2024-08-19
I wonder if there is anything that precedes good and bad. As a human, we act in particular ways, where good actions are deemed general, and bad actions as corruptions of the otherwise good. As an example, sexual immorality is always a variation on the good sexual act. Likewise, gluttony or greed are variations on the good state of hunger or the act of desire. The Metaphysics of Quality seems to say that good or bad, in the sense of, having good or bad quality, are monadic and the initial point from which all else originates. In other words, moral is first of all. The Platonic form of the good does a similar thing, but makes good subservient to the forms, which are initial, and virtuous in their own right... most philosophies in fact seem to put either morality or some agent of morality first of all, and all else emergent from this. I suppose that it seems as if moral cannot be justified in any other way if we don't do this.
The question is one of what is good and bad. It's difficult to know - in a way, there is bad inherent to all acts by way of their causing harm to another. For instance, as I write, I eat a slice of bread. The bread was packaged in plastic, but also by way of buying the bread money has gone to a likely trans-national corporation, and given wealth to the investors. This in turn has taken money from the needy and given it to fund pensions, etc. that are fairly excessive (the old get rich whilst the young get poor) and lead to an imbalance in society. But it's just eating bread! And as I write this wv, I am aware I do something bad by shirking the things I know are more pressing for me to do (practise guitar, lift weights, go to the shops) and writing instead, which is somewhat of a leisurely activity.
I really don't have the capacity to philosophise much anymore. I used to, but it seems I've really lost a lot of that ability. Perhaps if I begin to focus on it a little more again it will come back to me. For now, I suppose I can only act, knowing that I always do bad, but try to minimise the worst of it.
How can I see whether I'm progressing or not, and whether I'm dedicating enough time to something? I suppose it is a matter of declaring a session, and seeing how many I do over a given period of time.
As an example, for the guitar, I did not play last week Fri, Sat, or Sun. It was my own fault, and I really should have tried to do more. But I didn't, and that was my own fault. So, for this week, how do I try and make sure I do enough guitar?
I think it is best to measure it kind of over a monthly basis, so I can see how many days I do something.
I was, originally, tracking for a wide number of tasks over the course of each week. But I wonder if it is best to track a lot of things monthly instead. Then, I can track for things I want to do by the amount of days I do it per month (e.g. I want to do at least 20 half hour sessions of guitar practice per month - that equates to 600 minutes or 10 hours) and likewise for things I want to avoid, try to minimise this count. This gives me a certain freedom, where I don't need to worry about the actions of any given day, as I can resume it on another day. If for example I do not practise guitar on a day, it can either be built in as a form of slack, or I can catch up on a different day. Likewise, I can manage wv in this way: try to write, say, 15 wv entries per month (that may be too high a number). By doing it in this way, it gives a certain leeway for any given day, but means I can more clearly see my progress as compared to tracking for a singular week, where I am bound to feel bad due to my lack of overall progress.
So, that is what I will do for the rest of this month and next month. Track on a monthly basis and see how it goes.
Have a good one.