Without darkness there could be no light, without cold, no heat, without hard no soft and so on. That is one thing is only apparent if its opposite also exists. If one lived in perpetual darkness and had never seen light, one would not know that one lived in darkness, would not know that such as light and darkness existed.
On this basis, there could be no good without there being evil also.
So do ‘good’ and ‘evil’ really exist, or did someone invent evil so that there could also be good. I mean, is there some advantage to be gained by someone inventing the notion of ‘good’.
I think the answer to that question is indubitably ‘yes’. Those in power, monarchs, presidents, lords and such, all want to elevate themselves above the ‘common’ heard. They also want to justify their positions of power. Yet even as I write this I see the conceit and self-satisfaction and self-righteousness of those ‘at the top’, or in positions of authority, and I think there is less of cunning in the invention of good and evil, and more of narcissism.
Then I think of the early Greek philosophers who were so fond of setting themselves above other people by defining what they meant by ‘good’, or ‘good government’ etc such that it was themselves, philosophers, that turned out to be the most ‘good’. They typically found themselves to be morally superior to other people, and to be the only people fit to govern etc.
So I think I finally incline towards the opinion that ‘good and evil’ were invented to satisfy the egos of religious leaders, monarchs, philosophers and the like. Then afterwards the notion of evil was mightily useful as an excuse for dishing out ‘punishment’ – if an excuse was needed.
No - neutral is enough of a counterpart to good.
Good is that which is of value to the subject, and whatever is not of value could theoretically be contained by the term neutral. Only in specific cases there is also ‘bad’ - that which is a direct threat to the subject.
The step from ‘bad’ to ‘evil’ is a result of specifying beyond reason. Who speaks of evil objectifies negative value as a negative-in-itself. Thus when there was previously only physical/actual/contextual hopes and threats, there is now a metaphysical demon.
What about Camus’ Absurd man? The main force of opposition to his life is meaninglessness, but in order for him to combat that force he must learn to accept it.
I truly believe that when faced with apparent Nihilism in your life or your actions the best way to respond is to try to accept it, and that life can still be ‘fulfilling’ even eithout apparent meaning.
The point being that the Absurd man doesn’t see the oppositional force of the Absurd as evil, but rather as an absolute condition to his life and a needed one.
In these terms I don’t think all evil can be defined as an opposition to a will to live. But the validity of the example could be an issue I suppose.
The “evil” that you are referring to was merely the person’s fear of the thing, not the thing.
Accept the inevitability of the thing feared, and the fear loses impetus and focus. “The evil is exorcised.”
Life is then free from an exaggerated fear that was opposing the ability to actually live.
Seriously??
This apple is red, therefore all apples are red?
All apples are fruits, therefore all fruits are apples?
You’re talking philosophy. I’m talking human beings. What exactly one defines as “evil” and whether one calls it “neutral” or “bad” or “evil” is neither here nor there. People call it what they want to call it for their own purposes. With their fine distinctions philosophers kill meaning and demote human understanding in favour of a sort of mechanical reasoning.
One can measure something from -100 to +100, or from 0 to 200.
Without losing precision.
It is more “humane” to yourself to think in terms of 0 to 200, accepting that what is, is what is (neither good nor evil - “neutral”) but there is always hope for something more positive… keep looking for it. Don’t merely run from the presumed negative.
Good and evil are only about the future, never the present or past.
I don’t know if you’re referring to me here as being subject to negative thinking, but if it is, you couldn’t be more wrong. Have you read my post The Fabulous World of Pantodragon? I see the world as being in a bad state, granted, but I see great hope for the future, and I am an artist at turning disadvantage to advantage: the fact that the world is so sick now, as I’ve explained elsewhere, means that it is an utterly unique place, and when it recovers from its sickness, it will retain that uniqueness.
I’m enjoying myself and finding the time productive. If philosophers only talk to philosophers, they’re cutting themselves off from 99% of the world, and are persisting in confirming their own beliefs by blackballing all who have other beliefs.
