On the Word, “Good”

Good is an often misused word. In order to appraise something, one must be aware of the one the person is appraising the item for. If one appraises something as “good,” then it is meant that is it good to someone. Nothing is just good. It must be good to someone, which means it’s good for someone.

Many people live their lives just rating one thing after another. This is a method of Lucifer to achieve productivity, I assume (there are many of them). Still, even though these people are experienced raters of things, they likely have never thought about the true meaning of the word, “good.”

Good, in an ethical sense, means to be good to another, and this is no different than good in any sense. Any form of the word, “good,” involves a statement of morality and ethics. It involves a statement of perceived benefit, as well, all which lead to a person’s well-being.

I think, when God made the world and saw that it was good, I don’t think he casually thought, “that’s pretty good.” I think he meant the world was good, in the way you’d describe a person, rather than how people often use the word, incorrectly, I think, when referring to things.

Things can be good, certainly, but what decides that is a very personal relationship with the thing. Food, for instance, is only truly good if you feel like it takes care of you. The possible shallowness of cooking challenges begs to differ, but ultimately, this is what we’re internally thinking. Still, the use of the word, “good,” is largely ambivalent to the fact that the definition of the audience is largely missing.

There is natural social pressure to assimilate the members of a society’s words for the idea of good as this greater word is vital to a society. Within societies are smaller societies (like Adam and Eve, country music and hip-hop, or Washington, DC, and Boston, MA, perhaps), and these words for “good” become moderately distorted with smaller subsections of a society; this can feed back into the greater society, and cause corruption of the word, which corrupts understanding. Despite the true meaning being that it is good to you, it is used in such a way that one would think there is a universal definition of good that is removed from personal subjectivity.

Is a car good? That really depends on if it is good to you. Usually, the two go hand in hand, but it’s possible that one can have one’s mind changed by a long enough time of blindly rating everything by ultimately some mythical figure’s whim — the whim of Satan, technically.

It is sadly and unfortunately rare to think if something is ethical to a person, or if it is helpful to a person, on an individual and personal level, but rather, instead, it’s common to think its mildly arbitrary rating is high or low. While, of course, the two go together, they are supposed to be exactly the same thing.

It is not a subtle effect to attach one to things: stuff you can poke at, stuff that carries a play, stuff with monetary value. It’s considerate to hope things are good to you and others, but the ferocious rating scheme present commonly in our modern world, likely fueled largely by financial profit incentives, is not the same thing as being appreciative that the universe is kind. It’s instead, turning a blind eye to the benefits something brings you, due to the fiery fervor instilled by its knowable rating.

I think, this is a reason people pray before they eat. This helps one remember that the whole system works together, and that they are not only thankful, but also aware of how the food makes them feel. They practice realizing that it is not just a trivial goodness that they witness, but a reflection of God that they witness, in the goodness of the food.

Many people don’t think anything like this. Hidden in a desire to half-blindly rate everything for some type of advantage is that nothing will ever be good enough, because the definition of good being used is far too shoddy and prone to mistake.

It’s good to note that the definition of good is what is missing here. The colloquial definition of “good” is very useless of a word. It leads people to not really knowing if anything is good or not. It becomes arbitrary feeling, lifeless and inhumane. Things feels evil in this context, because the word being used means partially random, and random will do something evil, usually soon. Worse than partially random, however, is that it means Satanism. That is, the promotion and desire to increase the amount of need present, because of a perverse attraction to the feeling of need. One should not treat Satan like a scalar object. It takes understanding to create art — one does not simply make it bigger.

That’s exactly what an evil person does, however — the person makes Satan a scalar object. Basically, there’s a notion that’s it’s supposed to just get brighter, bigger, richer, and whatever linear and mindless variable that happens to be appealing. Of course, things don’t not get brighter, but that’s not what they’re really doing to you.

In understanding if things are good or bad, it’s important to feel and realize what the thing is doing to you. This is something you should be able to understand without remembering what someone else said, or what an ad mentioned. This should be something that you, yourself, intuitively know. You know quite well what something does to you. That should be the determination of how good something is.

With this method of determination, the meaning behind the word is no longer lost. It isn’t a largely faded word with forgotten meaning. It is a word that is remembered when spoken. Remembering what is good to you is a part of knowing if something is good to you. This way, you see the eternal truth when you think of things.

The alternative, which leads to a fixation on things and an internal conviction that nothing is truly good, also leads to emotional, intellectual, and spiritual blindness, which is blindness from many facets of reality. Is is because of this that words have a difficult time explaining the satisfaction of divine appreciation.