Good and Goodness: Reforming “Uncertainty” in Language to Avoid Korzybskian “Unsanity”
If you can remember your early literature class curriculum, perhaps you remember analyzing one of the many Platonic dialogues, The Euthyphro. Within the context of the dialogue, the reader encounters Socrates as he engages Euthyphro, a self-proclaimed prophet, in Dialectic into the nature of piety. Euthyphro gives multiple definitions for piety and each one is denounced by Socratic Dialectic. The act of begging clarification involved in Dialectic, forces the one who gives the definitive answers to really question his own knowledge and belief systems. There is a major philosophical conundrum implicitly defined within the dialogue known as The Euthyphro Dilemma. The dilemma is as follows: Based on one of Euthyphro’s definitions of piety as an action that the Gods approve of, Socrates then asks the question, is an action pious because the Gods approve of it, or do the Gods approve of an action because it is pious? Obviously there is a major difference between these propositions and Euthyphro, was left to realize that his basis of belief was not solidified (Melchert).
Having the Euthyphro Dilemma in mind, I propose a thought experiment. By understanding that piety was left sort of undefined in the dialogue, we must ask why that is so. Self-righteousness and…show more content… In such cases as defining “good” there clearly is not an umbrella definition of it. Rephrasing the objective to what it means to be a “good person” is still ambiguous due to the nature of experiential variation amongst humans. So to regard a person as “good” is incredibly troubling insofar as maybe the person is “good” or maybe the person is “bad” (without