained in this question.  Are “good” and “evil” equivalent opposites?  In other words if you were to put both concepts on a scale would they measure exactly the same just at opposite ends?

Well, the answer is “No!”   Why?  Simply go back to the original argument, because one is dependent upon the existence of the other there cannot be equivalency. 

So if one thinks about it, even though they are the antithesis of one another, if you remove “good” you automatically remove “evil.”  However, if one removes “evil” it does nothing to change the state of the “good.”  Therefore they are not equivalent opposites.  That leads then to another issue—the issue of origins.

The Origins of the Concepts

The discussion now turns to the question of origins.  These of course are discussion within the various truth paradigms as to origins.  It would seem that there is within recorded history an assumption of good and evil.

“The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance.”   Socrates (BC 469-BC 399)

“It is not the life of knowledge, not even if it includes all the sciences, that creates happiness and well-being, but a single branch of knowledge—the science of the good life.  If you exclude this from the other branches, medicine will remain equally able to give us health, and shoemaking shoes, and weaving clothes; seamanship will continue still to save life at sea, and strategy to win battles; but without the knowledge of good and evil the use and excellence of these sciences will be found to have failed us.”  --Plato

Then consider the following treatment of Aristotle’s views on virtue.

“If one's ultimate end should simply be virtuous activity, then why should it make any difference to one's happiness whether one has or lacks these other types of good? Aristotle's reply is that one's virtuous activity will be to some extent diminished or defective, if one lacks an adequate supply of other goods (1153b17–19). Someone who is friendless, childless, powerless, weak, and ugly will simply not be able to find many opportunities for virtuous activity over a long period of time, and what little he can accomplish will not be of great merit. To some extent, then, living well requires good fortune; happenstance can rob even the most excellent human beings of happiness. Nonetheless, Aristotle insists, the highest good, virtuous activity, is not something that comes to us by chance. Although we must be fortunate enough to have parents and fellow citizens who help us become virtuous, we ourselves share much of the responsibility for acquiring and exercising the virtues.”

Quote available at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-ethics/

Now the notion of “good” and “evil” exists in not just various truth paradigms but now in history.  Speaking of history we find the same to be true in the first book of Moses where God calls his creation “good.”  Such is so before evil enters the narrative.

Summation

To this point the following has been deduced.

The words under study are notions and not physically quantifiable, even so they are assigned values.

The values label of “good” and “bad” or “evil” transcend various truth paradigms.

The values have existed throughout history and can be found in at least two cultural contexts.

 CONCLUSION

Taking into account the previous discussion and this posting, it seems only logical that there are truth paradigms that transcend lesser truth paradigms. 

"ARE THESE TRUTHS UNIVERSAL?"

 “Some Words Are Only Possible Because of Their Opposite”

If one will take time to reflect, I suspect most people would agree that there are memorable moments throughout one’s life.  One of mine was to visit Oxford University in the Shires of Great Britain and to eat dinner in one of the Pubs where C. S. Lewis told his stories. 

Deviation from the Normal

In one of his writings C. S. Lewis postulates something quite interesting.  He writes, “…you can see which is the perversion, because you can explain the perverted from the normal, and cannot explain the normal from the perverted.”

Of course the principle of perversion applies variously as there are numbers of words that have that same quality.  These are words such as, malfunction, distorted, failure, tainted, misrepresented, misused, altered, and the like.  Such words are at the mercy of their predecessor for they cannot be understood nor explained except that there is some understanding of the antecedent word. 

Normal Base Words

Take the word “misused.”  In order for something to be “misused,” there has to be a “proper use” of that something.  Thus there are proper words or we might say base words in that they form the basis for their being the opposite words.  However at that point we arrive at a problem.  One then has to ask, how does one arrived at the notion of a “proper use” for to do so is to attach a value and values suggest standards. 

Words are Valued

Mr. Lewis goes on to point out that the normal of these words is valued as “good” while the deviated words are not so.  Returning to the notion of “misuse,” one finds its synonyms are all as equally objectionable and some more so.  In fact, in terms of values, these deviated words are valued in the negative. 

Set aside for the moment the item or person involved and focus upon the word, “misuse.”  Whichever culture or sub-culture one chooses to view, such is viewed in the negative.  What is the basis for there being that value?

Basis for Valuing

There are many suggested truth paradigms from which one might develop his reality.  Included would be Spiritual or New Age Truth Paradigms, Postmodern Truth Paradigms, Evolutionary Truth Paradigms, Secular or Modernism Truth Paradigms, Materialistic Truth Paradigms, and Divine Truth Paradigms to mention a few. 

Still in all whichever truth paradigm from which to develop one’s reality, would not the notion of “misuse” be viewed in the same way?  So it is that there is at least one universal notion that transcends all truth paradigms.  One might apply the same argument to other words and ideas.

Back to Normal

If then we can assume that there is a universal understanding of “misuse” then would it not follow that the antecedent word or concept would have universal understanding.  In this case would not all of the truth paradigms above agree that there is some idea of a “proper use?”  They may not agree as to what it is but none the less agree that there is such a thing.

The Questions

If there are concepts that transcend any and perhaps all truth paradigms, how is it that they have come to be valued as they are?  Why is it that none of the truth paradigms listed above view “misuse” in the positive?  Could it be that there is a universal truth paradigm that transcends all lesser truth paradigms?