Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998 09:37:17 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199802211437.JAA08544@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Robin Turner Sender: Lojban list From: Robin Turner Subject: xamgu X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan X-UIDL: 30f5c94ee4d246d6d92f834652b32b67 X-Mozilla-Status: 8003 X-From-Space-Date: Mon Feb 23 11:53:12 1998 X-From-Space-Address: - >I meant "morally good". The "for" part of the definition of >"xamgu" does make me feel uneasy though; it makes "xamgu" sound >more like "suitable" That's why I like "xamgu". I have argued elsewhere that if we are to have a unified concept of "good", it needs the following place structure: G(w,x,y,z) G -> is beneficial for or advantageous to; w -> the event, state, object or person which is held to be good x -> the event, state, object or person which w is advantageous for; y -> the criterion by which w is judged; z -> the situations where the statement applies. This applies, IMHO, both to moral and practical goods. For religious notions of "good", you can normally posit: x -> all human beings; y -> God (or sometimes x and y are both God - it depends on whether you see divine commandments as being for God's benefit or ours - a tricky theological point). For an absolute, metaphysical good, x, y and z need to be open variables, perhaps (i.e. "is good for all entities, by any criteria, in all situations) which is pretty tough. Anyway, I think "xamgu" is one of the cases where Lojban encourages critical thinking. I was about to try concluding in Lojban by saying that (x1)the term "xamgu" is good (x2) for learners of Lojban (x3) by the standards of critical thinking, but I got confused because I don't know how to refer to a word as a semantic unit (i.e. concept) rather than a quotation. Oh well, when I get my dissertation finished I'll have time to study these things! co'o mi'e robin.