The Good, The Blog, and The Ugly

Blogging is retarded. However, I need a place to collect my thoughts. And Levon wanted to know what I was thinking lately. So here it is.

In the strictest sense every philosophical epoch, has not attained what I would call the bare truth and all suppositions are dependant on a base level proposition which is nothing more than a moral bias on the part of the philosopher.

For example, although Plato and Aristotle are two the best and most true philosophers ever (the others being Lao Tsu, and followed closely by Al Farabi and Confucius, Shakespeare, then Nietzsche) they still relied on a moral bias: excellence is good. Therefore, there is a final cause or goal for all things. Therefore we can definitively say human life ought to seek the Good for the purpose of Eudemonia. This is undemonstrated, because they never proved excellence is good.

(note: there are readings of Plato and Aristotle that need not rely on this bias - I prefer those readings. But the majority of the history of thought includes this bias - and therefore they are all wrong and have wasted our time)

This bias I believe stems largely from the nature of the Greek language. The Greek language has a number of additional tenses that English does not - such as the "Perfect" and "Plu-Perfect" tense. When a word is used in this tense it is supposed to mean the thing has come to "perfection" or completion, or for the plu-perfect, past perfection or completion.

This is a lovely grammatical device allowing us to "accurately" describe by a certain ending on a word that this process has completed (and presupposes it is something which *may* be perfected). But it can beg the question that a) anything may be completed, b) what completed is in this sense, c) that completion for all things is possible, and even d) that completion is desirable or good.

Like me saying "I have blogger-ness" this ending "ness" adds a certain meaning to those words which may not make any sense or may be interpreted in a plethora of ways, hence tempting equivocation or question begging that a "blogger" as a thing can have a "ness". Just because I can say it does not make it so.

Similarly, the ancient Chinese as far as I understand the language, had a similar problem. The language was not very subject / prepositional. To my knowledge, the language did not have a very "X is Y" feel or flow to it, hence they did not think in those terms. Hence Lao Tsu said, "The Tao I can speak of is not the Eternal Tao" and basically that the Tao cannot be named, the same way Plato named "The Good".

The Middle period for Eurpoe had the bias of a Divinity whose properties they could know (although It is supposed to be impossible to know them), or well enough that they can know that their interpretation of this Divinities Will (as if it has one, or one that is anything like a human will or like it would care about us if it did) is the correct one or anyone not following them should be burned at the stake. Their bias was that the after-life was more important than the current life, and that moral certitude grants moral action.

The "Enlightenment" that the material is all that there is, that science and progress are "good". Any of these biases could very well be true - my point is they are all undemonstrated.
The Post-modern period, that will is good. That good is not good. That the previous epochs did not prove that anything is good and therefore we ought not following them, although there is no reason we ought to do anything. Therefore you ought to listen to me. etc.

So things basically get more screwed up from the classical period as we move on. There is a solution of course. Topic for another post.