Defining Evil

Please look at the free will post
http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/philosophy-forums/branches-philosophy/philosophy-religion/2297-free-will-question.html

I provided an example

Nope, and you can quote from any books that you author, also.
(And namecalling? Well, I guess I've been called worse...)
Was this a neat attempt to sidestep all the valid points that I have made, to ignore them (I don't offer these words for 'adoption', just consideration and understanding), to avoid thoughtful response, and offer a cheap shot as diversion? It won't work... *__-

And, as per your usage, I suppose that you have one of your value judgements attached to your usage of the word 'hypocritical'? You toss it at me as if it were a 'bad' thing and I am now a 'bad' man, by implication.
If I did quote from another (and I didn't), I would be a little hypocritical. So what? Gonna mount a crusades? Convert or kill the evil hypocrite? Sheesh!

You take things too far,

I didn't call you a hypocrite, I said your statement was a little hypocritical.

Quote from Wikopedia


It is not fair that you chose which quotes are valid and which ones are invalid. It is not fair that you disgrace the quotes I bring and then bring your own quotes. Why must I accept quotes from Buddha, and not be permitted to bring quotes from King Solomon.

Who gave you the authority to define which quotes are acceptable or not?

Bin,
In all due respect, I have followed your posts and your manner comes off as "robotic". Please forgive me this "inhuman analogy". I realize we are what we have been programmed to think, but it seems you have no ability to think our side this "programmed thought". I am not condemning you, it is just that you are so convinced, you totally fail to hear what another is saying. If you are a "learned person" it is a no brainer to pick up a book to find justification for your argument, which you do "exclusively". I am not saying this method of verification and justification is not at times appropriate, but exclusively is a bit over the top. One must be able to think from the outside observing that "skewed" information we have been "forced to learn" and comparing that with what others' interpretation's may be that will lead to better understandings. Can you not understand this at all?
William

This is the part where I am supposed to defend myself and prove to you that I am an individual and not a robot?
There are certain things that are simply true and if you cannot see them, then it means that you are not looking the right way. And there are other things that may appear true to one and not necissarily be true.
So far, all of the questions that I have encountered here I have already thought about and come to conclusions. These are not 'Taught' conclusions, they are personal conclusions. The instinct chapter of my book is 80 pages long.

I was not raised religious and I arrived at the Instinct theory myself through observation and the fact that I found support for it from Torah knowledge, psichiatry, and evolutionary science does not make me robotic. For me it is very true. Until now only one person has actually tried to understand it. The rest of you have all been against the principle of it without understanding it.

You, William, are an example of someone who has not bothered to take it seriously or to understand it. You have not discussed a single aspect of what I have proposed. You were against the fact that 'I was trying to excuse evil behaviour' which is not what I was trying to do at all. It is the complete opposite of my purpose. My purpose in this thread is to identify the basic instinctual desires, define them and categorize them, and work on strategies to nullify them, use them to your advantage, or conquer them.
But one step at a time.

Bin commented:

"There are certain things that are simply true and if you cannot see them",

Please, If you would jot down a few things that are "simply true" that I cannot see. Please. I am encouraging you. Please understand "true" means there can be no alternative thought if it is indeed true. If it is not "universally accepted", it cannot be true. That's the really great thing about truth. It cannot be denied.

Thank You,
william

Woah... disgrace??
Ok, I recant, but you will understand if I question not only Solomon's actual existence, but the 'quote's' so called authority, also.
Offering 'his' assumptions have no more weight than an assumption attributed to 'god' or 'Buggs Bunny'.
An invalid assumption remains the same, despite the source.

I do not offer quotes as 'authority', but as evidence for examination.
Again, I recant, but reserve the right to question the validity of anything, including the quotes. If you offer quotes, be prepared to explain and answer questions, as am I. Ok?


The quotes that I offered were, in this instance, my own.
I guess that my problem stems from the offering of quotes from 'mythological' characters as 'authority'. I do realize that a quote from the Cat in the Hat might be true and wise and relevent. In which case, I would accept a carefully selected quote or two that you can and are willing to explain and defend. The bible thumpers that let the book do the talking for them and flood the forums with a plethora of quotes, to support whatever horse that they have running, gets boring, and is relatively meaningless but to 'believers'.


I do not say that you must accept anything.
My immediate thoughts are that Buddha was an actual, historical personage, and the quote defendably valid and wise.
There is doubt re; Solomon. But that in no way invalidates any words so attributed, so.. I guess, within reason, feel free. But understand that I do not necessarily consider him an actual person, and treat 'his' quotes from that Perspective. Wisdom is wisdom, though, no matter the source, so...

And that was not a direct quote from Buddha, it is my interpretation, from all evidence, of what he would say on the subject. So, again, the 'quote' was mine, at least as much as you consider 'Solomon's' were his...


'Whoever' gave me (if anyone) a functional brain and mind to discern between that which has meaning to me and that which does not. Quoting the alleged Solomon's alleged words from some book just does not, in itself, have much meaning to me. If you want to use quotes that you can explain and defend in actually answering what I say, instead of this sort of stuff, again, feel free. If there is something that is meaningless to me, i'll simply ignore or question it.

So, will we ever get to the meat rather than this pissy dissembling about trivialities? I send packages of real meat and you complain about the pictures on the wrapper... Again and again...

And with all this, you still ignore the valid points that I make...

Perhaps, one day, we will actually 'be on the same page' (and probably miss it)!
Happy trails

Galileo's scientific process was denied

Einstein's theories were denied

Quantum mechanics was denied

The Holocaust is denied



Which points? Quote yourself

Hey William Solomon is denied...

there is no such thing as evil all badness is for the greater good. i have known no other life than this. poor wee me

Agreed that Badness is for the greater good. But it does not mean that badness is intrinsically good.

Example

The doctor needs to give a child a shot. Well, the shot is not intrinsically good because it hurts the child. But it is for the good of the child.

I'll prove it.

5 years later, a pill is released on the market that accomplishes the same thing as the shot. Would you still give the child the shot? Now that the pill is released it would just be evil to senselessly inject the child and make him cry.

Bin, when I wrote the above, I made a mistake. I said the truth cannot be denied when I should have said it could be ignored. We have reached a point in our existence in which the truth is no longer desired for it is totally alien to the reality we have created.

To make a long story short, inequity is the root of iniquity. Eliminate that inequity, iniquity, it's twin, goes with it. It is that simple. It is that inequity that gives power it's whip to control man as it holds man's very life in the balance to make him obey. It is not man's nature to "obey", just as it is not God's nature to "command". Those are constructs of man as he feeds his own desire to rule thereby threatening not only his fellow human being's life but his immortal soul as well as some religions tend to do.

To rule instill's a perceived "godlike" state that allows one to bask in the adoration of those they control who are programmed to believe to desire more as a path to happiness. The blind leading the blind.

Let me bring to your attention a minor miracle. Take a piece of paper and write the word "live" on it. Except turn the "e" around and hold that piece of paper in front of a mirror. Voila! Coincidence? Maybe. I choose not to think so. Evil is the exact opposite of live. You can't have both. It's one or the other. Unless we begin to "truly" live, evil will most assuredly prevail. Now let's talk about the rules for a moment. You know those rules that have so entrapped man that man and God has set in place.

Now let's look at the rules of man has created to control his fellow man. You know, those rules to insure that man act's good. That good that is the "opposite" of "evil", so to speak. Where did those rules come from and why did they have to be created? More importantly, how could they be enforced? Oh, I know how the story goes and all that, but let's discuss that for a minute. Who gave one man the authority to make such rules to allow him to impose them on another? Here is where you need to use logic and common sense and not the programming you have been conditioned to believe. Really, it's important.

For any human being to create a rule for another human being to follow taking into consideration "all men being equal in the eye's of God" makes absolutely no sense. How could that be? More importantly, how did one obtain the power to enforce the other to obey those "rules"? How could one "know good" and the other "not"? What could have given one the knowledge of what was good to one and not the other. You answer that little bit of "ancient trivia" and you will find the source of evil.

For man to, for whatever reason, attempt to "rule" over his fellow man to force a "notion' of what is good, is "evil".

For man to enforce his "will" over another, he would have to be in possession of something the other desired or needed in order to survive. What could it have been? Knowledge, wealth, food, water, fire, mammoth meat in the fridge. What? How could there be such an inequity that would force man to humble himself to another?

We will never know the answer to that question for it predates history. Now one knows where such inequity comes from. The fact is that it exists is what is important.

Now let's look at the word "inequity" for a moment and it's twin "iniquity". They a joined at the hip. You can't have one without the other. They work as a pair. You eliminate "inequity", "iniquity" cannot survive. It will also be eliminated. Just like that. Poof!

You see Bin, evil is a consequence of inequity. It takes an enormous amount of power to enforce inequity. If there were no inequity, power would not longer be needed. See the reason truth is ignored in the reality we live in. When one has to resort to power to defend inequity it is blind to the damage it's twin "iniquity" is doing and is force to make rules for those power means to control, when in truth "no one" needs to be controlled. Unless we eliminate inequity, iniquity will eventually prevail and armageddon will ensue. You see I do believe in some truth the Bible offers. But you must understand buried in some of our greatest truths are our most beguiling lies that cause a malignancy creating cancer that affects all.

Bin, for any one, or group to assume to know the truth in and of itself is from a position that can only be defined as "inequitable" as it lords over those it means to rule as it force's other's to, either physically or mentally to obey holding their lives and their souls in the balance. This, itself, is the very foundation that evil gets it roots.


"More" instills in man a presumed "godlike" state for those who have it that allows them to bask in the adoration of those of less, who have been programmed to think happiness is in the acquisition of more as they are handed out meager pittances to quell their thirsts allowing them to find solace in an existence in which suffering is a consequence of their inability to be grateful for what they "do" have or allowed to have as those in power dictate. What..............a...............crock!


Bin, no man, group or nation can dictate to another what is good if it derives it's very power from the inequity that gives it that very power. The truth needs no army to hide behind. You can't "order" man to be good. He was created that way. He has been forced to "go bad" in his defense to live.


That's why your metaphor of relating man to a dog as it relates to God's rule over man is IMO obscene. How so very wrong of any man to be programmed to arrive at such a comparison. I do not in anyway hold you responsible. It is the way you were "trained".
You maintain to know what is "simply true" and that I fail to see. I promise you my friend, I am not the one who is blind.

William

Everything has been 'denied' at one time or another.
Some things are refuted. (Such as the assumed universal efficacy of Galileo's 'scientific method')


Nah, I'll pass. Every point in every post, pretty much. You are either incapable if understanding what i am saying, or have some emotionally related impetus causing you to deny or ignore my points. Either way, I'll take a pass on this conversation continuing.


I don't know about 'William Solomon',
but as of now,
here,
Binyamin Tsadik is denied!
(Not really, that was dramatic effect. The universe just would not be the same without youPerspective.)
*__-

My opinion of this would somewhat depend on what exactly about those actions you would consider evil. If you are referring to the 'essence' behind actions that ultimately caused a negative outcome rather than a positive outcome when practiced I would say that I agree to a point. I am not so sure I would understand the intent behind putting a second label ("good", vs. "evil") on simple actions already understood to a certain extent, unless you have a different explanation of the meaning of evil, and that something in those acts are associated with an evil entity you have described, therefore making your perception of the essence behind the action itself to be evil. Yet, if you are speaking of a religious view point, the meaning would be rather different, and possibly condemn the actions, and desires you listed above simply for being contradictory to the values, beliefs, and expectations of that particular religion. I do not personally agree with adding blanket judgments to acts which the condition is already known. Human beings pursue understanding, and organization, thus documentations (insubstantial, improvable judgments, and, or labels) of the things around them often derived from already existent, religious, or spiritual beliefs, or even just the imagination. It is much like the theory of free will, gods, or spiritual presence or beliefs. They cannot be proven, they cannot be sensed, altered, or in any other way interacted with, but they do resemble something, as human beings, we all desire, and so we pursue them-the things you have listed are indeed some of the simplest and most primal and well known forms of this.

I'm less concerned with defining which acts are "good" and which are "evil" and more concerned with identifying instincts and linking them to the source of what religion and society deems "evil".

I am not sure I understand your intent, but there are many possibilities- many instincts and basic human desires have been limited, judged, and prosecuted by the perspectives of religion, and society. Mainly it is acts that frequently tend to cause 'negative' outcomes- outcomes that cause them, or someone/something else unhappiness, or misfortune. Of course the does not actually mean the specific instinct, or action is actually 'evil'. The particular instincts which have been targeted by the scrutiny of society, and religion are not specifically targeted because of the instinct itself, but for the outcomes- outcomes which are not necessarily as negative as they are made out to be especially when concerning the judgment of the religion. Many a slow witted folk have observed specific actions, and responses, and whether or not because of religious, personal, or societal prejudice decided to conclude the person, or 'essence' behind the action was evil, not simply what it was-judgments like that are easy to catch on to, and have quite noticeably passed on rather unwavering through the ages. How come you want to identify instincts and link them to the source of what religion and society deems "evil"?

Exactly what I have said in this thread

With all due respect, Religion has created much of the evil that exists today. Religion has also defined evil. Evil is a different bird in each religion and even takes on it's own meaning to the individuals in the same religion.

Man created the religion and man created the evil.

This is true, but it would still depend on whether or not you believe in the rationality of applying judgments such as good, or evil, and if so how it would be defined. I agree that religion has done a fair job of creating much of the supposed "evil" it claims to work against.

Whether I believe in the rationality of applying judgments such as good or evil, it is defined by various religious cults. Evil could be defined further as the unbalanced thinking of mankind. There is no evil unless we create it. There is no religion unless we create it. There is no God unless we create it. The defining point is the individual perception of he or she who defines the evil. It is defined based on what we know or think to be true... or which direction we've been led into.

So I'd have to say that evil would not exist if it were not for those who have given it a voice and then defined it for those who are willing to follow that voice. What one my see as holly, another may see as evil. The more holly, the more evil.


Spot on! Religion claiming to work against evil has ultimately created more of it.

If you look for it you will find it.

You can also write a thesis on religion has created much good.

But that is not the subject here. The subject is instincts.

Religion does not create the Evil, it is simply an excuse used to execute evil actions.

Here is a quote from the Gemara:

"Israel embarked upon idol worship only to permit themselves forbidden relations openly."
[RIGHT][RIGHT](Sanhedrin 38b)[/RIGHT][/RIGHT]

Religion is not the "source" of the "Evil" it is the method.

Also from the Gemara

"A dog attacks the stick and not the man that hits him"

Identifying "Religion" as evil is just attacking the stick. What is the source? Where does it all come from?

That is why I began my investigation on instinct and that is the purpose of this thread.