xamgu

[Robin Turner <robin@BILKENT.EDU.TR>]

>I meant "morally good".  The "for" part of the definition of
>"xamgu" does make me feel uneasy though; it makes "xamgu" sound
>more like "suitable"

That's why I like "xamgu".  I have argued elsewhere
<http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/8309/good.html> that if we are to
have a unified concept of "good", it needs the following place structure:

G(w,x,y,z)

G -> is beneficial for or advantageous to;
w -> the event, state, object or person which is held to be good
x -> the event, state, object or person which w is advantageous for;
y -> the criterion by which w is judged;
z -> the situations where the statement applies.

This applies, IMHO, both to moral and practical goods. For religious
notions of "good", you can normally posit: x -> all human beings; y ->
God (or sometimes x and y are both God - it depends on whether you see
divine commandments as being for God's benefit or ours - a tricky
theological point).

 For an absolute, metaphysical good, x, y and z need to be open variables,
perhaps (i.e. "is good for all entities, by any criteria, in all
situations) which is pretty tough.

Anyway, I think "xamgu" is one of the cases where Lojban encourages
critical thinking.  I was about to try concluding in Lojban by saying that
(x1)the term "xamgu" is good (x2) for learners of Lojban (x3) by the
standards of critical thinking, but I got confused because I don't know
how to refer to a word as a semantic unit (i.e. concept) rather than a
quotation.  Oh well, when I get my dissertation finished I'll have time to
study these things!

co'o mi'e robin.

<http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/8309>