One of your best, T.L. We could pretty much make this the motto of our blog:

"If someone said: 'Is it better to be good, generous or wise?' one would have to reply: 'If you are wise, you do not have to be obsessed by being "good" or "generous". You are obliged to do what is necessary.'

I know two painters. One's average, the other extraordinary. The first primarily adores certain colors which are indeed worthy of affection. The second paints with those colors, amongst others, but what he adores is painting.

This is a really good one. =)
basically i look at it as saying that to be wise, would include the traits of being a generous and good person.

"To believe that goodness or generosity are ends in themselves may be good or it may be generous. It is, however, not an informed attitude -- and that is the most good and the most generous we can be about it."

What I like about this one is the reflexive quality most evident in the passage quoted above, the idea of being good and generous in your description of goodness and generosity.

This is a quintessentially human characteristic: we are aware of our awareness, conscious of being conscious. This leads to lots of puzzles, such as, is the human brain complicated enough to understand something as complicated as the human brain? If you study cognitive science, so your brain contains the knowledge of cognitive science, and if we advance that knowledge far enough so that our scientific model explains all human brain processes, does the model explain itself?

George: To my reading, that is only half of the story. To be wise, one has to not only be generous and good, but to know when and when not to be those things...or rather, the right way to be generous and good, given the circumstances and the desired outcome.

For example, it may be generous to give money to a friend who is down on his luck. But if that friend is an unacknowledged alcoholic who plans to spend that money to buy a bottle instead of a meal, withholding your support may actually be the wiser course of action -- since it may "precipitate a crisis" in which he is forced to admit to his illness and seek help. In this example, the good is actually served by withholding what would appear to be generosity.

Treating goodness and generosity "as ends in themselves" divorces those virtues from context, and has the result of trivializing their exercise. Being "good" can then become mere politeness or formalistic adherence to norms of acceptable behavior, for instance, and generosity can devolve into a grudging and guilt-assuaging handout to anyone random person who demands it.

Even worse, a devoted adherence to an uninformed (or naive) conception of goodness and generosity can lead to one being exploited by those who respect neither virtue themselves.

The wisdom here consists of the acquired and consciously-exercised judgement to know what one wishes to accomplish by being good or generous in a given situation, and what actions (including inaction) with regards to these virtues will further the recipient -- and/or oneself -- towards the greater goal.

That's one possible interpretation, anyhow.

Years ago, I wrote an essay on the Wiccan concept of "perfect love and perfect trust".

For the most part, perfect love and perfect trust are what are owed to your fellows in your group.

I took a different approach to the concept, though. I decided to regard "perfect" love and trust as "the appropriate amount" for each person and situation.

You can love and trust too little, and you can love and trust too much. Both of these will lead to pain.

.........Karl