It's 1/4 done. malek, MAF, and whiteman, I find your opinions important.
Last night I dreamt; now today I dream,
of a formula engraved in my mind for all eternity.
It is for the measure of a man; were he equals,
his achievements and correction of mistakes
over those mistakes plus one, and all to the exponent of his legacy.
or Msubman = ((A + c)/(1+ m))^L...please, stay with me.
I understand its not very clear,
and you must forgive me if it’s not fully worked out;
as I can only remember as much as the dream would let me see,
Of that chalk covered blackboard in a room o, so very hazy.
I take you back there now, to the conversation I had with that mysterious prankster whom conducted my search and as that’s what he did, that’s what I shall refer to him as such.
C: So you wish to know how to measure a man? Well, that is interesting, very interesting indeed; but where to begin? The begging I guess, as that would make sense, so lets take a look at the question. What do you mean by “man”? – I mean a person.
C: Well what is a person? You must play well if you want me to play too, and simple answers will not do. Try again.
M: A human being who has lived.
C: Better. Now lets look at that. You say “lived”, do you wish to exclude the living from your definition and only include the dead? – No
C: Then does time not play roll in your definition of man? Does man cover all those who lived, who live, and who will live?
M: No. Someone who has lived and is living are both men, but someone who has yet to live is not real but rather imagined and is thus only a collection of properties assigned to him by the imagineer.
C: You excluded imaginary men in your definition; calling them a collection of properties, but to others are we not just a collection of properties? To define Hamlet would we not call him a man? Does he not live in our minds and in our books? Is Hamlet not then, a man to some degree? – To some degree yes.
C: Then he is a man but with an important modifier, fictional-man. Now you must decide if fictional-man is to be included in with man. Socrates used real men as representation for his ideas, and we would be so grateful to live in a time full of great man and in a community so close nit that everyone could know of these great men, but that time has passed. It is because of this that the fictional man was created. He allows us to represent and examine the human condition and to share it with many. In this way it could be argued that he is greater than your description of man, for he is an example of many men and known by many more. It seems that it would go against their very nature, an example of man, to not include them in with man to be measured. Is that not so?
M: It is so, but this inclusion worries me. I can think of a man now, in my head, but you can’t measure him for you don’t know him. I fear this inclusion would create unsolvable situations.
C: That is true. But we agree that to you, that man in your head is just as real as Hamlet – Yes
C: Then the question is he not a man, but rather can he be measured. And that takes us to our next question but before that lets set in stone the definition of man: a human being who lived, lives, or will live in either flesh or mind. – Yes that’s fine.
C: Now what do you mean by “measure”? – I don’t know.
C: Do you wish to waist your time, with stupid replies, when I could guide you if you only talked! Now what does measure mean?
M: I think it is a few things then. It’s a system or standard for comparison and then the actual act of comparing things, in this case men. It is also the result of the comparison.
C: Good. It is a system or standard. I think that by the end of the conversation we should have created a system for measuring man and also long as it is consistent and can be used for all men then it’s a standard, would you not agree? – I would.
C: Now you also said it was a comparison, what are we comparing? Lets look at measuring an object. You measure its height against a ruler, It’s weight against a scale with gravity, it’s temperature against other degrees of temperature. I think we can gather two ideas from this. That an object, especially a man, is made up of many properties and it is only possible to measure one property at once and that the property must be measured against the same property of another object. Such as the length of a object is measures against the length of a ruler. Which property do you wish to measure of a man? I think our discussion would be rather futile if you choose a physical property.
M: I agree – To an extent. I think a man must be more than just his physical properties and more than just his mental attributes too. What I wish to measure is his spirit or soul. But I think the Spirit, at least in the way I wish to use the word, is not just a single property but rather the combination of all his mental characteristics. I think a mans goodness, badness, and greatness are what make the man.
C: Then you wish to measure three properties, goodness, badness, and greatness, and that some combination of these three things make a man? – Yes.
C: Good. Now wouldn’t you agree that the first two are similar; that good and bad are just two sides to the same ethical scale? – I would say that.
C: Then we are looking to measure two things, the mans ethics and his greatness. I think greatness needs clarification. Is not a great man a good man,? Is not greatness just an extension of his ethics?
M: I think in one sense of the word, yes, but not in the way I wish to use it. If I asked anyone if Newton was a great man, the answer would be yes, but he didn’t live the life of a saint. Hitler was a great man, but one of the most evil. I think I mean to say that a mans greatness is his importance or contribution to the world.
C: Then I think we both have a greater understanding of the question now. You ask, how to measure a man; or how to measurement of one man defined as a human being who lived, lives, or will live in either flesh or mind and is made from a combination of his ethics and greatness against another man. Good. This has been a long night and you should rest. So we will end this for now and you will wake, and tomorrow night again we shall play.
I suddenly awoke from my restless dream
And spent my day in wakeful dormancy.
The conductors words played on in my mind
and I came to a few conclusions on my own.
Mathematically a man must be measured in degrees.
For sprit must be measured against spirit
and man is the only object with soul.
We would need we would need an elegant system,
an index of grand men, numbered, to measure the rest from.
I then went back to sleep.
C: Hello and good night. There’s no reason to fill me in, as I already know of your advancement’s towards the question. Yes, Men must be measured against each other. Then picking up from last night, we must find out how to measure on mans ethics and his greatness against another man. – It seems so.
Good. Let is look at ethics first. What is good and bad – I don’t know, it’s in the conscience - instinct I guess.
C: You answer to fast, thinking little of your reply, sigh, it seems all progress was lost from yeastier-night. Try again and think of this: Does a child, who has not lived very long know what good and bad is? Does it not pull on animals tales and draw on the walls, with out understanding what it has done?
M: You are right. Both those actions are wrong and the child doesn’t know what it has done. I know them to be wrong, though I don’t know why, and yet the child does not.
C: It comes to you with out knowing the reason and this would be called instinct, but it is instinct for you but not the child. I think we can say that it’s not a pure instinct, but has been developed; making it instinct to a lesser degree, or instinct with a modifier, social-instinct. Is this what you mean by conscience? – Yes.
C: Then lets look deeper into conscience and try and define what creates good and bad. The examples of pulling an animals tale and drawing on the wall are two examples of bad, and you do not know why. I think then we should examine the effects that the actions have. What happens when you pull on an animals tale – You hurt the animal, and quit possibly are bitten back.
C: And what happens when you draw on a wall with crayons? – You make the parents angry.
C: Why are they angry? – because it is destructive, and cause the parents pains in both finance and physical labor of trying to clean it up.
C: There is a common aspect to your answers. You don’t pull on an animals tale because it will cause it pain, and possibly you pain, and you don’t draw on the walls because it will cause your parents pain. I think then we can say that badness is connected to pain. But before we make that conclusion let us look at the other side. As we have said that good is the opposite of bad, then if pain is connected with bad, then pleasure, the opposite of pain, should be connected with good. Would you not agree? – I would.
C: Then lets look at two examples of good. Passing tests is good and so is charity, correct? – Yes.
C: Then as we did with our bad, examples, lets analyze the effects of the action. What is the result to passing a test? – Your allowed to continue, or pass, and this makes your parents and yourself happy.
C: Good. And charity? – You help other people and this makes this makes them happy along with your self.
C: Both your answers have the common aspect of happiness. Would you also not agree that happiness is synonymous with pleasure? Is not being happy being in a pleasurable state?
M: No, not necessarily. A masochist gathers happiness from pain. How do you account for that?
C: A masochist gathers happiness from pain because he or she is fulfilling the desire to be in pain. They gather pleasure in fulfilling that desire. Much like a thirsty person fulfills the desire for water by drinking and fulfilling that desire creates pleasure. In this way desire is elemental and that fulfillment of desire creates pleasure. So a masochist is still getting pleasure from pain, though it may not be a physical pleasure. – I see.
C: We have uncovered something important. I think we can say that badness is bad because it will cause pain and that goodness is good because it will cause pleasure, correct – yes, I think we have got to that conclusion.
C: But pleasure is caused by a desire, correct? – yes we discovered that too.
C: Then can we not say that goodness is good because it fulfils ones desire and that badness is bad as it goes against ones desires?
M: I think we can say that, as pulling on the animals tale, which we have said is bad, goes against it’s desires. Yes, good is the fulfilling of desire and bad is not fulfilling ones desires.
C: Good. Then ethics is about desires.
M: I agree and that makes something clear, what happens when desires conflict? Surely ethics is not only be on a personal scale, where what’s right for me may not be for someone else. What about virtues?
C: Well what is a virtue? – A higher good.
C: A higher good? Do you mean to make God the judge of ethics? I think if you did our conversation would either be cut short or greatly expanded for coming up with Gods will could be a large challenge. I think our conversation has already lead to evidence against this in the child not knowing write and wrong. If the conscience is developed not a priori then when could God insert his virtues into a man?
M: It may not come from God but I still think that virtues are a greater good, at least higher than the personal good that we have developed.
C: I think you found your answer right there in “greater good”.
