The Philosophy of Salah/Daily Connection/Prayer

[Surgenator]

I think we are having a good conversation. So let's keep it up.

I think to all the positives there exists negatives. 

Praise itself cannot be arbitrary, while, we humans may define things to our experience of these things.

Now I think for sexiness, God can create it arbitrarily, as he does in different species. So because it is connected to the mind, it doesn't mean God could not create it arbitrarily. For example, there is a bird in which the males get together and dance, and then the females all just pick just one who dances better, and all the rest of the males don't mate while that one male mates. 

Therefore we can know sexiness can be arbitrarily decided by God. I however in the opinion through a mystic taste, that everything experienced is a manifestation of the divine, either manifesting a degree what is with him or to degree what is not with him but having the opposite. 

If God can make sexiness arbitrary, he can make beauty arbitrary. If god can make beauty arbitrary, he can make (wait for it .......) goodness arbitrary.

---

However which species get's what type of experience, this can develop differently due to different reasons in evolution.

Now when it comes to qualities opposite to praise, God could not have made that up, but it comes up to the reality of it being the negative opposite of praise.

So being a dick, an asshole, are all opposite to beautiful qualities and praise qualities,  but these are not objective totally, for they have different definitions to people...but words like "bad character" had it's definition defined by God's knowledge of himself of his beautiful qualities and degrees of his bring down his light. 

If you substitute bad qualities, they exist eternally in his knowledge, although infinitely bad and infinite commendably or infinite ugly are not possible parts of the definition, they rather exist in his knowledge of possible finite degrees.

How we define these bad qualities with words and language are little less objective, but their nature objectively is condemned in his knowledge and their degree of their evil and their bad value is in his knowledge.

We don't know really the realities of the bad qualities and their evil, we only have some partial scent of them, but the real degree of how ugly they are in God's knowledge of the unseen.

Now you are deciding a society should care about another society and what is greater for the greater society. Your first definition was what society decides, not, what is better for all of humanity. 

But where we do get that we should act towards what is beneficial towards society, why should we even listen to these impulses. There is still greater problems with this definition.

Degrees of badness and degrees of goodness would not exist. All that really exists is what is objectively helpful for society or goes against it.  Still, what is the judgement and value of a person who has mixed degrees of good or bad deeds.

Also what do we with other virtues such as forbearance, love towards parents, towards children...are these just defined as good because they are helpful to people but with no reality to it inside the person making them praiseworthy?

Do people not have ranks according to their actions and if so, how so, without objective value and objective praise and objective goodness?

How are people more good or more bad by their actions, how do their actions become part of who they are.

---

There are too many conclusions that you've made on a false premisses. So I don't want to address everyone of them and instead focus on the false premise.

If we define morality as simply what is helpful to society with no reality goodness and evil, then how do we praise the good and condemn the evil? 

Ah, we praise and condemn the same way we always do.

What about honesty and truthfulness? What about sincerity and being respectful?

What about degrees of actions?...what about degrees of intentions?

No idea what your asking here.

---

The heart of your argument is faulty because you're conflating application of a concept to the past to it existing in the past. A mind can always judge the past by some standard, that doesn't mean that standard existed in the past.

You have to explain what you mean by this, I don't get it. What premise in the argument do you dispute now? Is was 2 in the beginning but what premise do you dispute now?

I'm pointing out that concepts cannot be eternal since they depend on minds. Concepts only exist in minds. If all the minds are gone, all the concepts are gone. A mind can apply a concept to any time period. So if I apply my standard of beauty to the 17th century, that doesn't mean my standard of beauty existed in the 17th century. Application of a concept does not mean existence of that concept in that time period.