All actions aim at the Good?

[RichardY]

Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim. - Nicomachean Ethics. Aristotle.

Thoughts?

[Donnadogsoth]

Commentary on Fyodor Dostoyevsky's Notes from Underground:

Notes from the Underground presents a fascinating twist on the classic fate vs. free will argument. Fate in this case has nothing to do with divine will. If man is "fated" in any way, it is only because he is beholden to the laws of nature, like science or mathematics. 2+2=4, and this holds true whether we like it or not. How can there be free will if the world has such laws? The Underground Man argues that the only way to preserve free will is to beat one's head against the stone wall that is mathematical certainty. You may not be able to make 2+2=5, but you have to try if you want to be free. Additionally, he offers a terrifying vision of what might happen if we were to figure out all the laws of nature. If man always acts according to reason and the laws of nature, then we could predict everything man would ever think or do. The Underground Man argues that man will act against reason in order to prove his free will. He is willing to suffer, destroy, and abandon reason all for the sake of his own freedom.

https://www.shmoop.com/notes-from-underground/fate-free-will-theme.html

[Boss]

Well, I see people aim for things that are only "good" for themselves, ie sadist. I also see some people went for what was "good" in the moment like overweight, smokers, druggies etc 

But if we are talking about objective good, like UPB. I dont see this "All actions aim at the Good" as true, as if true, how can there be any evil?

However, I can see a lot of actions are aimed at things that people think are good but are objectively bad 

[RichardY]

@Donnadogsoth

Matthew 6

8 Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.
9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
10 Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
11 Give us this day our daily bread.
12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.

The ability to say no and mean it in an action, maybe what is required. 

3 hours ago, Boss said:

Well, I see people aim for things that are only "good" for themselves, ie sadist. I also see some people went for what was "good" in the moment like overweight, smokers, druggies etc 

But if we are talking about objective good, like UPB. I dont see this "All actions aim at the Good" as true, as if true, how can there be any evil?

However, I can see a lot of actions are aimed at things that people think are good but are objectively bad 

Aristotle would term them pleasures, though he would not say pleasure is good in itself.

I think because the good aims at the negation of "Evil" that is in the "human heart". An action being a conscious "not" doing, rather than doing(something spontaneous).
Proverb 28 26 He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool: but whoso walketh wisely, he shall be delivered.

Though whether to cultivate the good through an attempt at negation. "Thou shalt not". Or through a more Nietszchean affirmation and cultivation of the instinct and not of reason.

[Mole]

On 4/25/2018 at 10:34 PM, RichardY said:

Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim. - Nicomachean Ethics. Aristotle.

Thoughts?

Notes from Nicomachean Ethics translated by C.D.C. Reeve:

Aristotle apparently commits the logical fallacy of inferring from the fact that there is a good that each seeks that there is a good that all (that is, all who practice crafts, follow lines in inquiry, do actions, and make deliberate choices) seek. This is like inferring from the fact that each boy loves a girl (but not necessarily the same one) that there is a girl all boys love. I 2 1093a18-b7 suggests a way to defend the inference. Any good or end is sought or desired either because of itself or because of an end or good X that is desired solely because of itself. If all such chains terminate in the same X, as the existence of an architectonic science with human good -- that is, the one unique good that all human beings, in seeking any good whatsoever, thereby seek. 

It seems to me that Aristotle hasn't said anything substantial over the fact that each means has an end. However, given this is the first line of his book, it is an appropriate starting point. If he wishes to substantiate that there is an 'architectonic' good, he will have to defend that in some other way.

[RichardY]

22 hours ago, Mole said:

Notes from Nicomachean Ethics translated by C.D.C. Reeve:

Aristotle apparently commits the logical fallacy of inferring from the fact that there is a good that each seeks that there is a good that all (that is, all who practice crafts, follow lines in inquiry, do actions, and make deliberate choices) seek. This is like inferring from the fact that each boy loves a girl (but not necessarily the same one) that there is a girl all boys love. I 2 1093a18-b7 suggests a way to defend the inference. Any good or end is sought or desired either because of itself or because of an end or good X that is desired solely because of itself. If all such chains terminate in the same X, as the existence of an architectonic science with human good -- that is, the one unique good that all human beings, in seeking any good whatsoever, thereby seek. 

It seems to me that Aristotle hasn't said anything substantial over the fact that each means has an end. However, given this is the first line of his book, it is an appropriate starting point. If he wishes to substantiate that there is an 'architectonic' good, he will have to defend that in some other way.

Would the pursuit of truth be considered a good?

[Mole]

5 hours ago, RichardY said:

Would the pursuit of truth be considered a good?

Yes. Science is a pursuit of truth. Aristotle says the sciences have their own ends. E.g., the function/end/good of biology is to find the taxonomy of living things.

[RichardY]

@Mole

So could truth be considered the "Architectonic" Good?

 

[Mole]

31 minutes ago, RichardY said:

@Mole

So could truth be considered the "Architectonic" Good? 

 

1

Technically it must if "I should do X" might be considered a truth statement. However, there is also the approach that "I should do X" is not a truth statement and rather a person will automatically act on knowing the truth. I would presume the second approach to be correct because an ought cannot be derived from an is.

[RichardY]

@Mole

"So I should do Science(Knowing)." Perhaps truth is not an Architronic good. Baring in mind Aristotle says action and not necessarily relfection, implied by should or could.

So by Architectronic, we basically mean an overall interconnecting good, that provides structure? If truth is not considered to be an Architectronic Good. Then perhaps consciousness (or Idealism) is.

  

[Mole]

9 hours ago, RichardY said:

@Mole

"So I should do Science(Knowing)." Perhaps truth is not an Architronic good. Baring in mind Aristotle says action and not necessarily relfection, implied by should or could.

So by Architectronic, we basically mean an overall interconnecting good, that provides structure? If truth is not considered to be an Architectronic Good. Then perhaps consciousness (or Idealism) is.

  

I don't see why truth is not an architectonic good. I should have been more clear in my last comment. The two options in my last comment both have "truth" as the architectonic good. Either actions are truth statements or actions are automatic but either way, we strive towards the truth using our willpower.

I believe the architectonic good can be nothing except the truth because all that conscious deliberation is capable of is truth-seeking. All my emotions and hence desires are automatic responses to truth. That might raise the question what is the good that our emotions seek, and I would say that is entirely subjective and based on our biological nature. However, whatever that nature is, it must be consistent with the truth, so, for example, murder could not be a good because murder is not consistent with the truth of morality. The unfortunate thing is that people generally believe that emotions are something to be fought against and we must strive towards some abstract ideal good regardless of how we feel, but that is a paradox. It would mean we would have to be unhappy to be happy. Emotions are responses to thoughts and it could not be otherwise because emotions can't be experienced without context. If you believe something, your emotions will automatically adjust to it. If you believe something contrary to your emotions, you don't really believe it deep down and rather you are rationalising and that is your false self.

[ofd]

Quote

Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim. - Nicomachean Ethics. Aristotle.

Thoughts?

This quote and similar ones by Aristotle is responsible for the stagnation in physics from Ancient Greece to the Middle of the 17th century. Only when Aristotle was ignored could you study physical phenomena objectively. A ball doesn't want to hit the ground like Aristotle said, it is subject to gravity and so on. Ironically enough, the application of this mindset to biology causes other problems, where you can't see that biological organisms and their parts act in a teleological way. A heart pumps blood so the organism gets nutrients and oxygens. Ignoring this purpose driven unity of parts of the body, the body, and groups in general eventually led to an atomistic view of the society in general where everything goes and tactical nihilism is the general attitude of intellectuals.

[RichardY]

On 6/23/2018 at 3:09 AM, Mole said:

Technically it must if "I should do X" might be considered a truth statement. However, there is also the approach that "I should do X" is not a truth statement and rather a person will automatically act on knowing the truth. I would presume the second approach to be correct because an ought cannot be derived from an is.

12 hours ago, Mole said:

I don't see why truth is not an architectonic good. I should have been more clear in my last comment. The two options in my last comment both have "truth" as the architectonic good. Either actions are truth statements or actions are automatic but either way, we strive towards the truth using our willpower.

I was actually skeptical of Truth being an Architectronic good. Though I didn't want to say consciousness/Idealism as I don't know what I mean by that. I mean it would be fair to say that the MSM doesn't pursue "The Truth", but "their version of it".

Instead of a focus on "The Truth", perhaps a focus on consciousness would be more beneficial. The ability to incorporate various aspects into a greater consciousness, to explore the unknown, self or the undiscovered country.

I think there is a tendency for the truth to get emmaciated. The whole truth... I posted some quotes from Nietszche in the thread "something rather than nothing at all"

Truth as "Being" Ontological. Perhaps a kind of psychological "truth"
Truth as "Becoming" Teleological. Aristotlian. - I think Stefan would be somewhere here. I remember him saying Truth as a process in "On Truth the Tyranny of Illusion" so perhap a seperate category. Probably will re-read and take notes. 
Truth as flux. Uncertainty, Nietzschean. No truth in particular. "There is no Truth".
Truth as Objectivity. Ayn Rand.
Truth as Subjectivity. Berkley, perhaps.

Or throw the concept of truth out completely, perhaps a kind of Pantheism or Idealism. Although I still consider myself to exist as a subject in some form....
 

12 hours ago, Mole said:

I believe the architectonic good can be nothing except the truth because all that conscious deliberation is capable of is truth-seeking. All my emotions and hence desires are automatic responses to truth. That might raise the question what is the good that our emotions seek, and I would say that is entirely subjective and based on our biological nature. However, whatever that nature is, it must be consistent with the truth, so, for example, murder could not be a good because murder is not consistent with the truth of morality. 

Not necessarily, you might be inclined to cause as much destruction as possible, how much destruction can I cause? Murder could still be carried out as an act. primarily of vengence, even if perhaps some justice were involved, perhaps to rectify a perceived miscarriage of justice, or alternatively a development of a blood feud. It might be consistent with the truth of survival, which overules morality? Though what survives, could that be called scarcily worth it.

 

12 hours ago, Mole said:

The unfortunate thing is that people generally believe that emotions are something to be fought against and we must strive towards some abstract ideal good regardless of how we feel, but that is a paradox. It would mean we would have to be unhappy to be happy. Emotions are responses to thoughts and it could not be otherwise because emotions can't be experienced without context. If you believe something, your emotions will automatically adjust to it. If you believe something contrary to your emotions, you don't really believe it deep down and rather you are rationalising and that is your false self.

So if your son or daughter are in a house fire and you do nothing, but freeze or panic. Could it be said that you don't really value them?

I don't think there is a paradox between happy and unhappiness. As happiness or unhappiness still implies you have a goal, a child could be ill and you would be unhappy or they could be really healthy and that would make you happy. If you are unhappy and that helps you to act better, well and good. Maybe if you are happy, you may act more inclined to try other things to see what is possible and prepare for the future.

[RichardY]

10 hours ago, ofd said:

This quote and similar ones by Aristotle is responsible for the stagnation in physics from Ancient Greece to the Middle of the 17th century. Only when Aristotle was ignored could you study physical phenomena objectively. A ball doesn't want to hit the ground like Aristotle said, it is subject to gravity and so on. Ironically enough, the application of this mindset to biology causes other problems, where you can't see that biological organisms and their parts act in a teleological way. A heart pumps blood so the organism gets nutrients and oxygens. Ignoring this purpose driven unity of parts of the body, the body, and groups in general eventually led to an atomistic view of the society in general where everything goes and tactical nihilism is the general attitude of intellectuals.

Ok so metaphysical Dualism between mind and matter. Allowed for an objective approach to science, a seperation of the material and spiritual, with increaesed focus on the material. Understanding the fragments to better understand the whole. Though from that mindset you could say that god intelligently designed the heart and all the organs. As opposed to the organs being, various refinements  of adaptations to the environment. Though the inital fragmentation required to understand, perhaps that is not possible with a purely teleological mindset. I wouldn't say the organs act in a teleological way, merely that they are. For example, I think many insects like wasps do not have hearts, instead they have holes in their exo-skeleton that allow for the diffusion of oxygen.

Not necessarily new ideas as such, Democritus being the noted orign of the atomic theory, followed by Epicurus. Though I read that even his theory was changed to account for chance, by Lucretius. Materialism leading to either hedonism or nihilism, kind of the same.

[ofd]

Quote

Ok so metaphysical Dualism between mind and matter.

Where do you find that in my post?

[RichardY]

5 hours ago, ofd said:

Where do you find that in my post?

Inferred when you said the stagnation of physics until the mid 17th Century. Maybe there's philosophers or scientists other than Descarte, perhaps just the spirit of the age? Not sure if people would have been openly atheistic, with a pure focus on materialism, and taking consciousness as not a part of an immaterial and permanent soul. The whole subject object dichtonmy.

[ofd]

Ah ok, makes sense now.