/lit/ - Literature

>>11286189

You are indeed a brave anon in exposing yourself to the carnage that will follow in my post, but you are wrong on everything, because you have not read Aristotle. Brace yourself and prepare to be raped into the Shadow Realm.

1. The non-existence of good cannot be the starting point of your line of reasoning, it should be the end. If you do not explain why it is that the good does not exist, you have proved nothing. The fact that patterns of behaviour are encoded as "preferred" "dispreferred" proves nothing, since preferring something is just a synonym for "considering something better" i.e. more good. Human behavior always regulates itself in relation to an entity we call the good and of which we cannot - at the moment - describe the metaphysical properties.
That said, for Aristotle the good is not a metaphysical entity existing as an independent form as for Plato so there is actually no need for you to demonstrate that it does "not exist". Aristotle discussed goodness in the context of ethics, trying to decide what is the absolute good for a human being, and he argued that it is an activity valuable in itself and not aimed at obtaining something else, namely contemplation, plus the possession of health, material goods. This is for him identifiable with happiness, i.e. the absolute good for human beings. Now please, if you can disprove the fact that happiness thus described is a good for you, maybe you will have something to say about the good in Aristotle (which you don't know, because you have not read Aristotle).

(1/3)

>>11284873
just talk about consumerism, that always impresses normies