| Okay, a definition, by definition, has to actually describe something. If that "something" is inconsistent to the point where it can actually be its own opposite, then there isn't anything concrete being described.
The definition of the word good can not be "something which is different for everybody." If the definition of a triangle was "a shape...up to your own interpretations" then we wouldn't have the pyramids. We'd have a pyramid, a kind of rectangle looking thing, maybe even a trapezoid!
I'll I'm getting at is this: we need to watch our language. We can't use such sloppy definitions or words to describe our world.
Some pragmatic questions:
1. Does describing things as "good" actually do any good?
2. Can we function as a people and society without the concepts?
3. Does the polarization of ethics (in that all things fall somewhere on a spectrum between good and bad, or evil) hurt people?
About the whole "good only exists in comparison to evil" weird taoist eastern thing....I know, there can't be something without nothing. But hear this--while we may apply these dichotomous attributes it doesn't mean they correspond to nature. Nature, that is world without language, has no good or bad. So what is it saying of us that we attribute undefinable imaginary characteristics to real things. |