From the perspective of an impotent omniscient third-party: Is pain as good as pleasure? Is success as good as failure?
- Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- The admin formerly known as Scott
- Posts: 5786
- Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- Contact:
From the perspective of an impotent omniscient third-party: Is pain as good as pleasure? Is success as good as failure?
In this topic, I'd like to ask whether that is actually the case. In the other topic, the questions took the form of 'what if' questions. In this topic, they will take the form of 'is' questions.
Prior to answering the below questions, we cannot assume that conscious value is non-monistic because that would be a begging the question fallacy. Nonetheless, even if conscious value/experience does add a dualistic non-monistic value system of judgement above and beyond that of which a philosophical zombie or NPC could be capable, then nonetheless what's good versus bad to the consciousness of a non-zombie is not equivalent to what is desirable or preferred according to the programming of the would-be zombie in terms of agent-relative desirability. The latter is merely the unconscious mathematical output of a programmed function, like an alarm clock unconsciously 'choosing' whether to go off or not based on the time and thus 'preferring' to make a sound or not based on the time and thus in a way seeming to 'desire' that you wake up or continue sleeping (at a given time under certain conditions).
For those reasons, I ask you to answer each question from the hypothetical perspective of an eternal omniscient conscious being viewing unchanging spacetime as a 4D whole. That is not to suggest that such a being actually exists, but it is meant to help us avoid falsely conflating objective and/or consciousness-dependent goodness and badness with mere agent-relative desirability, the latter of which even a philosophical zombie or unconscious NPC has. Even a non-NPC is at least partly NPC-like, in that some of--if not most of--its behavior is based on programing not conscious inputs (i.e. some kind of transcendental will or conscious potency). In fact, it's not mostly NPC-like but totally NPC-equivleent in the case of a consciousness that is totally impotent, meaning the consciousness is more like a person watching a movie than a person playing a video game or reading a choose-your-own-adventure novel. In such a case, even the protagonist (i.e. the seeming avatar of the consciousness) is effectively an NPC, just an NPC that happens to be specially observed by the conscious non-player.
Even referring to the potentially unconscious desires or potentially unconscious preferences of agent-relative desirability as 'subjective' would be equivocal and potentially misleading, since the word 'subjectivity' can imply consciousness. Agent-relative desirability is utterly subjective and relative, but not even in a conscious way.
So, answering from the perspective of an impotent omniscient third-party, I ask you to answer the following questions:
1. Is pain as good as pleasure?
2. Is discomfort as good as comfort?
3. Is failure as good as success?
4. Is death as good as birth?
5. Is the rain as good as the sun?
6. Are the running antelope and the chasing lion equally good?
7. Is hell just heaven in disguise?
8. Is everything good, and there is no such thing as bad?
9. Is reality as a whole worthy of unconditional love?
10. Is there thus no problem of evil (i.e. no evil)?
11. Is reality inherently right? In other words, is it impossible for reality to be wrong?
12. Is timeless reality as a whole beautiful and inexorably perfect?
13. Is there no true way to objectively dualistically judge aspects of reality as objectively right reality (i.e. true, actual, and right) versus objectively wrong reality (i.e. simultaneously actual and false), as lovable reality versus hateworthy reality, as acceptable reality versus unacceptable reality, as objectively positive reality versus objectively negative reality? In other words, does such judgement contradict the simple undeniable fact that, whatever it is, it is what it is?
"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."
I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
-
- Posts: 3364
- Joined: April 19th, 2009, 11:45 pm
Re: From the perspective of an impotent omniscient third-party: Is pain as good as pleasure? Is success as good as failu
Yin and yang can be defined as two halves that together complete wholeness. Yin and yang is a necessary relationship for creation. Without it, creation would be impossible. Objectively there is nothing bad about yin or yang yet a person can experience how they experience the results of yin and yang as either good or bad. Yet if good and bad and like you wrote whatever it is, it is what it is?13. Is there no true way to objectively dualistically judge aspects of reality as objectively right reality (i.e. true, actual, and right) versus objectively wrong reality (i.e. simultaneously actual and false), as lovable reality versus hateworthy reality, as acceptable reality versus unacceptable reality, as objectively positive reality versus objectively negative reality? In other words, does such judgement contradict the simple undeniable fact that, whatever it is, it is what it is?
If good and bad is a subjective human concept does this mean that the concept of objective value is also just a subjective human concept? Since my interest in philosophy centers round the purpose of our universe and the purpose of life within it including human life, the question of objective value is important for me.
The questions you asked may not be answered by good and bad but can be defined by objective value.
Objective value can be described as the Great Chain of Being.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Great-Chain-of-Being
Objective value is defined by the level of reality a given quality of being is located on. An animal is a higher quality of being than a vegetable. All the steps on the ladder are a necessity but value is determined by how close they are to the Source. Together they create the structure of creation and the essential complimentary flows of of forces called involution and evolution that sustain and reveal the purpose of our universe.Great Chain of Being, also called Chain of Being, conception of the nature of the universe that had a pervasive influence on Western thought, particularly through the ancient Greek Neoplatonists and derivative philosophies during the European Renaissance and the 17th and early 18th centuries. The term denotes three general features of the universe: plenitude, continuity, and gradation. The principle of plenitude states that the universe is “full,” exhibiting the maximal diversity of kinds of existences; everything possible (i.e., not self-contradictory) is actual. The principle of continuity asserts that the universe is composed of an infinite series of forms, each of which shares with its neighbour at least one attribute. According to the principle of linear gradation, this series ranges in hierarchical order from the barest type of existence to the ens perfectissimum, or God…………………….
Animal life is restricted to mechanical evolution resulting in dust to dust. Man is unique on earth because Man is capable of conscious evolution; from animal Man into conscious Man and a higher quality of being.
The great traditions initiating with a conscious source all seek to awaken Man to its conscious potential in their own way. Animal man prefers to argue over subjective conceptions of good and bad. The majority are unaware of. so unable to feel their potential for objective value. They remain closed to their ability to experience objective “conscience.”
- hlhunt33
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 2
- Joined: April 10th, 2021, 11:31 pm
Re: From the perspective of an impotent omniscient third-party: Is pain as good as pleasure? Is success as good as failu
I believe this brief response answers all the questions you posed. If you think not, I'll try again.
I might add for clarity that no one can prove or disprove the existence of God (Supreme Being). However, I don't believe anyone can dispute the existence of a 'prefect rationality' in the universe.
-
- Posts: 1133
- Joined: October 23rd, 2019, 4:48 pm
Re: From the perspective of an impotent omniscient third-party: Is pain as good as pleasure? Is success as good as failu
With due respect, I have to aver that at least some can be described as silly questions which may attract argument for argument's sake.
Q1 to Q4.
A. Of course, generally speaking, unless you can bring up some one-in-a-thousand exceptional case to boost the contrary. Say: I feel so painful now, better dead than alive.
Q5. Is the rain as good as the sun?
A. Rain and rain are equally good or bad. Too much of each is bad.
Q6. Are the running antelope and the chasing lion equally good?
A. Depending on who you are. Suppose you ask whether you or me is good or bad? A third party can pick, and so can you and me.
Q7. Is hell just heaven in disguise?
A. No. Apple cannot disguise as orange.
Q8. Is everything good, and there is no such thing as bad?
A. No. The dictionary is there for a reason. Ignore it, and you will be impotent. Good and bad is conscience.
Q9. Is reality as a whole worthy of unconditional love?
A. No. Love is from the heart. Worth is not earned by being real.
10. Is there thus no problem of evil (i.e. no evil)?
A. Of course not. why should we call that evil then?
Q11. Is reality inherently right? In other words, is it impossible for reality to be wrong?
A. Reality is existent. Right and wrong is moral value.
Q12. Is timeless reality as a whole beautiful and inexorably perfect?
A. Reality is existent. Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023