SED Artist

Socrates (c. 470 – 399 b.c) thought that no one could possibly be happy if they acted against their better judgement. And he who knows how to achieve happiness will do so. Therefore, he who knows what is right will do right: because why would anybody choose to be unhappy ? 

But wait ?!!! 

Knowing that acting against your better judgement might make you unhappy, but that does not mean that acting Good means being happy. It is assumed here that being Good means knowing how to achieve happiness. But those two don’t necessarily come hand in hand ? One can surely know Good without knowing happiness.

Does being a good person and doing good things mean that you are happy ? And does the opposite mean that you are unhappy ? I can agree in some aspects. Doing things you know are wrong, definitely brings in a sense of loss of self, maybe a loss of self respect, going against your values feels like dissapointing yourself and can be really hard to come back from. That then leaves space for regret and shame, which are feelings that make a person naturally unhappy, because it is not a feeling that you want to associate with yourself, it feels bad, and therefore leaves little space for happiness. Heraclitus (c.540 – 480) though, argued (and we all know it’s true) that the world is characterised by opposites, and therefore that without Bad, there cannot be Good. So, without unhappiness there cannot be happiness, and you cannot know that doing good makes you happy if you do not know that doing Bad makes you unhappy. It is something that has to be tried and tested, in a natural form and manner, by every individual, in order to know it and apply it. 

Of course, Bad and Good has always been a complicated concept. There are things that we know of as bad and things that we know of are good, but within those confines, exists a spectrum varying from ivory black to titanium white, with all kinds of greys in between. There are things that might be bad now that become good later. Consequences of bad that become good. And consequences of good that become bad. There is reason and there is soul. 

According to Plato (c. 428 – 347 b.c), Socrates was deeply interested in the problem as is related to human morals and society’s ideals and virtues. The Sophists (teachers in Ancient Greece in the fifth and fourth centuries b.c) thought that that perceptions of what is right and wrong varied from one city to the other and from one generation to the next. This really, is something we see greatly today, with varying belief systems, religions, cultures and educations. Socrates hated this, he found it unacceptable, he could not fathom that right and wrong was something that flowed, something that had the ability to change and be changed. Rather, he believed in the existence of their eternal and absolute rules. I think that this is something which we know cannot possibly apply today. What you might believe to be Good action, could be considered by one of your closest friends as something Bad, which they would not have done and cannot agree with. Maybe it wasn’t even something you thought of as Good, but simply didn’t think of as Bad. There has to be something in between right? Not everything can fit into those two categories. 

How could Socrates’ “He who knows good will do good” possibly be true, seeing as we only know Good once defined by Bad, and vice versa? Of course, once you have known Bad, and eliminated it from future course of action, you will strive to do Good. Heraclitus (c.540 – 480 B.C), in opposition to Socrates’ version of thought, believed that the most basic characteristic of nature is the constant state of flow, or change. He believed that you could not step in the same river twice, because neither you nor the river would be the same. I apply this here because, doesn’t this mean that, in constant flow, you are constantly learning, and things around you are constantly changing, therefore you do not yet know what the next Good or Bad might be. You might apply Good ( as deemed both by you and others) to one situation and you will be happy, but, when you apply this same Good to a new and flowing situation, it may change, and it suddenly may not be deemed as Good anymore (maybe by others, maybe by yourself, maybe by both). Like most things in life, Good and Bad are relative (although sometimes, they are not) and ever changing (in relation to the length of life of the universe). 

With no clear rules surrounding these two words (which are used as singular words to describe and account for such large actions, and therefore surely cannot be used accurately for anything) it is up to us to perceive and understand them in relation to our individual lives and surroundings. 

Last question. What if you do something that is both Bad and Good simultaneously ? Additionally, some people might get the Good out of a Bad situation, and others might get the Bad out of the Good. What does your better judgement do then? It is as if we have been taught that Good and Bad cannot coexist, (here it comes again, my obsession with duality) but if one cannot be understood without the other, then surely in action, they both get to exist at one time? In a chain of events there are always more things to consider than the simple action itself; sometimes the action might even be the smallest part of the entire chain, and if only the action is Good, but the surrounding events or repercussions are Bad, then is it Good or is it Bad? 

Sometimes your better judgement tells you to do something because you feel that it is Good, but later on, you come to realise with regret that the Bad has since outweighed the Good. Maybe other people decide for you what is Bad, and your shame and guilt change change your perspective, your belief. Maybe, you do a Bad thing, against the advice of others, and against your better judgement, but in the end, as time goes by, it became Good and contributed to your happiness? In that case, is that thing you did actually Bad?