As analogies go, this one was quite poor. Comparing art to heroin?

No. >

In that case, then, the motive of the artist doesn't matter.

Even if van Gogh was "selfishly, gluttonously, satisfying his own ego", when he made Stairway at Auvers, this was an act of good.

van Gogh is gone from the earth, but Stairway lives on, inspiring and edifying hundreds of thousands every year who visit SLAM to see it.

Stairway is splendid, truly splendid. The spatial interpretation is innovative. The use & choice of color is nothing short of brilliant.

But creating great art may not be necessarily a good thing.>

The modern trend is for artists to be distant, maladjusted outcasts and never really be in step with current trends and not become the "hot artist" until they die.

The modern trend is for artists to be distant, maladjusted outcasts>

Why?

What is morally good about creating a thing we call art?

Here's another thing to think about. Let's say motivation doesn't matter. Still, if an artist's main purpose in creating a work of art is to satisfy his pride and seek his own glory, then the creation of art is secondary to what he's *really* doing, which is seeking his own glory.

The "art" just becomes a tool in this self-glorifying exercise. Do you see what I mean? This goes beyond motivation. The real thing going on is the self-glorifying, the satisfaction of the pride, the ego, and the art becomes an amoral activity in that pursuit.

But let's look at it the other way too. Let's say that the artist has absolutely no ulterior motive or pursuit, other than to create things we call art. He doesn't create art to neither satisfy his pride or as a gift to humanity.

Within this framework, what makes his product "good"?

Is it any better than digging a ditch? Or, filling that ditch back in? Does it have any moral component at all?

< thegoodanarchist: <The philosophical question of the week was, has man done more evil or good, overall, in the history of mankind?>

Sorry, I can't answer that.>

Of the answers I received, most thought that man has done far more evil than good, although <troller> and you claimed ignorance on this one, which is also a fair and probably honest answer.

You can do better.>

<tga>, this is not comparing art to heroin.

What is morally good about creating a thing we call art?>

Did you just skim my post? I already gave my supporting argument for Stairway at Auvers [SAA] being "good":

<Stairway lives on, inspiring and edifying hundreds of thousands every year who visit SLAM to see it.

Stairway is splendid, truly splendid. The spatial interpretation is innovative. The use & choice of color is nothing short of brilliant.

Even if van Gogh's intent was to torment babies and cute furry animals with this painting, it doesn't matter! The painting is good, and the edification one receives from viewing it is real, and positive.>

There is nothing negative about SAA, nothing evil, nothing bad.

It is beauty. It is genius. It is creative and dynamic in its spatial interpretation. It is viscerally edifying in its use of color, especially green.

If you ever happen to be in St. Louis, and have time to visit the St. Louis Art Museum, walk in, turn left, and stay on the first floor. Walk on over, you cannot miss the giant Monet on the back wall of that particular gallery. As you see the Monet [Water Lilies], look to your right.

It's a small piece, dwarfed by the Monet. But the genius of SAA dwarfs Water Lilies.

This is about falsifying the idea that "help" is always good.>

But you used heroin in the place of art, in the comparison.

Drugs do not work in a person's life the same way art does. So it isn't a reasonable analogy.

Art *can't* be evil the same way heroin can be. No one ever overdosed on art at a museum. No one ever murdered their own baby while high on art.

It's kind of like comparing Trump to Hitler (which, by the way, I just heard on NPR tonight while driving home from the restaurant).

van Gogh could have had the most base motives imaginable, when creating SAA, but it is impossible for SAA to impact a person as negatively as heroin can.

"In the aftermath of the tragic and deadly confrontations in Charlottesville between racists and opponents of racism, an uneasy sense of dread has quickly set in."

https://www.yahoo.com/news/white-su...

So the "peaceful counterprotesters" are now honored and justified as "opponents of racism" despite their bats and sticks and crowbars and flamethrowers and urine balloons. Meanwhile, the original protesters must have been "racist" for wanting to leave a statue alone. I wonder who decided these Confederate statues were "racist" in the first place, and who will be next.

<Stairway lives on, inspiring and edifying hundreds of thousands every year who visit SLAM to see it.

Stairway is splendid, truly splendid. The spatial interpretation is innovative. The use & choice of color is nothing short of brilliant.>

You didn't have to post this again. I read it the first time. You are making assumptions. You are assuming, somehow, the "innovation" is morally good. That "brilliant" choice of color is morally good. That "inspiring" others is morally good.

I fail to see how choosing a color is a moral action, whether one thinks the color is a good choice or not. Notice "a good choice" does not have a moral connotation in this sentence.

I fail to see how an "innovation" has a moral component to it.

<tga: It is beauty. It is genius. It is creative and dynamic in its spatial interpretation. It is viscerally edifying in its use of color, especially green.>

Beauty satisfies the eye and genius the intellect, but is satisfaction and pleasure REALLY something that you think is automatically good?

There are lots of pleasures that we call guilty pleasures, because they are not good, but they please our appetites.

So what is my point?

My point is that I aim to falsify your assumptions so that they no longer appear true to you. All it takes is *one* falsification and the proposition, or hypothesis needs to be removed from assumption status and put where it belongs - and then wisdom can obtain.

<tga>, so as to keep this nice and tidy, I can sum it up like this: All of the points that I copied of yours into this post speak directly to achieving pleasure, whether it is the eye or the intellect. My point is that one should not assume that pleasure seeking and appetite gratification are <moral goods>, necessarily.

You see?

I did not skim your post. I was immediately aware of your assumption, that supreme and exquisite satisfaction of the appetite (beauty for the eye, genius for the intellect) is somehow a <moral good>, but we all know, when we think about it, that pleasures and satisfying the passions is *not* always (so don't assume) morally good!

When we want to achieve exquisite and supreme pleasure by sleeping with the neighbor's incredible wife, we do not do what is good etc...

But you used heroin in the place of art, in the comparison.>

So?

We are not comparing heroin or art, but rather we are falsifying the idea that "help" is always a good thing.

It's not, and my example made that clear. If you <still think> that help is always morally good, let me know.

<Drugs do not work in a person's life the same way art does. So it isn't a reasonable analogy>

It's not meant to be an analogy. It's meant to show that help isn't always good, precisely for the reason you just gave, which is that we can help people do bad things. Therefore help is not always good!

<It's kind of like comparing Trump to Hitler >

http://countercurrentnews.info/2017...

<One of the highest-ranking officials in the Catholic Church has stated that he would “rather go to prison” than report pedophilia to police.

Australia’s most powerful clergy, Archbishop of Melbourne Denis Hart, says he’s prepared to be jailed for failing to report child sex abuse by pedophile priests.>

Another link to the same story:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/a...

Socrates told us it was very important to "Know thyself". He said that the unexamined life was not worth living.

The bible tells us to examine ourselves too: <Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?” - 2 Corinthians 13:5>

"Socrates says, as he did in Phaedrus, that people make themselves appear ridiculous when they are trying to know obscure things before they know themselves" - wikipedia

“To know thyself is the beginning of wisdom.” - Socrates

The phrase "know thyself" was already known in Socrates' time, but he latched on to it, so Plato tells us, and lived by it.

Belated answer after the weekend. My intention was mainly to point out the argument that e.g. Nazis could put forward to support their viewpoint. I personally think there is a difference; as there is a general consensus on the matter of holocaust - an absolute minority support those actions - this difference becomes objective.

However, you are correct that this represents a moral/philosophical problem today, one that I believe many modern thinkers have been struggling with.

If we begin with the notion that moral values are a human construction (which is also my own starting point - I will not here embark on a discussion of the correctness of this notion) then how can anything be "more correct" than anything else? Bear in mind that Einstein opened up Pandora's Box with his Theory of Relativity. Everything is relative, as an object changes according to the position of the observer. So how can you argue against someone claiming that his actions are correct according to *his* standpoint, when you do not share his standpoint and therefore is unable to see what he is seeing?

The problem was pointed out by the Postmodernist theorists in the 1970's and especially 1980's, but whereas it was at the time a very theoretical issue I believe two events have been instrumental in its becoming an actual issue: The collapse of the Soviet Union meant that people began to think less in "absolutes". The rise of the internet has undermined the "big storylines" of society and allowed people to pursue a much more personalized life:

It is possible nowadays to create a newsfeed that will only give you news that are consistent with your political and moral views, and you can fulfill your social needs on internet forums where everyone is agreeing with you. Thus one can lead a life where one's views are never challenged, only confirmed - is it not likely that in such case one will think that one's world-view is objectively correct? Which leads us back to the initial problem of course.

Well, if you are going to add up the sum of mankind's good deeds, and weight them against the sum of mankind's evil deeds, then you must a priori decide what is good and what is evil.

I think that inspiring others is morally good, and yes, that is an assumption. How else do you propose to answer last week's philosophical question?

<I fail to see how choosing a color is a moral action, whether one thinks the color is a good choice or not. Notice "a good choice" does not have a moral connotation in this sentence.

I fail to see how an "innovation" has a moral component to it. >

Well, that is only a subset of my assumptions, actually. You haven't addressed the edification aspect.

Art can be edifying, in addition to feeding the senses. This edification can contribute a positive vibe (for lack of a better term), positive for the soul, which leads the inspired art lover to outwardly manifest the joy he or she received from the art, which leads to a positive effect on the lives of other people with whom the inspired art lover interacts, even if only temporarily.

<When we want to achieve exquisite and supreme pleasure by sleeping with the neighbor's incredible wife, we do not do what is good etc...

Last but not least, the act of choosing a color may not be moral or immoral. It can be like choosing white eggs or brown eggs.>

Agreed.

Certainly there is a category of deeds that we can call "white egg/brown egg" deeds, that are neither good nor evil.

Which is why I cannot answer the original question. How can I, or anyone for that matter, quantify objectively all the acts of mankind?

In other words, how can I sort the acts into the three piles (good, evil, and brown egg/white egg)?

I can tell you for sure that SAA edifies me. I took a photo on my phone, and I look at it from time to time. It inspires me, makes me happy. To me, that is a good thing.

It is not in the same category as sleeping with the neighbor's incredible wife. That brings other people into the action, so the action involves more than just me. But my interaction with SAA is purely personal. It is the edification that SAA gives me, which I share positively with others.

And look at how much time we have spent talking about this one painting, this one action by one man. With yet no agreement, even.

Can we agree that Paul is right that these things he describes are things we should think about? (it doesn't have to be SAA, I was just trying to make a point there.>

And can things that fit Paul's description be considered good?

Belated answer after the weekend. My intention was mainly to point out the argument that e.g. Nazis could put forward to support their viewpoint. I personally think there is a difference; as there is a general consensus on the matter of holocaust - an absolute minority support those actions - this difference becomes objective.>

The consensus can be measured as a consensus and one can say that the consensus is "X". If it is true that the consensus is "X" then that is an objective truth about the consensus - but not about the moral value itself.

We would be talking about two things:

1. The consensus, the opinion of some behavior of action "X"

2. The objective morality (beyond opinion, consensus, concepts - as it exists as a 'thing in itself').

On your view, the consensus changes, as it does in regards to trends and fashions, but objectively speaking, their is not difference between love and hate, kindness and cruelty, and the rightness or wrongness of the holocaust.

To bear this out, you mention the consensus. If the Nazis had won and killed all of their enemies, so that only people who agreed with the Nazis were left alive, then the consensus would be that the Nazis acted morally when they committed the holocaust.

In that case the holocaust would be good because the consensus would say so.

Now, we aren't speaking of any sort of objective assessment of the morality of the holocaust, but only of the consensus of it.

Without God, there is no objective morality that exists in reality. Morality would just be an illusion which is really nothing more than an idea, a concept that lives on the human mind, subject to change according to each person's subjective view of the world.

I think that inspiring others is morally good, and yes, that is an assumption. How else do you propose to answer last week's philosophical question?>

Sure, you should posit these ideas. That's the point of the question. But then what we try to do, in philosophy, is what you try to do as a professional scientist: we try to falsify the assumption. That is our next task - both of us. Our goal is to falsify the assumption somehow, with even just one refutation (and I'm using that word in both senses).

<tga>, it is my view that there are two ways to become wiser.

1. Add new truth to your understanding
2. Remove false ideas you once thought were true.

It can be said of the second way that it too is actually an addition of new truth, for one now knows a new truth, namely, that his old idea is false, so these two points are, in a way, redundant, but I like putting it this way anyhow, because it implies a methodology of growing or pruning and makes the process easier to conceptualize in my view.

It's been argued that it's possible that we as humans may not be able to recognize or actually know real truths about the universe. It depends upon one's degree of skepticism. There are different schools of thought regarding skepticism and some schools hold to the idea that we can't know truth and certainly can't reason our way to it.

Other schools of skeptical thought say that we can only know a few kinds of truths, for sure, and not many at all.

If this is true, then it's likely that much of what one thinks is true, is actually not true! We might do better to reject the 100 million thoughts that we think are true and leave only 4 or 5 left standing.

So the task of adding new truths to our understanding can be nearly impossible. It would be much easier to simply prune off ideas that we assume to be true, and this is a surer way to wisdom. As Socrates said, the only way he's wiser than the rest is because he knows that he knows nothing!

So much for the reason and the spirit behind falsification in philosophy.

The more assumptions that we can prove wrong, together, the wiser we instantly become! There's no quicker way to wisdom. Of course, pride keeps us from thinking critically about our assumptions and does its best to keep us from wisdom. While most people detest the idea of facing their assumptions with the idea of tearing them down (with help no less!), the wise man relishes the opportunity and considers the exercise profitable in the truest sense of the word and fun; a joyous task.

So it is to our mutual benefit that the ideas of satisfying the gratification of the senses is falsified, but what about innovation?

Can we think of a way that innovation could possibly be bad, and there disqualify it from automatically being a moral good?

I guess we need to treat it like the word "help" in the previous post and see if it can be bad. Can we innovate for evil? Can innovation serve evil?

I think there can be innovative ways to do evil, so innovation is not a good thing in itself. We can find innovative ways to commit more murder or cause destruction. We can find innovative ways to advance technology that leads to evil and death - like the atomic bomb. The world would probably be a better place had not the innovation around atomic energy been unleashed!

<What criteria do you propose for evaluating the actions of man, then? For the purpose of answering the very question that you posed?>

This is an excellent question. One thing we can say, as we try to sort that out, is that if God does not exist, then "good" is whatever you say it is. Period. End of story. Even if I disagree, or if we on this page, or on this site, or in this country, or in this world, disagree, you are still correct in whatever you say "good" is.

Good becomes a meaningless word, incapable of being measured, observed or falsified, let alone verified. It becomes the fodder of logical positivists. It becomes, literally, at least in the moral sense (at least), an utterly meaningless utterance.

We have not gone back and forth. You posited your ideas and I refuted them. That is forward progress.

I showed that pleasing the senses isn't a moral good, because it can and often is bad.

I showed that innovation has no reason to be thought morally good, because it can lend itself to evil and be a part of it.

I showed that you were basing your statements on assumptions, which I subsequently falsified, and this has lead to your increased wisdom.

How can you call that fruitless?

At least now, at this point, instead of just making assumptions, just asserting things, you have recovered proper perspective and have begun to *ask* instead of *assert*.

You think that is fruitless?

We aren't talking about pointless junk here with no value, like to how make money, how to be rich, how to get women, how to improve your memory, and so on. No! We are talking about acquiring the only thing of real values: truth!

This is fruitless?

As far as saying we haven't agreed on a criterion for knowing what is good or bad, right or wrong, or evil, let me remind you that we've had 3 or 4 comments on it, while you've had 45 comments on the <rogoff> page regarding <mark> saying "heart of gold" and that *that* is a fruitless exercise.

At any rate, my last comment approached answering the question of "what is good", the criterion or moral judgment.

I'll repeat it here. If God does not exist then the word "good" is an utterly meaningless word as it can't be measured, observed, falsified, verified or understood, and "good" loses its essential essence and becomes whatever the speaker says it is. Period.

But if God exists and God is good (maximally great being), then goodness is something like God, and to do good is to do as God would have you do.

Can we agree that Paul is right that these things he describes are things we should think about? (it doesn't have to be SAA, I was just trying to make a point there.>

And can things that fit Paul's description be considered good?

I say yes and yes. What say you?>

This is one of my favorite verses, and if this verse is applied to one's life, you'll be without fear, worry, anxiety, stress, doubt, hate, anger, resentment, guilt, remorse, grief and depression.

Yes, I think these are things we should think about. I might say ponder or reflect, or even better, meditate on, as a better word than think, as thinking can have the connotation of intellectualizing and that can cause many problems.

<And can things that fit Paul's description be considered good?>

Careful how you use the word so as not to inadvertently equivocate. We can have a good breakfast, a good jog and so forth, but these are not moral pronouncements.

Your mind can be in good shape, as can be your body, but again, this is not a moral judgment or valuation. So it is good, profitable, rewarding to think on these things, but it doesn't follow that each of those thing receives a moral valuation.

The bible also says that to eat honey is good, because it's sweet, but that too is not a moral pronouncement.

We have not gone back and forth. You posited your ideas and I refuted them. That is forward progress. >

No, you didn't refute them. Because my argument isn't that pleasing the senses is a moral good, in general. Or that innovation in visual portrayal of spatial relationships is a moral good, in general.

My argument is that people can be, and are, edified by those things, for example, by a spectacular work of art that incorporates those things, and that this edification is good, when it is manifested in the edified person's relationships to others.

So these things require a context, and a great work of art like SAA provides that context.

Probably the best thing that has come out of the discussion, in my POV, is that at least your responses have motivated me to clarify my thinking on the issue.

True.

And exasperating as well. See, we have to parse every damn thing to have a philosophical discussion.

Yes, let's stipulate that "good" can have a colloquial meaning that is not a moral assesment.

Next do we have to decide what the meaning of is is?

You know what philosophical discussions remind me of? Mathematical theory.

In freshman calculus the students spend a week or two learning about deltas and epsilons.

But fast forward to the end of the second semester, and no one cares about this @#$% anymore. You either know how to differentiate and integrate, or you don't.

And the integration & differentiation is what the physicists care about. We use those as tools, because of just that - they are useful.

And the mathematicians are the only ones who even care after graduation, about deltas and epsilons.