User Tag List

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 51 to 59 of 59

Thread: What do you think it means to be TRULY good?

  1. #51
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Array Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008

    Thumbs up Our Goodness

    Being good means recognising that power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

    So to be truly good means limiting power.

    And we limit power through liberal democracy and scientific inquiry.

    God has absolute power and has been opposed to liberal democracy and scientific inquiry for centuries. However last century both christianity and hinduism became reconciled to liberal democracy and scientific inquiry. However Islam, Confucianism, Animism and the New Age are not reconciled with liberal democracy and scientific inquiry.

    Why is this?

    Well, both liberal democracy and scientific inquiry are counter-intuitive, while Islam, Confucianism, Animism and the New Age are intuitive.

    So we can see that to be truly good means being counter-intuitive.

    And unfortunately MBTI is entirely intuitive. And not one counter-intuitive, random, double blind scientific experiment has been done on MBTI in seventy years.

    So to be truly good on Typology Central we need to swim against the tide. And if we don't drown, this builds our strength, our endurance and our goodness.

  2. #52


  3. #53
    Senior Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2008


    The answer is quite simple. Any act that makes an observer's life more pleasant will be judged to be goodl. There are no absolutes, only shared opinions. The only requirement is that the criteria is applied as universally as possible without bias.

    [edited to answer the question of this thread]

  4. #54
    Senior Member Array
    Join Date
    Aug 2010


    One day, I'd personally love to see this concept of good and evil torn down and acceptance of humanity become the societal standard.

    IMO, there doesn't appear to be any truly altruistic individuals historically or currently that weren't human, in that some of their "good" actions didn't have "bad" consequences or that every action taken was without self-interest. Omniscience isn't the property of being human.

    I personally embrace the "do as little harm as possible" form of ethics and strongly reject the coerciveness and falsehoods of "being a do-gooder" or the "greater good" hypothesis.

    While I admire and respect what Ghandi accomplished, his actions could have been perceived as disenfranchising the Hindus. MLK same thing, where he helped to erode on the power base of "white men", disenfranchising them to some degree. He was also purported to have had a couple of affairs, as well as having a taste for underage prostitutes. IMO, the concept of Jesus that's common knowledge did not exist so he can't really be used as an example of "goodness".

    To swing the other direction, objectively Hitler almost single-handedly stabilised the German economy (a near bankrupt nation) and found a common cause to bring the German people together by creating a bogeyman aka Jews. While it's disturbing to me to write this about Hitler, IMO it's necessary within a thread of this nature about black and white, good and evil. As a visible minority, Hitler's views and actions are revolting and nauseating to me, from the position of emotional reaction and righteousness (which within itself, deserves to be challenged).

    This discussion also begs the question of truth and perception of truth but I won't divert this thread any further.

  5. #55
    Senior Member Array Journey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008


    [QUOTE=Metaphor;1378393 ]IMO, the concept of Jesus that's common knowledge did not exist so he can't really be used as an example of "goodness".

    Prefacing a statement with IMO does not nullify the arrogance of the statement that is truly offensive. There is plenty of evidence of a historical Jesus who is still living today. He is the only "good" man since He alone was God.
    "My Journey is my Destination."

    "Today Counts Forever." R.C. Sproul

  6. #56
    Banned Array
    Join Date
    Nov 2009


    I just giggled a little and spat out my tea.

  7. #57
    Away with the fairies Array Southern Kross's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    4w5 so/sp


    I think people in everyday life define what it is to be 'a truly good person' as something out of their reach. Their idea of it is someone saintly and 'perfectly' good in every way and therefore unattainable for an ordinary flawed human being. This seems to often be used as an excuse to make the minimal effort to behave ethically and justly; in other words a "why bother?" attitude. I personally don't set the standards that high.

    I think being good is not so much of a state but exists in a constant process of striving for the unattainable ideal; for someone to frequently question themselves and morally challenge their own actions and decisions. A good person is not someone that never does wrong (because this is merely a false perception of themself) but someone that chides themself for doing wrong and seeks to change their actions accordingly. A good person should also be circumspect about defining themselves as one because they should strongly feel their past deficiencies and failures to do the right thing (not that I think constantly wallowing in guilt is important to this). I think people rarely take responsibility for the things that they have done wrong because the right thing is almost always much more difficult to do. So I would also say, a good person recognizes this difficulty, yet in spite of it, truly and regularly attempts to take on the burdens of doing what is right.

    It does get complicated when cultural and religious elements come into play and some moral questions become subjective. I think the essential element of what might be considered right, is being ultimately concerned about the suffering of others (emotional and physical and on this earth, not in the afterlife) is at the heart of it above everthing else. This is not to be confused with ostensible concern for suffering, when in fact it is really an attempt to gain power or noteriety, or to attack or control others etc.

    This is all very vague, I guess, but these things are...
    INFP 4w5 so/sp

    I've dreamt in my life dreams that have stayed with me ever after, and changed my ideas;
    they've gone through and through me, like wine through water, and altered the colour of my mind.

    - Emily Bronte

  8. #58
    Senior Member Array Lark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009


    It wasnt Hitler that saved the German economy it was Keynesianism and he hardly created the anti-semitic folk devils he created, in fact anti-semiticism has eclipsed much of what else was in the ideology of the Nazis which proved popular with the German people, including nationalism, socialism, idealism and paranoia.

    I dont really believe the great man theory of history, perhaps its a partial truth but I dont believe its a complete truth anyway.

    So far as being human versus good and evil, I think that's a bit modest and also pessimistic, its like saying the best cant hope to be anything better than the worst, even if its just in their private moments or unintended consequences. Pretty depressing.

  9. #59
    RETIRED Array CzeCze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007


    There is a difference between being good and being guileless. Supposedly one of the pivotal moments (philo and otherwise) of Lao-Tzu's life was when one of his sons was imprisoned in another province. He was to set off to free his son but another son really beseeched his father to go instead. So Lao-Tzu sent his son off to free his other son. The directions were simple, he gave his son an amount of money to give to the magistrate in charge and request that his other son be freed. The son did that, but after the magistrate agreed to free the other son, the first son didn't understand why the magistrate should keep the money and asked for it back. This so angered the magistrate that not only did he reverse the decision to free the son, he ordered that he be put to death.

    Upon hearing the news from his first son, Lao-Tzu supposedly laughed because that's life, etc. etc. etc. thus Taoism was born etc. etc .etc.

    In regards to your question SB, I would say the first son might be seen as "good". He was being "righteous". He was so good and righteous he didn't even understand that the money Lao-Tzu gave was a bribe to the magistrate to his brother and ended up getting the brother killed.

    I would say the son was stupid.

    Being completely guileless, simple, "child-like" -- sure that is one way of being seen as good.

    Is that the only or penultimate way to "good"? No.

    And 'guiless' and 'simple' are euphemisms for 'stupid'.

    And there's also a huge difference between DOING good and 'BEING' good.

    I think being 'good' comes from a combination of intentions where you are trying to do right (be righteous, like the stupid son in Lao-Tzu's story), motivated by goals that are equally or more about the benefit of someone or group outside yourself, and having a true desire and discipline to be aware of the world around you and impact it in a positive way. Either because you genuinely derive pleasure from seeing the world better or helping people (haters will say this is motivated from 'ego' therefore, helpful people are actually selfish narcissists and cynical lazy bastards are the true pillars of society) or because even if it's a pain in the ass and you don't want to, you do something because you know it is the moral or ethical or compassionate thing to do.

    Apathy and disinterest and pre-occupation do not necessarily seem 'evil' but they often contribute to evil and 'bad things' in the world because people neglect a basic duty to their fellow people. Caring and interest are part of being a 'good person'. I do not think it is possible to truly be a 'good person" and to be apathetic, disinterested, or "out of it". Being good is not a passive state.

    Okay, done with partial rambling now...
    “If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.” ― Oscar Wilde

    "I'm outtie 5000" ― Romulux


Similar Threads

  1. Why I think Libertarians having a good showing this election year is a good thing
    By ygolo in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 67
    Last Post: 11-11-2010, 01:32 PM
  2. What extroversion means to me...
    By jenocyde in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 10-14-2010, 06:54 AM
  3. SJs: Explain what Si means to you
    By simulatedworld in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 11-07-2009, 01:00 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts