!ARTICLEIMG https://img.gvid.tv/img/3turkUVk.jpg
!POLL 226
Past poll: “Hookup culture is harmful to society” agree or disagree?
https://submatrix.net/c/Poll
It is obviously the presence of good. As the absence of bad would make it not bad instead of good. This is just framing bad grammar as a philosophical question. When we use words with intent and stick to largely agreed upon meanings, we can rid ourselves of the trivial ponderances like this one that plague philosophy subs.
Edit:
To expand on that a bit more we could ask:
What makes something red? Is it the presence of red or absence of blue?
When asked in this way, it is obvious that the presence of red is necessary unless we redefine red as anything absent of blue.
To be fair, even ancient greek philosophers sometimes struggled with, separating linguistic things from metaphysics. This often happens, when people speak only one language.
To offer some fairness to myself regarding the bad grammar… In earlier revisions of the question, I found that a lot of words I wanted to use carried too much weight and baggage. I didn’t want to bias the question with them. So I went with the most generic and childish language that could capture the essence.
Words like evil, excellence, error, virtue; They all mean very specific things to different people. Rephrased with more mature verbiage, it’s still an interesting question but doesn’t seem as broad. What is excellence? Is it driven more by the presence of things that are excellent or the general absence of error? If the first, what does it mean for those things to be excellent?
That is an interesting and nearly identical question. One downside of this question is that not everyone is caught up in trying to be excellent. Many people don’t care what is “excellent.” But everyone cares what is good and what isn’t so good. But maybe that simplified speech is beneath some people.
What is virtue? Is it the absence of evil? These all end up asking a slightly different question, instead of the broadest question.
It is obviously the presence of good. As the absence of bad would make it not bad instead of good. This is just framing bad grammar as a philosophical question. When we use words with intent and stick to largely agreed upon meanings, we can rid ourselves of the trivial ponderances like this one that plague philosophy subs.
Edit:
To expand on that a bit more we could ask:
What makes something red? Is it the presence of red or absence of blue?
When asked in this way, it is obvious that the presence of red is necessary unless we redefine red as anything absent of blue.
To be fair, even ancient greek philosophers sometimes struggled with, separating linguistic things from metaphysics. This often happens, when people speak only one language.
To offer some fairness to myself regarding the bad grammar… In earlier revisions of the question, I found that a lot of words I wanted to use carried too much weight and baggage. I didn’t want to bias the question with them. So I went with the most generic and childish language that could capture the essence.
Words like evil, excellence, error, virtue; They all mean very specific things to different people. Rephrased with more mature verbiage, it’s still an interesting question but doesn’t seem as broad. What is excellence? Is it driven more by the presence of things that are excellent or the general absence of error? If the first, what does it mean for those things to be excellent?
That is an interesting and nearly identical question. One downside of this question is that not everyone is caught up in trying to be excellent. Many people don’t care what is “excellent.” But everyone cares what is good and what isn’t so good. But maybe that simplified speech is beneath some people.
What is virtue? Is it the absence of evil? These all end up asking a slightly different question, instead of the broadest question.
But red is the absence of other colors besides red.