Go to Seeking Limits of Mankind, and Limits of God
- Add a comment
- Go to The Limits of God Part 6
Krisles
I was not offended, but I am grateful for your clarification. Let me clarify my position on describing the essential components of goodness (or integrity) being Love, Knowledge and Justice. This is not so much a definition, as it is my attempt to describe the actual moral components, the tools, that are needed to accomplish goodness, to have integrity. Love, for example, cannot accomplish goodness by itself, without Knowledge to guide it, and Justice to protect it.
That triggers me to realize, just typing to myself here, that I see goodness as something you DO, and integrity as something you HAVE, that allows you to accomplish goodness. I see Goodness as ACTION, Integrity as an ASSET, the most important asset that a person can possess. This might help explain our different approaches to the issue.
Anyway, back to love, and its inadequacy when alone. This is of UTMOST philosophical importance, because there is a huge movement in the world, both in and out of religion, that "Love is all you need", which the Beatles distilled into a song. Another classic distortion of goodness (or integrity) was "Imagine" by John Lennon, on the same theme: that love will cure all, be all, and do all. I have seen arguments that we should have just loved the Nazis more, and then they would not have killed all the Jews. To me, this is sheer insanity, that gets more Jews killed, then and now.
The Bible states that "God is love". Well, that is not the whole picture. That shorts God, and does a great disservice to God. He is so much MORE than just love. Love is not some omnipotent happy-cloud floating around the universe, that magically cures everything it touches, that magically turns raging lions into lambs. Love alone does not accomplish goodness, or constitute integrity, in my humble opinion. Love may be the most important component of goodness, but it is crippled without the other components of Knowledge and Justice. I will say again, love needs knowledge to guide it, and justice to protect it. This is much more than a dictionary-like definition, it is more like an instruction manual, or a description of a process, like in your training classes that you teach. I would be interested to know what type of training you do, but I will not be so forward as to ask.
Cheers
posted by
GoldenMean
on December 18, 2015 at 3:32 AM
| link to this | reply
GM
I hope I did not offend with my comment about dogs chasing tails.....I only meant that I personally have watched many eyes grow glassy as I got too carried away, as I have discovered not everyone loves exploring philosophy with the same passion. You are correct, of course, that there is 'a philosopy' that is the foundation of every undertaking that has a purpose (I've explained this very philosophy to many a training class). Some folks, of course, believe that the only 'real philosophy' one studies stems from the writings the toga guys sat around and came up with, as if they originated those thoughts! LOL! Oops! See why their eyes glaze over...... Anyway, no offense intended, in case it did.
posted by
Krisles
on December 17, 2015 at 5:38 PM
| link to this | reply
Krisles
Yes, I like that definition of integrity much better. So apparently dictionaries don't even agree on definitions. I could not find my old hard copy of Webster's, so I found those definitions online. It is interesting that the definitions of integrity are so different. This makes communication even harder, when English dictionaries don't even agree with each other. That kind of defeats the purpose of having dictionaries.
Philosophy is much maligned and criticized, and usually poorly expressed, but we all have our own philosophy, our own set of values and priorities, at the core of our being, and I think it is the motivating undercurrent of both religion and politics. Tails are chased in all categories.
posted by
GoldenMean
on December 17, 2015 at 5:04 PM
| link to this | reply
GM
Well, of course, you are free to make up whatever definitions for yourself that you would like to. Personally, I believe we have enough issues with communication....and feel strongly that we should all be able to speak English....and that English is generally based on commonly held, accessible to all, definitions for words....in order to further communication...but that's just my belief....part of my philosophy, lol. I have done a lot of thinking about integrity through the years, and I'm afraid I prefer my more traditional understanding of its meaning as expressed in this particular dictionary definition: adherence to moral and ethical principles; soundness of moral character
This leads one, of course, to have to define what moral and ethical principles are....which is where your words like 'love', 'justice', etc. This is just me....and that is why Philosophy is like watching a dog chase its tail...only entertaining for a short time to anyone other than the dog!LOL!
posted by
Krisles
on December 17, 2015 at 2:03 PM
| link to this | reply
Krisles-- I suspected you would not be able to resist taking a peek.... it appears that you took more than a peek, LOL.
One of the things I am attempting to do is to better define terms such as integrity and goodness, because the dictionary definitions of such words fail us so miserably.....
INTEGRITY: noun: the quality of being honest and fair : the state of being complete or whole. Synonyms: rectitude, probity, virtue, see honor.
GOODNESS: noun: the state or quality of being good : moral excellence; virtue. Synonyms: integrity, honesty, uprightness, probity.
So the two words both have synonyms of probity, so what is that? That is a new one, even for me.
PROBITY: noun: integrity and uprightness; honesty.
So now, we are entering into a vicious circle of poor definitiions, with words using each other as definitions. Even worse, integrity and honesty get us nowhere, because even Hitler or Satan could be said to be honestly evil, and complete or whole in their predatory nature. Even goodness holds pitfalls, because it goes back to the root word good, and it is a compete disaster.....
GOOD: adjective: of high quality: of somewhat high but not excellent quality: correct or proper.
Now, the dictionary has managed to completely strip GOOD of its moral attributes. And we have the likes of Michael Jackson singing about BAD being good, completely reversing the use of those words for our young skulls full of mush.
So, to me, the essential components of goodness or integrity are Love, Knowledge and Justice. They are all necessary to accomplish moral or ethical acts, and to oppose immoral or unethical acts.
posted by
GoldenMean
on December 17, 2015 at 4:39 AM
| link to this | reply
GM
There is a name for holding to concepts such as Love, Knowledge, and Justice, and that name is philosophy. Job held to his philosophy above anything else, including family, friends and God.
It seems to be the night for folks using definitions in ways I've never quite seen before.....not, that I haven't done that a time or two myself! LOL! I don't believe I've ever seen what Job was doing when he was holding onto his personal belief in and commitment to justice as anything but integrity. A belief in Justice may be part of his personal philosophy that he lives his life by, but there can be a lot of components to a philosophy. And I also got a bit side-tracked by this Philosophy of Goodness only having the attributes of Love, Knowledge and Justice...is that what I'm understanding? Oops....I said I wasn't going to read until the end and you hooked me in.....you devil you
posted by
Krisles
on December 16, 2015 at 8:50 PM
| link to this | reply