The True, the Beautiful, and the Good

[Inevitable Droid]

The true, the beautiful, and the good are three different concepts, measured by different criteria.  I could have posted this in the Philosophy section, but it's always in discussions of religion that I find these concepts continually confused.

The true is determined by logical empiricism.  Science and the methods of science determine it.  Intuition can hint and suggest but cannot make a final determination.  Neither emotion nor appetite have any bearing on truth.

The beautiful is determined by emotion and appetite, although the design of the beautiful is often dependent on the symmetries of math and logic.  Our emotions and appetites respond to these symmetries.  Often our intuition is triggered as well, and this adds to the beauty.  

The good is the most complex of the three, for it gets its weight from emotion and appetite, but its substance from logical empiricism.  Without logical empiricism we couldn't assess the practical benefits, costs, opportunities, and risks, but without emotion and appetite, we couldn't assign relative weights to those benefits, costs, opportunities, and risks.

The most common errors of theism are to mistake beauty for the truth, or, similarly, to mistake beauty for the good.  Thus truth claims will made on the basis of emotion and appetite, an erroneous basis, or claims of goodness will be made on the basis of emotion and appetite alone, an equally erroneous basis.

If we carefully distinguish between the beautiful, the true, and the good, we will assign the proper roles to logical empiricism, emotion, appetite, and intuition, and we will navigate life's course efficiently and effectively, so as to survive, succeed, and be happy.

[Kylyssa]

For some reason this reminds me of when my niece cried at the end of Beauty and the Beast because the beast turned into a man.

I think that ugliness is all too often associated with evil.  The fat, unappealing man or woman is almost always the villain, the handsome man or beautiful woman the hero in stories and tales and television.

[AnimatedDirt]

I do quite enjoy reading your stuff, ID.

So which is more important in life.  Truth, Beauty, or Good?

In light of your post on Atheism's religion, Satanism...   What is the best order to live life by?

[Asmodean]

So which is more important in life.  Truth, Beauty, or Good?

I think they are about equally important. Bad, being necessary to define [most] good, is in the same ball park too.

However, subjectively, I'd have to say there are more important things in life than either and all those four, although intertwined here and there with them.

[AnimatedDirt]

So which is more important in life.  Truth, Beauty, or Good?

I think they are about equally important. Bad, being necessary to define [most] good, is in the same ball park too.

However, subjectively, I'd have to say there are more important things in life than either and all those four, although intertwined here and there with them.

I can appreciate this.

I suppose I should've worded my question better.  Which would you (general 'you') prefer to have?  Truth, beauty, or Good?  More specifically, can happiness be found in one only?  Can happiness be found in living a good life?  Can happiness be found in living a life looking and seeing only the beauty in life without KNOWING Truth?  Can one find happiness in living a life solely in Truth, without Beauty and Good?

If in fact they are equal, one would assume each is Happiness on its own.

[The Magic Pudding]

If we carefully distinguish between the beautiful, the true, and the good, we will assign the proper roles to logical empiricism, emotion, appetite, and intuition, and we will navigate life's course efficiently and effectively, so as to survive, succeed, and be happy.

My beautiful is influenced by what I see as good.
A gazelle and fawn standing in the grasslands are beautiful, not necessarily good.
A lioness and cub are beautiful too, neither good nor bad.
My gazelles eating grass are beautiful.
The lions eating my gazelles are definitely not beautiful or good.
I think doing bad is ugly, and creating beauty is good.
Unless a beautiful thing has some un-good characteristics I'd say it was good.
An act's effect on the balance of beauty in the world influences its measure of goodness.

[Inevitable Droid]

My beautiful is influenced by what I see as good.

I'll be questioning this.  See below.

A gazelle and fawn standing in the grasslands are beautiful, not necessarily good.
A lioness and cub are beautiful too, neither good nor bad.
My gazelles eating grass are beautiful.

I share all of that, as animals in the wild trigger my emotions - though not my appetite, as I need meat to be cooked first for the latter to happen.

The lions eating my gazelles are definitely not beautiful or good.

I don't find beauty in the devouring, but I certainly find it in the stalk, the chase, the pounce, and the take-down.  It's the same beauty I find in watching martial arts performed at the black belt level.

As for whether the devouring is good - it is, from the lion's perspective, isn't from the gazelle's.

This actually helps demonstrate the importance of distinguishing between the beautiful and the good.  Someone who finds violence ugly might conclude that lions are evil.  Human actions taken as a result could be most unfortunate, hence evil, for the feline species in question and for those of us humans who consider great predators beautiful.

I think doing bad is ugly, and creating beauty is good.

The latter would certainly be the case from the perspective of those who found beauty in what was created, so long as they valued the experience.

The former might be a case of correlation rather than causality.  For example, if you find violence ugly, then violence will be both evil (for the recipient) and ugly (for the observer who finds it so, namely you).

These comments illustrate a key difference between the true, on one hand, and the beautiful and the good on the other hand.  The true is true regardless of perspective.  The beautiful and the good are entirely dependent on perspective.  What pleases my eye may displease yours.  What is fortunate for me may be unfortunate for you.

Between the beautiful and the good there is likewise a key difference.  Beauty is something we can experience without being a participant; I.e., as strictly an observer.  Being a non-participant isn't necessary but often the detachment helps.  The good, by contrast, is only good from the perspective of a participant; more clearly, perhaps, a recipient; either a direct recipient or an indirect one.  Helping lions directly benefits the lions and indirectly benefits those of us who find lions beautiful, and so from these perspectives the helping is good.  From the perspective of a human who finds no beauty in lions, helping lions will provide no benefit, and therefore won't be good.  From the perspective of gazelles, lions getting help may be unfortunate, hence evil.  From the perspective of bees and trees, neither of which are eaten by lions, helping lions is neither good nor evil, as it is neither fortunate nor unfortunate, but rather is of no consequence.

Unless a beautiful thing has some un-good characteristics I'd say it was good.

And for you it is, because you receive its beauty, and value that experience.  

An act's effect on the balance of beauty in the world influences its measure of goodness.

For you, because you value beauty.

[Asmodean]

Which would you (general 'you') prefer to have?  Truth, beauty, or Good?

Beauty. What can I say, I'm vain   )

More specifically, can happiness be found in one only?

Yes, I think some people would be able to find happiness in just one of those things... At least for a time. Happiness means different things to different people, but for me personally, I would need more to be happy.

Can happiness be found in living a good life?

I think that one is a bit backwards. Try this: "Can a good life be lived without happiness?" (Good here being subjective to the person living it, of course)

If in fact they are equal, one would assume each is Happiness on its own.

...Or that they are links in a larger chain.

[The Magic Pudding]

The good, by contrast, is only good from the perspective of a participant; more clearly, perhaps, a recipient; either a direct recipient or an indirect one.  

I think playing with your children is good.
It's good for you and it's good for them.
If I stand on a hill and see many fathers playing with their children I suppose that might gladden my heart.
My benefit from unknown fathers playing with their children is getting a bit tenuous.
I think I have to declare the playing with children a universal good, whether it benefits me or not.
Yes I do know this is subjective.

Hope you don't mind me borrowing your head for my Christmas Evolutionary Tree.
Probably should be a branch, but that doesn't really work in a 130 x 130 pixel square.

[Inevitable Droid]

I think playing with your children is good.
It's good for you and it's good for them.

I agree.

If I stand on a hill and see many fathers playing with their children I suppose that might gladden my heart.
My benefit from unknown fathers playing with their children is getting a bit tenuous.
I think I have to declare the playing with children a universal good, whether it benefits me or not.
Yes I do know this is subjective.

Instead of calling it subjectively good, thus implying some sort of subective morality, isn't it simpler and more straightforward to call the sight of these fathers and their children, beautiful?  

Hope you don't mind me borrowing your head for my Christmas Evolutionary Tree.
Probably should be a branch, but that doesn't really work in a 130 x 130 pixel square.

I had noticed it previously and have been repeatedly delighted by it! I feel honored!

[Whitney]

If you want to discuss how satanism is not atheism's religion do so in the satanism thread so that this thread can be on topic:  viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6385  Related posts have been moved there.