What is the Good?

File: always_pain.jpg (144KB, 500x484px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 500x484px

>>1729543
The Good is to live within your Nature of being through the experience of a contemplative life.

File: 4dc.jpg (11KB, 170x200px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 170x200px

>>1729543
a spook

File: Demiurge.png (584KB, 1400x2700px) Image search: [Google]

584KB, 1400x2700px

>>1729744
This board was a mistake.
I'll ask again next week.

File: his is doomed.png (2MB, 1192x1892px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1192x1892px

>>1729795
>This board was a mistake

You say this as if it's some sort of unlucky revelation.

>>1729543
Pretty subjective question my man

Without there being a big guy upstairs, that is

>>1730559
This doesn't answer the question

>>1730706
There isn't an answer

>>1730729
Why?
How about a simpler question.
What is the form of the Good?

>>1730762
>What is the form of the Good?
>the form of

The highest principle to be found in philosophical dialectic, the form on which the others depend. If you're familiar with the allegory of the cave, the sun allegorically represents Good.

>>1731118
Would you say the form of wisdom is the Good?
Does the Sun represent wisdom, or Good?

>>1731721
read the Republic.

>>1732191
I'm about a quarter or so into it.
I'm quite busy writing a 16 page paper on pre-socratics..
Fucking professor assigning this shit on homecoming weekend.

>>1729543

A malformed question. The assumption that because we can use a single word to describe all the things we like, that there must therefore be a single "substance" tying all good things together, is one of the foundational fallacies of philosophy.

There is no "the good", there are good things and bad things but our feelings about reality don't always (or often) correspond with reality as it is.

>>1732245
There doesn't have to be a single unifying substance to explain a single unifying Good.
The stuff of the universe does not dictate the ethical and moral questions does it?
The reason the pre-socratics tried to reduce the Universe to one stuff was not to answer moral question, but simply the question of "how does causality and change work?"

>>1732286
>The reason the pre-socratics tried to reduce the Universe to one stuff was not to answer moral question, but simply the question of "how does causality and change work?"

Perhaps, but doing so was a terrible miss-step that philosophy has never recovered from. Philosophers have been obsessed with defining "the good" or "the true" ever since, missing the fact that neither of these concepts exists outside our minds in nature.

>There doesn't have to be a single unifying substance to explain a single unifying Good.

Possibly, but the mistake is in thinking there is a single unified good, not only in looking for a single "substance" that "the good" is composed of.

>>1732245
>>1732309

So, in short : >>1729744

>>1732309
I think it is in humans nature to be good.