I hope the human race ends ASAP (serious, no trolling)

Chumly states: "why does this belief that there needs to be bad for there to be good".
I say that good requires bad at the level of concepts for either to make sense. But any event that we label "good" or "bad" is only nominally good or bad. In reality it is neither, it is just what it is in its precognitive existence (unless you believe Bishop Berkeley--esse es percipi).

Would you agree the belief that "good requires bad at the level of concepts" must still be a function of time?

And if you agree that it must still must be a function of time, what about those periods in which the assessment of "good / bad" is neutral?

Is the concept then meaningless for those neutral periods?

Function http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Function_(mathematics)

All I meant to say is that without the passage of time there can be no transpiration of good / bad. This I would expect is understood and I asked it more for rhetorical confirmation than as an open question and so I could move forward with the next perhaps more whimsical bit.

That being: if time is essential for this transpiration of good / bad, then my next point would be that we might agree there could be time periods in which the assessment of good / bad is neutral.

Craven said (and you seemed to earlier agree) that "There needs to be bad for there to be good. There needs to be suffering for there to be pleasure, and most people (especially after the teenage morbidity dies down) come to varying degrees of acceptance with that fundamental reality."

OK if this is a "fundamental reality" and if time is a function of this "fundamental reality" then what happens if the assessment of good / bad is neutral? Does time stop? Does realty stop? Does this "fundamental realty" cease to exist? Just how pivotal is this "fundamental realty" to our existence?

I know you later expanded on Craven's post by saying "good requires bad at the level of concepts" thus drifting away from Craven's claim of a "fundamental reality" and since I could not seem to interest Craven in following my counter to his belief I partially rephrased it on the basis your view that "good requires bad at the level of concepts" instead of Craven's view of a "fundamental reality".

My whimsy works better (if it works at all) as a counter to Craven's view (and your initial agreement with Craven) then it does with your post 2802545.

I'm being a bit silly (I know) but this seems like a good thread to be so on.

You speak of time as a condition for (function of) the occurence of good and bad acts. That means that time is a function of occuring acts (?). As I see it, good and bad are evaluations of occurences (acts), not the acts themselves. The evaluations also require time to occur as actions. But I was referring to the ontological status of "good(ness)" and "bad(ness)" as such.

Drews,

"WE ARE GOING NOWHERE BUT EXTINCTION.

"No matter how loud you say it that is merely your working hypothesis.

There are some possible alternatives

That's OK if good and bad are evaluations of occurrences, and not the acts themselves because whether they are considered occurrences in and of themselves or evaluations of occurrences, neither condition can occur without the passage of time. This point should amplify my next point (as referred to above) except of course for the fact that you wish to refer to the ontological status of good / bad whereas I (admittedly with some whimsy) wish to refer more to Craven's views of a "fundamental reality".

Call my Mr. Whimsy.

From what I've read, admittedly quite quickly, I don't see much difference in my position on from JL's.

Re: I hope the human race ends ASAP (serious, no trolling)
You claim "fundamental reality", JLNobody claims "concept". That is a wide difference in position because a concept is not a de facto fundamental reality.

Fundamental Reality

Concept