I don’t believe that you can be brilliant or a genius without having an edge, even if one keeps that in the mind and isn’t actually evil in practice. Apparently evil in thought is still as bad as evil in deed ~ though I don’t agree with that, so what would you put up with in society, …what if someone is evil in deed and yet via that dynamic they are a brilliant writer, artist, thinker, scientist.
Or is it impossible to be slightly or completely evil and be intelligent, after all isn’t doing wrong simply being unintelligent?
If Jesus was an ordinary human being, what would it take to arrive at his wisdoms, and to take himself to his own death, is that really the product of purely innocent thought? How would one then know the comparatives that the wisdoms are born of?
Jesus’ wisdom is based on the evidence of things unseen; the substance of things hoped for. Far removed from the wisdom that we’re used to in this world.
Sure, but that would imply the same in an otherworldly context. I don’t see how wisdom may be innate rather than arrived at. Either way my point was that if Jesus was a man/human as are we, then there would be a process behind his wisdom [such that it is] ~ a large part of his life is unrecorded.
I don’t know what ‘had to kill’ means really, but I would be less unhappy if I killed a somewhat evil person.
To me ‘an edge’ and ‘somewhat evil’ mean very different things. Can be rude, sometimes aggressive, annoying, pushy, inconsiderate, very ambitious, self-obsessed, egocentric just don’t add up to somewhat evil.
Good people would probably like to believe this. I would. But I don’t think it works that way. I think genius propels goodness in amazing ways, but it could do the same for bad as well. What is it about being good (how are you understanding “being good”?) that is in itself genius?
Maybe being good is not so easy as people think. Perhaps it needs an edge. Being good is not being nice, though I would think a good person would be nice fairly often, at least to some. I suppose I am raising the issue of it taking intelligence, of some kind, to be good. And perhaps also a kind of creativity. You certainly have to evade the whole holier than thou ‘goodness’ of many kinds of religious and spiritual people. And I do not think do unto others is much of a guide. So we are talking about someone with empathetic skills, context reading, ingenuity, a good reader of people, integrity enough not to self-sacrifice (which ends up being a kind of guilt trip), and some practical intelligence also - since you need to be able to apply you well placed well wishes for others.
Maybe culture has eroded the concept for me, but it seems that “being good” is more a judgement about behavior in a social context than embedded in the behavior itself. We apply the categories good and bad after the fact. It seems to me that people who are focused on being good are usually rather mediocre, and that people who I consider great have behaved far more genuinely. I think calling behavior good or bad politicizes it, burdening the way we view it. Of course it’s necessary to make judgements about what’s good and bad, as it’s helpful in setting bounds and goals, but I think, especially as philosophers (thinkers, if you prefer), we should also try to see beyond these helpful, but artificial markers. I dunno.
Maybe being good is not so easy as people think. Perhaps it needs an edge. Being good is not being nice, though I would think a good person would be nice fairly often, at least to some. I suppose I am raising the issue of it taking intelligence, of some kind, to be good. And perhaps also a kind of creativity. You certainly have to evade the whole holier than thou ‘goodness’ of many kinds of religious and spiritual people. And I do not think do unto others is much of a guide. So we are talking about someone with empathetic skills, context reading, ingenuity, a good reader of people, integrity enough not to self-sacrifice (which ends up being a kind of guilt trip), and some practical intelligence also - since you need to be able to apply you well placed well wishes for others.
[/quote]
[/quote]
Here is the answer for all believers. It is simply genius to birth good from somewhat evil… the definition of a “Bad” person is a “being intent to cheat humanity” And "do unto others… " will be our guide.
Sure, you’re probably right. I was being provocative or at least hoping to be. I think most people do use the term this way. I don’t, however. In fact I can use it with sarcasm when referring to people considered good but whom I can’t stand.
I agree, but then, are those people really good? If you have to focus on it, what is actually happening there? It seems to me you don’t trust yourself and so follow some external model. I don’t think that is goodness.
Sure, that’s possible. But the moment I hear genius being given a pass on their behavior - especially at the level of being to some degree evil, I think there something off is happening.
Sure, but that’s the way the question is being framed in the OP. I can’t really imagine wishing that someone I react to as a good person would die because someone else has some innate gifts or skills by is to some degree evil. It’s a bit of an odd question, but going with what I am forced to entertain, the genius is going to go.
I guess for me genius has this quality also. The geniuses tend to be seen as those with skills in science and technology - at least often in forums like these. I think that reflects a rather impovrished view of the range of intelligence. It also has a bias in relation to causes and effects that are easy to track - she invented this and it did these good things so she had good effects. Whereas the effects of a good person to be around are not so easy to track - so there is a kind of condescending nod toward their temperment, but the are seen as ineffectual somehow, merely because of our own inabilities to track more subtle effects or even consider them.
No, genius definitely does not get a pass. Although I do highly value it, I don’t worship the keen mind.
Oh, I completely agree. I’m quite open to a broad range of intelligence as well including artistic, kinesthetic, communicative, empathetic, etc. But I find it hard to think of a compelling case for the moral genius. Any examples, general or specific, of someone or a type of person who might be a moral genius?
Here is the answer for all believers. It is simply genius to birth good from somewhat evil… the definition of a “Bad” person is a “being intent to cheat humanity” And "do unto others… " will be our guide.
If we, the people, see that humanity is all of us and to cheat humanity cheats us. Then being intent to cheat humanity would be the definition of “bad”
Still not following. I was never concerned with defining “bad,” but I think your slogan is an example of burdening the way we view behavior. The problem here is not “What is bad?” but “How might ‘being good’ be a skill or a type of talent at which some people vastly excel?”
Laws are written so that we can understand “right from wrong.” If you don’t want to burden yourself with distinguishing one from the other, Good will eventually be the survivor in an all or nothing reality show. The quick and the dead.
In my reality show the good is the one willing to help another less fortunate. by the way… How would you define “bad”?
Only the man who is capable of being bad can talk of good and bad. Codes of moral conduct are put inside us by those who say they have the right to dictate morals as a personal principle to live by. When these codes are adopted, written into law as civil and enforced by the police outside us, we no longer need the inside influence and pressure.