Reply
Thu 23 Oct, 2003 04:12 pm
If I could, I'd delete the other thread because I think it needs to be. If you have something intelligent or of value to add to this discussion, please post it. If you have an urge to flame and then leave, please post it in the other thread. I am not going to check the other thread from now on.
The theme of this story is the nature of evil, as I understand it. There's been a great deal of ideas about what evil is and what it's purpose is, and why good hasn't simply destroyed it, or whether it even exists. I want to show through the course of this why it exists, and why it is necessary, and why it is misunderstood.
The philosophy behind this idea is like so. Say there is an action (we'll call it action A) that is a good action, and another (action B) that is a bad one. There is a reason to do action A - namely that it is a good one (a good action would be intuitively obvious as such), and there is an equally potent reason to do action B - namely, a temptation. People choose whichever action based on what they merit is the better reason. A good person will always choose action A, because they correctly judge that the reason for doing so is better and more solid than the reason for choosing action B. At this point, the good person, action A, and action B are all rather hypothetical, since no person always makes the right choices, and no action is either always good or always evil. The goodness or evilness of an action is determined by the situation and by the reasons generated by that situation.
Now, suppose there were no action B, and thus no temptation. That would be easy, right? You don't even have to think to choose the right action, because there's nothing else to choose! But, if there is no other option, than you did not really choose action A - you just took what was given you, without thinking, and did the right thing without knowing about it. If a good person always makes the right choices, it would them be impossible for there to exist a good person, even hypothetically, since there would be no choices at all, right or wrong.
So, good actions can exist independantly of evil ones, but good people cannot. Furthermore, I will add that this situation cannot exist, as it is impossible to limit actions to the point where only good ones are allowed, and it is impossible to be human without make choices on a daily basis. So in the event that there was no evil, and entity would rise to fill this vacuum. Ironically, the evil entity would have the effect of making it possible to become a good person.
The traditional theories of evil I have heard go something like this:
1. Evil is conscious - it's goal is to corrupt you and make you a bad person. It should be erradicated.
2. Evil is a passive force, like darness - it only exists where there is no goodness.
3. Evil exists only when nature is out of harmony with itself, or when people are otherwise distraught. It is not conscious - it is a result of situations.
This theory is a little different. It states that evil is a conscious active force, but that it is natural and harmonious with goodness and its goal is to generate good people, or to make bad people good. First and foremost, it causes people to think seriously about what they are doing. Evil and good work hand in hand - the work of good is to create a good action and reward those who do it, and the work of evil is to create an evil action and punish those who do it, and send them back out to try making the choice again.
I didn't participate in the other thread, Rufio, but after reading this introduction, I can see why the other one stimulated a lot of passion.
You throw words like "good" and "evil" around as though you were using peaches and oranges.
"Good people" doing "good things!"
Evil is "corrupting" and the object of "temptation?"
I think this cake is not fully baked. In fact, I think it is batter with some of the necessary ingredients missing.
Good luck with keeping the flaming out.
Just because it is hard to have an objective discussion of this does not mean we shouldn't. Since it it easy for a few people who are not ready for this kind of thing to ruin it, I want to try and make a thread that isn't already beyond saving.
Indeed we should have an objective discussion.
In fact that's precisely what everyone apart from you was engaging in.
There was not a shred of objectivity nor any willingness to do other than impose your skewed ideas of "good" and "evil", "right" and "wrong" onto other people in the previous thread.
I give you a reciprocal suggestion to your contention that people are not ready for this kind of thing : OPEN YOUR MIND.
As I said, I did not get involved in the other thread -- and I did not read it.
But my instant reaction to the introductory comments in this thread were on a line with what Heliotrope just wrote.
That seems to me to be a fatal flaw.
Pretty turgid reading, that . . .
In Beyond Good and Evil, by ol' Freddy Nietzsche, he analyzes the two dichotomous concepts good/bad, and good/evil. This he accomplishes by both examining the origins of the words in various languages (he was a philologist by training) and by examining the popular Enlightenment historigraphic theories which had been advanced to undermine traditional concepts of authority and morality.
Basically, in an oversimplified statement, he found that the good/bad dichotomy rests upon a perception which all creatures may have of what tends toward their welfare, and what tends toward their peril. For the good/evil dichotomy, he dips heavily into the dogma of the Englightenment historiocity to suggest that evil as a concept arose among the have-nots when contemplating the injustices imposed on them by the haves. Further, he considers this to have been institutionalized in theology in order to appeal to the masses, and in jurisprudence to pander to a desire for revenge.
His thesis is a good deal more complex than that, of course, this is a few paragraphs and his work occupies a long book. But i would use his ideas as a starting point, and suggest that evil only exists in the mind of a person, and that it is applied subjectively in every case. Anyone who would suggest to me that "evil" exists independently, and has agency in modifying the behavior of people would get a loud series of guffaws directly in the face.
I don't know that there is much meat on this bone.
Setanta wrote: Anyone who would suggest to me that "evil" exists independently, and has agency in modifying the behavior of people would get a loud series of guffaws directly in the face.
I don't know that there is much meat on this bone.
This is one of those things about which we are in complete agreement.
That makes three of us who are laughing our asses off.
Heliotrope, no one on that thread even addressed the topic of it, that I was aware. Everyone seemed much more intersted in defining what good and evil meant. Having defined those terms, I hope we can move on. If you have objections, please voice them, and make sure they're logically sound.
Setanta, I agree with Neitzshe there, but I'm not interested in what he has to say at the moment. This is an idea, not a class in Western Philosophy.
Rufio,
I'm afraid, as usual, you miss the point. You are are unable to establish your thesis because you make no attempt at convincing others of the merits of your unilateral useage shift, and you have the arrogance merely to dismiss possible support platforms such as Nietsche as classwork.
Try reading Wittgenstein on "meaning as usage", and may I suggest you pay particular attention to his criteria for "remaining silent".
At present your thesis has the intellectual status of a statement like "Wars are inevitable because they are nature's way of controlling populations". Such one liners derive their meaning from a covert anthropomorphic usage of the word "nature", and hence are couched within a context of a teleological or purposeful view of "existence". But it is these contexts themselves that philosophy attempts to reveal, and not to blunder on blindly unaware of the pitfalls of selective attention.
For my part, i've never in my life taken a philosophy course--got my undergraduate requirements in that area out of the way with pysch courses. In the pungent phrase of the pathetic Bob Dylan, though, one does not need a weather man to know which way the wind is blowin'--i'm outta here . . .
rufio wrote:If you have objections, please voice them, and make sure they're logically sound.
I refer you to the erudite comments of my esteemed colleagues. I suggest reading them this time.
Quote:I agree with Neitzshe there, but I'm not interested in what he has to say at the moment. This is an idea, not a class in Western Philosophy.
Ahhh, there's obviously no point in my previous referral. Please disregard it.
There really is no point to a battle wits with an unarmed opponent and so I bid you good day.
I don't get it. Why can't you guys just respond to the post rather than attacking me? I realize that for some reason we are having trouble communicating this idea, and I want to find out why that is. What is wrong with that? Why can't you tell me what you don't like about the idea rather than just telling me that you don't like it, or quoting irrelevant things in the thread?
I am not dismissing Neitzshe out of hand, and I never said anywhere that class was the only place you could learn about him. I would be happy to discuss various things that Neitzsche said, even, by god, things that I didn't read in class, but I do not see the point of that quote in this thread. If you can qualify that statement and show me how it is a response to my post, I'd be glad to consider it.
I am not looking for a battle, I am asking for honest opinions, and not attacks.
And they were given, and subsequently ignored or dissmissed.
You may not be looking for a battle but then again you don't seem to be looking for anything except agreement.
If there was anything of value in the other thread, it was drowned out by things that weren't. Like I said, if you have some objection you want to make, please repost it. That's why I made this thread. So there would be no more flaming in the way.
I am not looking for agreement. If you disagree, just POST WHY. That's all I ask.
People
have posted why, you dismiss it and plough onwards. What's the point? If you are really interested read fresco's post. He summarized many of the more glaring errors you've made.
I wasn't on the other thread but it's interesting to see you claim that things of value are drowned out by things of no value. That is exactly how I'd describe this thread as well but with dismissal of valid points doing the drowning.
There is very very little in this thesis that I'd not challenge, but just see no point in doing so. fresco summarized it well and it didn't help.
I have read fresco's post.
"You are are unable to establish your thesis because you make no attempt at convincing others of the merits of your unilateral useage shift"
Does this refer to something I posted? I honestly can't tell, because it doesn't sound like anything I posted. Please be more specific.
"you have the arrogance merely to dismiss possible support platforms such as Nietsche as classwork"
Personal attack.
" Try reading Wittgenstein on "meaning as usage", and may I suggest you pay particular attention to his criteria for "remaining silent""
Personal attack, and irrelevant.
"At present your thesis has the intellectual status of a statement like "Wars are inevitable because they are nature's way of controlling populations""
Personal attack, unexplained.
If you see errors, feel free to post them, specifically, not generally, and explain them so they can be applied to the post.
" I wasn't on the other thread but it's interesting to see you claim that things of value are drowned out by things of no value. That is exactly how I'd describe this thread as well"
Me too. Should I start another thread, or do you think you guys can start posting something useful now?
"There is very very little in this thesis that I'd not challenge, but just see no point in doing so."
Then please leave, if you have nothing you are going to add.
Haven't you people yet realized the futility of discussing religion, philosophy, or politics. People have set opinions (mostly) and very seldom are swayed from their particular thought process or beliefs. I see a car buried deep here, tires spinning. I believe this ol' car is going to remain stuck.
I can see that, gusta. No wonder the only thing they can think to do is insult.
Rufio.
The main points of disagreement are
1. whether people are continously faced with "choice".
2. whether when choices occur they can be classified as "good" or "evil" either by the actor or any other observer.
3. whether success or failure of actions have anthing to do with "good" and "evil".
4. that the link between "consciousness" "evil" and "force" have not been established.
5. that the link between "temptation" and "evil" has not been established.
Nobody expects you to answer these points now because they believe you either lack the ability to do so or to see that they are ideosyncratic aspects of your personal word game.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace