“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
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment