Goodness in no way has to be for something. That might be a view you take, but it's not the only defensible position. Again, it seems like your objections to the question are really just an answer. The point of the thread is whether or not it's possible to have objective general perfection, so saying that the question is malformed because it's not possible is not an objection at all.
No, I made a statement that something can be good without anything it is good for, no specific use, but some specific justification. Can that justification be objective? It's certainly abstractly possible. I don't see how, but I see no reason there couldn't be some possible world in which there is a way.
This is the problem with these discussions. You're making a blanket claim about this concept, which really does fly right in the face of how the words work. Perfection is predicated on criteria, and criteria is based on the goal in question. There is no such thing as a universally objective goal. I've already provided examples of how even seemingly general "good" properties like Strength are sometimes disadvantageous. Like the fuse example. Andother would be rubble that is trapping you in a cave.
When challenged, you don't justify this claim - you just shrug and say it's possible. You don't know how, but it's possible.
What's the point of having this discussion if you'e going to stand upon an unfalsifiable speculation without justifying, ironically, your claim that a critieria-based evalution doesn't have to be justified?
You might as well be saying, "Do you think that it's possible to have a square triangle? You don't? Well, I do. I don't know how, but I guess it's possible."
Which, come to think of it, is what happened when you were arguing about it being impossible to be certain of anything. What's the point of having these discussions if you're going to ignore the burden of your claim and just say, "I think it's possible, even though I don't know how"?
This is the problem with these discussions. You're making a blanket claim about this concept, which really does fly right in the face of how the words work. Perfection is predicated on criteria, and criteria is based on the goal in question. There is no such thing as a universally objective goal.
That doesn't make the question wrong, that's an answer to the question. Again, not a problem with the question. It would be a problem with the question only if there was no one who would even defend the position. But let's be clear here: there's a good reason why I made this thread, because there are people who would defend the concept of objective general perfection. Namely, theists (the modal ontological argument is based upon a version of this- "maximally great""). This is itself perfectly good justification for the question.
When challenged, you don't justify this claim - you just shrug and say it's possible. You don't know how, but it's possible.
Abstractly possible, as in "it could be true or it could be false". I don't need to know how, it's utterly irrelevant. How is relevant to metaphysical possibility, but not abstract possibility. I'm acknowledging that it's not impossible for there to be a way, BUT I can't see a way. If you want to say it's not abstractly possible, that's your burden of proof.
What's the point of having this discussion if you'e going to stand upon an unfalsifiable speculation without justifying, ironically, your claim that a critieria-based evalution doesn't have to be justified?
Blatantly false, I never said that a criteria based evaluation did not have to be justified. What I said was that it's abstractly possible for a set of associated values and goals to be objectively 'right' (in whatever way that might be). I need no proof to state the position of uncertainty, I am only defending the claim that the question is coherent and sensible, because there's nothing contradictory about it.
You might as well be saying, "Do you think that it's possible to have a square triangle? You don't? Well, I do. I don't know how, but I guess it's possible."
A square triangle IS abstractly possible. Because I'm a philosophical skeptic, EVERYTHING is abstractly possible to me, for one. But there's nothing contradictory about having a value judgement of a thing be objective and general, no matter how implausible it is for their to be objective values.
Which, come to think of it, is what happened when you were arguing about it being impossible to be certain of anything. What's the point of having these discussions if you're going to ignore the burden of your claim and just say, "I think it's possible, even though I don't know how"?
The burden of proof is not on demonstrating abstract possibility- and by the way the burden of proof is not proven ;).
The problem here is that there's no point in having this discussion with you. You've assumed a position where it's impossible for you to ever change your mind. No matter what point I bring up, no matter how nonsensical or self-contradictory your definitions or use of words, you'll just go back and say "But maybe it's possible."
Okay then. If you're going to be appealing to the same logic in the other thread, where you said you weren't sure if it was possible for you to not be sure of something, there's really nothing for us to discuss. And I'm confused as to why you bothered to ask the question.
What's wrong with anything I have said?
All I am doing is saying it's a reasonable question. Why isn't it a reasonable question?
Let's make things expressly clear:
Perfection- the state or quality of being as good as it is possible to be
Good- a value of something being 'right' or 'better' in some way
Objective- not considering personal opinion, concerned with fact
General- widespread, unspecific
How is objective (concerned with fact) general (widespread) perfection (state or quality of being as good as it is possible to be) a contradiction?
It's not, it's problematic to try to find a coherent and logical manner of finding general 'goodness' objectively, but it's not contradictory.
I keep going to back to maybe it's possible, because it is possible. In what sense can I say that it is impossible? The only sense that I can justify is "it seems to me that there is no sufficient example".
I am not objecting to your position in response to the question, that is, that it is not possible, I agree essentially, I am objecting to you saying that the question is malformed.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
When challenged, you don't justify this claim - you just shrug and say it's possible. You don't know how, but it's possible.
What's the point of having this discussion if you'e going to stand upon an unfalsifiable speculation without justifying, ironically, your claim that a critieria-based evalution doesn't have to be justified?
You might as well be saying, "Do you think that it's possible to have a square triangle? You don't? Well, I do. I don't know how, but I guess it's possible."
Which, come to think of it, is what happened when you were arguing about it being impossible to be certain of anything. What's the point of having these discussions if you're going to ignore the burden of your claim and just say, "I think it's possible, even though I don't know how"?
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
That doesn't make the question wrong, that's an answer to the question. Again, not a problem with the question. It would be a problem with the question only if there was no one who would even defend the position. But let's be clear here: there's a good reason why I made this thread, because there are people who would defend the concept of objective general perfection. Namely, theists (the modal ontological argument is based upon a version of this- "maximally great""). This is itself perfectly good justification for the question.
Abstractly possible, as in "it could be true or it could be false". I don't need to know how, it's utterly irrelevant. How is relevant to metaphysical possibility, but not abstract possibility. I'm acknowledging that it's not impossible for there to be a way, BUT I can't see a way. If you want to say it's not abstractly possible, that's your burden of proof.
Blatantly false, I never said that a criteria based evaluation did not have to be justified. What I said was that it's abstractly possible for a set of associated values and goals to be objectively 'right' (in whatever way that might be). I need no proof to state the position of uncertainty, I am only defending the claim that the question is coherent and sensible, because there's nothing contradictory about it.
A square triangle IS abstractly possible. Because I'm a philosophical skeptic, EVERYTHING is abstractly possible to me, for one. But there's nothing contradictory about having a value judgement of a thing be objective and general, no matter how implausible it is for their to be objective values.
The burden of proof is not on demonstrating abstract possibility- and by the way the burden of proof is not proven ;).
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Okay then. If you're going to be appealing to the same logic in the other thread, where you said you weren't sure if it was possible for you to not be sure of something, there's really nothing for us to discuss. And I'm confused as to why you bothered to ask the question.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
All I am doing is saying it's a reasonable question. Why isn't it a reasonable question?
Let's make things expressly clear:
Perfection- the state or quality of being as good as it is possible to be
Good- a value of something being 'right' or 'better' in some way
Objective- not considering personal opinion, concerned with fact
General- widespread, unspecific
How is objective (concerned with fact) general (widespread) perfection (state or quality of being as good as it is possible to be) a contradiction?
It's not, it's problematic to try to find a coherent and logical manner of finding general 'goodness' objectively, but it's not contradictory.
I keep going to back to maybe it's possible, because it is possible. In what sense can I say that it is impossible? The only sense that I can justify is "it seems to me that there is no sufficient example".
I am not objecting to your position in response to the question, that is, that it is not possible, I agree essentially, I am objecting to you saying that the question is malformed.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice