I have, for some time, advocated the position that there are many things, and that some of these things are better than others. Of these two claims, I consider the former more significant, and the latter something which follows almost of necessity from it; once we accept that things exist and have properties, it is not very controvertial to claim that "goodness" can be one of these properties.

The claim that things exist is fundamentally a dualist position. In order for a thing to exist, it must be something, and in so being, it must not be many other things. Existence divides; it captures some aspects of the situation at the expense of others. It is useful, but it has also had known limitations for at least two thousand years. By breaking our experience into things, we make it more manageable at the expense of throwing away some data; we are gambling that we have guessed correctly about which properties will be relevant and which will not.

Sometimes it pays off and sometimes it does not. Sometimes the solution we would consider best, if we could consider it all, is one which cannot be expressed in the concepts we were using when we stated the question or problem in the first place.

Yet what choice do we have? In order to do anything at all, we must begin with some sort of objective; we have some idea that some things are better than others; we must think that there is some state of affairs which is superior to the present one, and we must have some idea about the properties of each. I have therefore advocated the position that there are many things not because of its inherent virtue, but because it has seemed a prerequisite for the claim that some things are better than others. In order for there to be better things, there must be things, mustn't there?

Recently I have found myself trying quite often to solve problems which cannot be solved without fundamental changes to the concepts in which they are being expressed; I am in fact suspicious that almost all interesting problems may be of this nature. I have found this extremely difficult. When I used the concepts in which I can could express the objective, I could not make progress because I could not manipulate these concepts. When I dismissed the concepts and allowed the many things to merge into one in preparation for finding a better way to divide them, I could not make progress because I could no longer express my goal. It was like moving through a maze in which I could either open my eyes or walk, but not both at the same time.

Can these views be unified?

I believe they can.

There are many things.	=>	There is only one thing.
Some of them are better than others.	=>	There are better and worse states it can be in.

Instead of saying that there are many things, and that some of them are good and should be preserved while others are bad and should be destroyed, let us instead say that there is only one thing - and that it is damaged and in need of repair. The expression of better and worse does not require the existence of discrete things with distinct identities. Just as a person can be more or less healthy, a thing or situation can be better or worse without changing its identity.

And thus I think I shall not say that there are many things... I shall instead assert that there is a property of being better without first asserting that there exist things which have properties. I shall assert that goodness and badness preceded the existence of things; in fact, I shall assert that the very creation of things presupposes a property of better, and that the better which manifests itself as a property that can be applied to discrete things is but a shadow of the original better.

It's not a position which language supports very well. but it's better.

You can now return to the consistent.org main page or look at my personal web page.