A year late in responding. Never mind.
I come here from your current, thought-provoking thread: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/13432/mythopoeic-thought-the-root-of-greek-philosophy/p1

So, this OP is another from the Friesian website you recommend.

The wrap-around feature of the diagram indicates the generality of the term "good." The morally right is an ethical good, and both moral and non-moral ethical goodness are good and beautiful -- an expression the Greek combined into one word, kalokagathós, καλοκἀγαθός , "beautiful and good."... — javi2541997

The article continues:

Moral goodness concerns right and wrong actions; ethical goodness concerns what is good for human life,including right actions but also *good shoes, good pizzas, etc.; and aesthetic goodness concerns what is simply good-in-itself, whether morally, in human life, or quite generally. — The Polynomic Theory of Value ἡ τὴς Ἀξίας Πολυνομικὴ Θεωρία after Immanuel Kant, Friedrich von Schiller, & Leonard Nelson

[emphasis added]
Here, shoes are given as an example of an ethical goodness. See later * where this seems to be contradicted.

So, my mind isn't working as well as it could. Bear with me...
How can something be described as: 'non-moral ethical'?
Why not simply 'non-moral'?
Why is the 'beautiful' seen as a 'non-moral ethical goodness'?
What is aesthetic judgement or appreciation and how is it linked to morality?
Does it depend on whether it arises from a subjective or objective point of view. Both?

I am confused by the article and its various tables, one which I can't reproduce but is further explored:
Logical Relationships of Moralism and Moral Aestheticism
https://www.friesian.com/poly-2.htm#log

In traditional logic the Square of Opposition displays the relationships between particular or universal and affirmative or negative propositions. The same thing can be done to show the relationships that can occur with the affirmation or the denial of polynomic value. In the Square of Opposition, items on the diagonals from each other are contradictories, which means that if one is true, the other must be false. The two upper members are contraries, which in traditional logic cannot both be true; and the two lower members are sub-contraries, which cannot both be false. If one of the contraries is true, the subcontrary immediately below it, called the subaltern, is true. If the polynomic nature of value is accepted, then both moralism, which holds that all value, or all ethical value, is moral value, and moral aestheticism, which holds that all value is aesthetic value, are false. The contradictories of those, namely, morality, that not all value is aesthetic value (some value is moral value), and aestheticism, that not all value is moral value (some value is aesthetic), are true. If the polynomic theory of value is wrong, then one of the contraries must be true. This occurs with either Moralism or Moral Aestheticism. Note that moralism does imply the existence of moral value (the subaltern); but, of course, the existence of moral value does not imply moralism. Similarly, moral aestheticism does imply aestheticism, the existence of aesthetic value; but aestheticism does not imply moral aestheticism. Seeing these relationships in the Square of Opposition should help keep them straight. — Friesian

[emphasis added]

Perhaps others can see these relationships in the 'Square' and keep them straight.
However, I don't know what this or the wall of text means.
Grateful if anyone can explain in clear, concise English, thanks.

From the start of the article:

The Old English derived cognate of "value," which is "worth" (German Wert), is a perfectly useful alternative word in its own right. Things have worth; but it is the general meaning of "value" and "worth" that is appropriate for the Polynomic Theory.

* Shoes have value and worth; but, without tortured formulations, they do not have moral value or worth.

If we are among the modern Nihilists who do not believe that morality exists, this is a useful circumstance. Nietzsche sought to replace moral value with aesthetic value -- the fallacy of moral aestheticism...

[emphasis added]

Is it the 'general meaning of 'value' that is appropriate for the Polynomic theory?
If so, of what value is it when it comes to morality?
It sounds to me that the shoes example is seen as exclusive or inclusive.(* above and bolded)
Their value can lie in a variety of moral choices and decisions.
For example, vegan-friendly footwear is valued by some for its zero animal cruelty.

As for Nietzsche...is it true that is what he sought to do?

On Shoes
1. Respect and Religion
Shoes are steeped in custom and symbolic meaning. For instance, removing one's shoes can be a sign of respect, especially when entering a sacred space. In the Bible, shoes sometimes signify servitude, lowliness, or unholiness.
2. High Heels, History, and Gender
3. Economic Class and Sexual Symbolism
4. Slippers in Pop Culture ( 'Fictional shoes are powerful and either provide or symbolize magical abilities for the wearer').
5. Interpreting Dreams of Shoes

https://owlcation.com/social-sciences/the-symbolism-of-shoes

With regard to kalokagathós, καλοκἀγαθός , "beautiful and good." I think the English language also has a word for "Beautiful AND Good": Nice. As in "She's a nice girl", meaning, good girl, beautiful girl. "That's some nice shit", meaning "good shit" and "beautiful shit", both at the same time.

All that comes to me mind is that we're in really hot water! The easy way out is to die and/or not procreate (celibacy is a virtue in almost all religions. :chin: ). If you wanna do it the hard way be my guest; godspeed! Love you!

‘What’ not ‘Which’.

What’ not ‘Which’. — I like sushi

English is not my mother tongue. I oftenly make some grammar mistakes

English is not my mother tongue. I oftenly make some grammar mistakes — javi2541997

Oftenly did all of I so :scream:

Google says: "Puede editar el título!"

You if want... :nerd:

Usually, people are forgiving; they may evenly attempt to answer the question...

There's nothing quite like the smell of a dictionary in the morning.
Or the sight of a word being spelled out...or something. Don't ya feel it?

With regard to kalokagathós, καλοκἀγαθός , "beautiful and good." I think the English language also has a word for "Beautiful AND Good": Nice. As in "She's a nice girl", meaning, good girl, beautiful girl. "That's some nice shit", meaning "good shit" and "beautiful shit", both at the same time. — god must be atheist

Nice try but 'nice' doesn't have the same force, perhaps reflecting the word's origin:

; late 13c., "foolish, ignorant, frivolous, senseless," from Old French nice (12c.) "careless, clumsy; weak; poor, needy; simple, stupid, silly, foolish," from Latin nescius "ignorant, unaware," literally "not-knowing," from ne- "not" (from PIE root *ne- "not") + stem of scire "to know" (see science). "The sense development has been extraordinary, even for an adj." [Weekley] -- from "timid, faint-hearted" (pre-1300); to "fussy, fastidious" (late 14c.); to "dainty, delicate" (c. 1400); to "precise, careful" (1500s, preserved in such terms as a nice distinction and nice and early); to "agreeable, delightful" (1769); to "kind, thoughtful" (1830). — Etymonline

***

Kalos kagathos or kalokagathos (Ancient Greek: καλὸς κἀγαθός [kalòs kaːɡatʰós]), of which kalokagathia (καλοκαγαθία) is the derived noun, is a phrase used by classical Greek writers to describe an ideal of gentlemanly personal conduct, especially in a military context.usage dates from the second half of the 5th and in the 4th century B.C.. For example, in Plato's Lysis, a young man is described as imbued with kalokagathia.[4]

There is thematic discussion of kalokagathia in Aristotle's Eudemian Ethics,[5] Book VIII, chapter 3 (1248b). And how a kalos kagathos (gentleman) should live is also discussed at length in Xenophon's Socratic dialogues, especially the Oeconomicus.

In Aristotle, the term becomes important as a technical term used in discussions about Ethics — Wiki: Kalos kagathos

Y más...
And more...?

All that comes to me mind is that we're in really hot water! The easy way out is to die and/or not procreate (celibacy is a virtue in almost all religions. :chin: ). If you wanna do it the hard way be my guest; godspeed! Love you! — Agent Smith

In the meantime, be well and good :cool:
Mens sana in corpore sano.
A healthy body in a healthy body.
Aim for the best you can be and be kind to yourself.
A balance of body and spirit would seem to be the target, in a world that seems to blow hot and cold.
Buena suerte! :sparkle:

Put on a pair of 'nice' shoes and dance away from deciphering ' the polynomic system of values'.
Yep.

Good advice! I'm a nicotine junkie, have been for the past 20 odd years. I guess it's a sacrifice I havta make; recall how asceticism recommends denial of bodily wants; it even goes so far as to, at the very least, treat needs (food, sex, shelter, clothes) with contempt. The right balance between mental hygiene and physical well-being is not a myth though - I've seen people who've done it so to speak. Kudos to those who've seen the light.

Mens sana in corpore sano. Indeed!

English is not my mother tongue. I oftenly make some grammar mistakes — javi2541997

Broken English, it's called. Native speakers are known to make (silly) mistakes too, the best example of which to my mind is "irregardless" but that's not grammar, oops!

The right balance between mental hygiene and physical well-being is not a myth though - I've seen people who've done it so to speak. Kudos to those who've seen the light. — Agent Smith

The trouble is, for most of us mere mortals, that we might know what is considered best for the body and mind but there's often a wide gap between theory and practice, words and action.

So many obstacles, real and perceived along the way.
We often don't meet our own standards, never mind those of others.
"Be good to yourself".

Take care :sparkle:

I've seen people who've done it so to speak. — Agent Smith

Who? Have you seen these people and how they are in all circumstances?
What they think and feel...what they might keep hidden from view?

Broken English, it's called — Agent Smith

I thought "Broken English" referred to someone whose English skills are bad not only for grammar issues.

Who? Have you seen these people and how they are in all circumstances?
What they think and feel...what they might keep hidden from view? — Amity

Suffice it to say that such people exist - they have to for reasons I'm not at present able to articulate.

I thought "Broken English" referred to someone whose English skills are bad not only for grammar issues. — javi2541997

You jest of course.

Suffice it to say that such people exist - they have to for reasons I'm not at present able to articulate. — Agent Smith

Why must such 'perfect' human beings exist?
Do we/you need an Ideal Idol?

Why must such 'perfect' human beings exist? — Amity

Are yoy saying perfection is impossible? Our standards may differ - I'm a realist, at least that's what I feel I am.

Do we/you need an Ideal Idol? — Amity

If we didn't need 'em why do they "exist"?

Are yoy saying perfection is impossible? Our standards may differ - I'm a realist, at least that's what I feel I am. — Agent Smith

My perfect answer will have to wait. Going out now, a perfect nuisance!

Do we/you need an Ideal Idol?
— Amity

If we didn't need 'em why do they "exist"? — Agent Smith

Good question, what do you think?
I think the concept of 'perfection' or a perfect being is rooted in religion.
The idea of a perfect God.
If we fail to meet certain behavioural standards, if we are made to feel sinful, then we carry a burden of guilt...that is not healthy!

That's all I have just now...bye.

Wiki has this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfection

that is not healthy! — Amity

I second that.

bye — Amity

See ya! Nice talking to you.

Something that might resonate with you:

Le meglio è l'inimico del bene (the perfect is the enemy of the good). — Voltaire

The paradox of perfection: Perfection is an imperfection!

Broken English is typified by more than grammar failures. It uses words inappropriately, where their meaning makes the sentence nonsensical(1). It uses descriptions for concepts or words that the speaker does not know in English, and the descriptions or circumcisions*1* are incomprehensible(2). They use the thing that attaches to the end of the other words.*2* They use foreign words which are not meaningful(3) in English. Yes, no, no, no, verily, hulyeseg, feleseg, pravotsnikov, pesenkau*3* pisma Tat'ani.

Non intellego. :sad:

Non intellego — Agent Smith

The ideas involved were demonstrated with examples, which in turn described the next ideas, which in turn were made clearer, then demonstrated.
The ideas were numbered, enclosed by brackets.
The demonstrative examples were numbered by the corresponding number, enclosed by stars.

Not each sentence was necessarily fully explanatory, or fully examples of demonstrations.

Sorry to have invoked the demons so often in this post.

Nice try but 'nice' doesn't have the same force, perhaps reflecting the word's origin: — Amity

kalokagathia (καλοκαγαθία) is the derived noun, is a phrase used by classical Greek writers to describe an ideal of gentlemanly personal conduct, especially in a military context. — Wiki: Kalos kagathos

You obviously hain't never seen the shit of a well-fed, athletic, giant killing machine of a soldier of aristocratic descent.

I repeat, to disseminate useful knowledge:

"Nice shit! Beautiful shit, good shit."

No problemo! Danke again.

Nice try but 'nice' doesn't have the same force — Amity

Okay. Try this:

Go to any person (ten times, ten different times with different persons, who are most likely strangers to you and strangers to each other) in an English-speaking country, and tell them two things:

"We are having a nice day."
"That's some kalokagathós dog shit on the sidewalk."

Then ask them which expression has more force to them.

What I am trying to make you understand is that you can't say one expression in conversation is more forceful than another, if one is not in the language either conversation partner understands.

Which is more forceful to you:
"I'll buy some carp tomorrow."
"The rain from the skies jon valoszinuleg lefele, nem folfele, in the northern hemisphere."

With regard to kalokagathós, καλοκἀγαθός , "beautiful and good." I think the English language also has a word for "Beautiful AND Good": Nice. As in "She's a nice girl", meaning, good girl, beautiful girl. "That's some nice shit", meaning "good shit" and "beautiful shit", both at the same time.
— god must be atheist — Amity

Nice try but 'nice' doesn't have the same force, perhaps reflecting the word's origin: — Amity

What I am trying to make you understand is that you can't say one expression in conversation is more forceful than another, if one is not in the language either conversation partner understands. — god must be atheist

Of course, for understanding we need to share the same language or have access to Google.
The comparison was between adjectives 'nice' and 'beautiful and good' re conduct or standards
For me, the word 'nice' has less 'force' when talking about morals or ethics.
Where 'beautiful and good' can be nounified, conceptualised and even capitalised:
'The Beautiful and The Good'.
You think 'The Niceness' has the same impact?