Again very thoughtful and well articulated. You may be right, however here's what I make of it. Written in haste.

Hence, people say things like "I have ruined my life," or complain that "my life has become meaningless to me." — Count Timothy von Icarus

Hmm. Perhaps. But it seems to me generally only when things go wrong. If you can lie and cheat and stay on top... regrets are less frequent. Success is often experienced as virtue.

It's also clear that "what is good," is generally not obvious. People often make choices that, upon later analysis, they decide were bad. "If I only knew then what I know now," etc. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I think the issue is that what is good is often also what is bad. It often depends on how we choose to look at it. But it might be better to consider specific examples.

The nihilist might say, "but there is no Good, so any search is doomed." However, it's hard to see how they can know this from the outset. — Count Timothy von Icarus

For me, a responsible nihilist will say, 'I have yet to see a demonstration for how the good can be identified and I have no reason to think it can be done'. But it should remain an open question. Just as a responsible atheist should probably see no good reason to believe in gods but is open to any evidence or new reasoning.

No one buys a car without any consideration of if it is a "good car." — Count Timothy von Icarus

You haven't met my wife. She buys cars based on the colour. Good is something she can't even conceptualise when it comes to cars.

Think about it this way: people don't knowingly want to believe falsehoods. People are often upset with what the truth reveals itself to be. They might even prefer to not know the details of certain specific truths. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Based on my experience of people, I'm not convinced this is the case. I'm not sure true or false comes into people's process unless pushed.

If Aristotle is correct, and there is an identifiable purpose to human life that can effectively guide us to happiness and flourishing, who would want to remain ignorant of this fact? It seems like everyone would want to know it. But then certain virtues are required for exploring this question effectively. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I think Aristotle may not be right about this. I think it's certainly a cultural belief held by many throughout history. We long for meaning and coherence because as sense making creatures this works pragmatically. But it is very loose and tentative and often leads to problems, such as dogma and doctrine.

Likewise, if the Good reduces to personal preference, it is still true that we can make better or worse choices relative to this deflated Good. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Hmm. Well only subject to some criteria of value. Again which one to pick?

But I am not sure how you plausibly explain the development of the natural philosophy into the modern scientific method or mathematical proofs being emotion "all the way down." It doesn't seem like any methodology for solving problems should be any better than any other in this case — all claims about methodology would reduce to emotional preferences. — Count Timothy von Icarus

As I said earlier, pragmatic results are pleasing to us and emotionally satisfying. I do believe that empiricism and experience play a role in modifying chosen methodologies so that what begins as emotion may be continually modified by experience and results. And I didn't intend to argue that people arrive at decision making in a vacuum of emotionality. Obviously we all see had hear stories about things working, or not working (from science to method acting) and chose to participate or not, subject to our affective response. I think this is a very complex interplay of interpretations and concomitant choices.

Isn't the "mustn't" there an ought statement? But wouldn't this just be an expression of emotion? Or something to the effect of "I am fine with people discussing things so long as it is frivolous. But no one can make meaningful decisions about how society works unless their position agrees with my view." — Count Timothy von Icarus

No, I think I'm right to say one mustn't mistake this for absolute truth (but if you insist, we can say 'had better not'). And yes, I believe I arrived at this, like you, based on a complex interplay of emotional reactions and empirical feedback which is reinterpreted again by one's affective response.

I suspect that most of us share a bedrock desire for connection, coherence and comfort. They are probably all elements of the same preverbal or primordial impulse, located in the amygdala. I suspect that we all work towards satiating these feelings through any number of ways, noting results and consequences. But maybe I'm just saying all this because I find it comforting. I live for performative self-refutations.

You haven't met my wife. She buys cars based on the colour. Good is something she can't even conceptualise when it comes to cars.

Ha, well people certainly can lack a well developed sense of practical reasoning concerning different arts, etc. However, it's certainly not the case that practical reason is not present at all. Without any sense of what constitutes a good choice, there is absolutely no reason to choose one thing over any other.

So, I would imagine that your wife would still not pick a car that doesn't start, one that is wrecked, or one where the mechanic says, "only problem with this one is that it doesn't have brakes, so it can go, but it can't stop." Likewise, she isn't going to buy a toy car if she needs a car, because it's clear that the tiny toy car cannot fulfill the telos of a car. It is not good as a means of transportation.

I think Aristotle may not be right about this.

Right, but that's not really the question. The question is if Aristotle, who would want to remain ignorant of it?

I am skeptical of the notion that people are completely indifferent to the status of their own intellect, such that they can honestly I say things like: "I hope my core beliefs are fundamentally flawed and that I blunder through my life in ignorance. I also sincerely hope that I will never know what will lead me to happiness, but rather I wish to remain ignorant of this. I hope my intellect is profoundly stunted such that I really never understand what is going on around me."

Well only subject to some criteria of value.

If the Good is just "I prefer," then we determine the value, no? But if we've made ourselves miserable, then we clearly haven't chosen well. What constitutes a good decision seems particularly apparent in the case where the Good is just "whatever has made me feel good." Yet it's also clear that certain virtues would still play a role in the ability to "make good choices," for oneself vis-á-vis this fully relativized good.

I'm not really sure what subject we are discussing any more. Probably my fault for rambling.

I am skeptical of the notion that people are completely indifferent to the status of their own intellect, such that they can honestly I say things like: "I hope my core beliefs are fundamentally flawed and that I blunder through my life in ignorance. I also sincerely hope that I will never know what will lead me to happiness, but rather I wish to remain ignorant of this. I hope my intellect is profoundly stunted such that I really never understand what is going on around me." — Count Timothy von Icarus

Not all people. Many people. And I'm not sure about totally indifferent. Many seem content to wing things spontaneously and not pay too much attention to mistakes or inconsistencies. I am not convinced they have significant notions of the good or even the reasonable, just that which seems to be the right thing to do at the time. I don't think such an approach is more likely to result in unhappiness.

But if we've made ourselves miserable, then we clearly haven't chosen well. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Not sure about this. Is it a logical necessity that one's beliefs should bring comfort or happiness?

May I ask you a question? If you were to summarise how the average person might best approach a good life (outside of the manifest complexities of formal philosophy) what would you recommend?