Are you certain? Regarding the addict, the action is deemed good by the actor at that point in time. The observer says it is not good because if the observer where present they would act to stop the addict (be it someone else or their future or past self). The addict has been malformed to act in discord with their own well being by habit, perception, environment, beliefs, etc., but the action certainly occured because that which was in control deemed it good.
Interpretation and infilling are always present in communication, I accentuate this property intentionally because I want the reader to think and evaluate meaning for themselves.
When one acts in disunity with what they "know" something else is in control. That something else means somewhere there is a shackle on their being. Is it a coincidence that shackle rhymes with shekel? I think not.
Good's defining feature is not some abstracted ambiguous quality extracted from similarities among commonly accepted examples neatly packaged for common consumption by authorities. It's defining feature is that we define it with time through our choices. Each of us, each moment. We choose. We make the evaluation, convert the potentiality of uncertainty into certainty through selection, and suffer the consequence. We are the declarative principle identifying metaphysical goodness in the ongoing phenomenon of time. Just because you are told good is something defined with words vaguely comprehended in the aether of your mind doesn't change the underlying principle of action. The principal of time and the direction of it's application is precisely how the disagreement between all nodes of mind about what is good is resolved with certainty and actuality.
When I say good will win I mean the indominable spirit in man which is willing to fight and possibly die for what they hold as good is going to overcome the tyrants.
Are you certain? Regarding the addict, the action is deemed good by the actor at that point in time. The observer says it is not good because if the observer where present they would act to stop the addict (be it someone else or their future or past self). The addict has been malformed to act in discord with their own well being by habit, perception, environment, beliefs, etc., but the action certainly occured because that which was in control deemed it good.
Interpretation and infilling are always present in communication, I accentuate this property intentionally because I want the reader to think and evaluate meaning for themselves.
When one acts in disunity with what they "know" something else is in control. That something else means somewhere there is a shackle on their being. Is it a coincidence that shackle rhymes with shekel? I think not.
Good's defining feature is not some abstracted ambiguous quality extracted from similarities among commonly accepted examples neatly packaged for common consumption by authorities. It's defining feature is that we define it with time through our choices. Each of us, each moment. We choose. We make the evaluation, convert the potentiality of uncertainty into certainty through selection, and suffer the consequence. We are the declarative principle identifying metaphysical goodness in the ongoing phenomenon of time. Just because you are told good is something defined with words vaguely comprehended in the aether of your mind doesn't change the underlying principle of action. The principal of time and the direction of it's application is precisely how the disagreement between all nodes of mind about what is good is resolved with certainty and actuality.
When I say good will win I mean the indominable spirit in man which is willing to fight and possibly die for what they hold as good is going to overcome the tyrants.