Do you have to have the bad to appreciate the good?

[Diederick]

I think contrast is an important way to establish how good or bad something is. But the thing we compare the subject to, doesn't have to be something we experience(d) or even be real. Our minds are capable of imagining the stress, pain and agony involved in a particular situation. We can measure actual situations to that imaginary one.

That is why, for example, the pain scale ("how does the pain you feel rate from 1, being no pain at all, to 10, being the worst pain you can imagine") can work if someone hasn't really experienced extreme pain.

The world doesn't need wars to fully appreciate the splendour of times of peace.

Of course actual suffering would aid in the appreciation of good, but it is not a necessity.

 

[Skwim]

I think contrast is an important way to establish how good or bad something is.

But the whole concept of good v. bad is predicated on their inherent contrast.

But the thing we compare the subject to, doesn't have to be something we experience(d) or even be real. Our minds are capable of imagining the stress, pain and agony involved in a particular situation. We can measure actual situations to that imaginary one.

But only in so far as we have an established bench mark in the first place.

The world doesn't need wars to fully appreciate the splendour of times of peace.

No, but our appreciation of "times of peace" can only exist where the possibility of war or a remembrance of war exists.

Of course actual suffering would aid in the appreciation of good, but it is not a necessity.

Well something in contrast to good has to exist to some degree or there would be no cause for appreciation. Appreciation only arises where an absence of its object is undesired.

 

[Riverwolf]

I think contrast is an important way to establish how good or bad something is. But the thing we compare the subject to, doesn't have to be something we experience(d) or even be real. Our minds are capable of imagining the stress, pain and agony involved in a particular situation. We can measure actual situations to that imaginary one.

But not everyone can do that. Not to mention, imagining such things typically falls short of the real thing.

That is why, for example, the pain scale ("how does the pain you feel rate from 1, being no pain at all, to 10, being the worst pain you can imagine") can work if someone hasn't really experienced extreme pain.

But it's still not great, considering the fact that a 4 on that scale could be a 7 for someone else.

The world doesn't need wars to fully appreciate the splendour of times of peace.

Of course actual suffering would aid in the appreciation of good, but it is not a necessity.

Like I said, it's not about appreciation, it's about recognition. If bad didn't exist, there wouldn't be good. There'd just... be. Same if good didn't exist. There'd just be.

 

[Renji]

Will you be able to identify the criminal from the innocent without appreciating the difference between good and bad?

 

[Diederick]

But not everyone can do that. Not to mention, imagining such things typically falls short of the real thing.

Of course imagining pain falls short, but there is no reason to think it will not be sufficient to generate appreciation of good. And to flip this thing around, how do we know if something is bad? We don't have to have experienced remarkable good in our lives to know injustice is done to us or to others.

If bad didn't exist, there wouldn't be good. There'd just... be. Same if good didn't exist. There'd just be.

The word good might not be there, but we would certainly imagine bad if it didn't exist and therefore also recognize when something is good, or better. Of course the meaning of the words will change, but the meaning of words is determined by the environment of a society so there's really no point in arguing the meaning will change. What I'm saying is that we are perfectly capable to recognize something as better of less good, we do that based on what we memorized as good or bad things and based on our intrinsic sense of good and bad. Witnessing torture for the first time will be a very negative experience for someone, regardless of whether they had a splendid life before that moment or not.

But the whole concept of good v. bad is predicated on their inherent contrast.

Of course it is, I was talking of measuring situations to mark them on a scale of goodness or badness.

But only in so far as we have an established bench mark in the first place.

Well, that's not very hard to do, is it? And someone came up with those gruesome torture machines in the Dark Ages, so we must be equipped with some imaginative power for suffering.

No, but our appreciation of "times of peace" can only exist where the possibility of war or a remembrance of war exists.

Of course "peace" means without struggle, so in order for the word to exist we have to have contrast. But there doesn't have to be real contrast in order to sustain its meaning. We could point at the first world war and say "damn that was nasty". People wanting to understand the word peace will go to the library and read a book about that war - would we get so detached from our past or from the meaning of our words.

Well something in contrast to good has to exist to some degree or there would be no cause for appreciation. Appreciation only arises where an absence of its object is undesired.

With which I can agree.

 

[Riverwolf]

Of course imagining pain falls short, but there is no reason to think it will not be sufficient to generate appreciation of good. And to flip this thing around, how do we know if something is bad? We don't have to have experienced remarkable good in our lives to know injustice is done to us or to others.

If we don't know what justice is, how can we even define injustice, let alone recognize it?

Besides, if what you say is true, why do so many people who have so much comfort and pleasures and privileges in their lives whine about every little detail? (Not saying everybody or even most people like this do that, but a lot of people do.)

The word good might not be there, but we would certainly imagine bad if it didn't exist and therefore also recognize when something is good, or better.

How? Imagination bases itself off of the known.

Of course the meaning of the words will change, but the meaning of words is determined by the environment of a society so there's really no point in arguing the meaning will change. What I'm saying is that we are perfectly capable to recognize something as better of less good, we do that based on what we memorized as good or bad things and based on our intrinsic sense of good and bad. Witnessing torture for the first time will be a very negative experience for someone, regardless of whether they had a splendid life before that moment or not.

Only if they recognize it as torture.

I think you're misunderstanding. I'm NOT talking about appreciation, I'm talking about existence. Good and bad are only categorizations our minds came up with to help define whether or not something is agreeable and helpful, either mutually or selfishly. Therefore, they are interdependent.

As an addendum, I kinda feel like I should point out that this isn't in defense of any sort of God-concept.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Just thinking about this whole issue more... I think that the question "do you have to have the bad to appreciate the good" could be re-written as "is it impossible to conceive of bad things without experiencing them?"

I think the answer is "no" in the case of any person with any imagination whatsoever.

 

[Riverwolf]

Just thinking about this whole issue more... I think that the question "do you have to have the bad to appreciate the good" could be re-written as "is it impossible to conceive of bad things without experiencing them?"

I think the answer is "no" in the case of any person with any imagination whatsoever.

There, I'll agree.

If good is recognized, the opposite of that can certainly be conceived of (seeing as imagination is arguably the very reason why humans as a species are so successful), even if it's real gravity isn't fully recognized.

 

[thedope]

Good and bad do not have to be relevant concepts at all to appreciate, or apprehend reality.

 

[Diederick]

If we don't know what justice is, how can we even define injustice, let alone recognize it?

A sense of right and wrong and empathy, both intrinsic to man, will do a pretty decent job at that.

Besides, if what you say is true, why do so many people who have so much comfort and pleasures and privileges in their lives whine about every little detail? (Not saying everybody or even most people like this do that, but a lot of people do.)

Man is never satisfied, not with himself and certainly not with his surroundings. Some people have to vent their perceived imperfection and the injustice done to them by their surroundings.

How? Imagination bases itself off of the known.

There is always a situation in which someone wants to either imagine good or imagine evil. We simply imagine the negative of the situation we are in. We can imagine what it would be like if our privileges fell away, to go to a neutral state if you will, and even turn negative when we turn the positive privileges around and imagine an opposite of them.

I really don't see how that would be problematic to do.

Only if they recognize it as torture.

Do you think people would not recognize torture in its most mundane sense?

I think you're misunderstanding. I'm NOT talking about appreciation, I'm talking about existence. Good and bad are only categorizations our minds came up with to help define whether or not something is agreeable and helpful, either mutually or selfishly. Therefore, they are interdependent.

Looking at it in such an abstract way, I'd say I disagree we need a negative on the scale in order to decide what is helpful or not. Why not start at 0 being not helpful at all and going up to being more and more helpful? Of course some things will be destructive, so a negative will eventually arrive in some situations, but I don't see why we would need a negative in order to measure the good of the world.

Then again there is a larger gap between -10 and +20, then there is between 0 and +20. But would you argue that difference between good and bad, in size, makes us significantly more appreciative of good?

As an addendum, I kinda feel like I should point out that this isn't in defense of any sort of God-concept.

That's good, not that I was really worried about that, but it would make this discussion far less interesting.

 

[Riverwolf]

A sense of right and wrong and empathy, both intrinsic to man,

Oh? They are?

Not from my experience.

Man is never satisfied, not with himself and certainly not with his surroundings. Some people have to vent their perceived imperfection and the injustice done to them by their surroundings.

Therefore, such people are unable (or unwilling) to appreciate the good that they have.

Of course, that doesn't mean they haven't experienced any form of bad.

There is always a situation in which someone wants to either imagine good or imagine evil. We simply imagine the negative of the situation we are in. We can imagine what it would be like if our privileges fell away, to go to a neutral state if you will, and even turn negative when we turn the positive privileges around and imagine an opposite of them.

I really don't see how that would be problematic to do.

Until a few years ago, believe it or not, I actually couldn't do that. Even now, I have trouble with it.

Do you think people would not recognize torture in its most mundane sense?

If someone is not aware of the body and vocal signs of pain, how can torture be recognized?

Looking at it in such an abstract way, I'd say I disagree we need a negative on the scale in order to decide what is helpful or not. Why not start at 0 being not helpful at all and going up to being more and more helpful? Of course some things will be destructive, so a negative will eventually arrive in some situations, but I don't see why we would need a negative in order to measure the good of the world.

It's all about compare and contrast.

Since we created the concepts of good and bad, both are needed in order to be recognized.

And, of course, in many cases, what's actually "bad" and "good" could be subjective. For example, a mundane desk job is "bad" for someone who wants to have a more powerful position, but it's "good" for someone who is satisfied with any job offered.

Then again there is a larger gap between -10 and +20, then there is between 0 and +20. But would you argue that difference between good and bad, in size, makes us significantly more appreciative of good?

In some cases, but not all.

That's good, not that I was really worried about that, but it would make this discussion far less interesting.

^_^

 

[Skwim]

Of course "peace" means without struggle, so in order for the word to exist we have to have contrast. But there doesn't have to be real contrast in order to sustain its meaning. We could point at the first world war and say "damn that was nasty".

But pointing to WWI is doing just that. It's using it as a contrast. And while I agree that a world without contrast would be extremely hard to imagine, this doesn't necessarily hold for specific contrasts; "times of peace" for example. We don't need wars in order for the world to function.

People wanting to understand the word peace will go to the library and read a book about that war - would we get so detached from our past or from the meaning of our words.

Which is doing the same thing, using a "remembrance" to establish the contrast.