Welcome to Gaia! ::

Wow, it's empty. I posted this same question in "The Buddha" guild. So far they are winning with one response. What is going on, did I joined the least active guilds in Gaia?

On [2], goodness must be goodness, since anything which exists must be identical to itself in order to be. My coffee cup wouldn't be my coffee cup if it were not like itself, for it if were identical to a teapot, it would be a teapot. Goodness as you think of it must be goodness as you think of it, by that same measure. True Goodness, if it exists, must be True Goodness no matter what anyone thinks, by that same measure again.

I think you meant True Goodness in that, so, yes. IF it exists.

As for YOUR idea of goodness being goodness itself (Goodness) no matter what anyone else's idea of goodness may be; that is a completely different matter. To find if it is true, you must examine EVERY SINGLE premise you have, EVERY assumption. For example;

"It is good to not kill purely out of anger." This rests on the assumption that anger is not a good motive to kill AND that there are good motives to kill. If there were no good motives to kill, it would have been sufficient to say "It is good not to kill".

"Anger is not a good motive to kill" Why? "There are good motives to kill." Why? I find it useful to get a few pieces of paper and write my assumptions down on one and make a "dictionary" that equates one assumption to a letter on that same paper. On another paper, put your initial statements 2in from the top, and place the assumptions below the statement, attaching it with a line. Keep on doing that, and when you have to support the statements and you make a circle, you've got yourself a circular argument...and that doesn't work. You're getting to the bottom of things, so to speak.


Okay, now for [1]. "True evil pretends to be good" This lies upon the assumption that we know what good is, in all instances. It's like algebra, we can figure it out if we only have one variable to deal with...but, you are using two variables here. You must first define what is good, and know what is good without a doubt before you can say anything tries to imitate it. For instance, if I said True Moogles pretend to be Moombas, we first have to know what in the world a Moomba is, so then we can investigate Moombas to root out the imposters.

"Fear disguises [itself] as evil" This, of course, requires you to know what evil is. To do that, we have to find what good is. Once we have what is good and what is evil, we only have to root out the imposters of evil to find what fear is.

However, if disguising oneself as evil means one really isn't evil, and one is either good or evil, that means ANYTHING which disguises itself as evil is good. Unless, of course, you disagree that something is either good or evil.


I hope that helps. 3nodding

Goodness only exists if somone choses to be good, but evil will allways exist otherwise. I am not like a goth dark guy or anythign, it's just that makes most sence to me.

im not sure where you are coming from or where you are trying to go with all this, but i would have to say that good does not try to be or appear as anything other than what it is. perhaps that is why so many overlook the highest good, it is silent and awaits the time when it will be sought, while evil is sensational and seeks attention for its own sake. they say Lucifer was cast out because he wanted to be like god.
hows that sound?