Many good people die young.(e.g. JFK, Jesus Christ, MLK, etc.)
And many “Evil” (or at the very least not so good) people live long lives.
(George Bush, Stalin, Fidel Castro, Mao, the Rockefellers, etc.)
Many poeple when thinking of “only the good die young” turn their minds to the self-destructive. They think of the young and reckless who live by a live fast and die young philosophy. My argument does not disclude these types, but is not limited to them.
When I say “only the good die young” what I mean is human beings are born with an aspect which is animalistic and self-interested. This self-interest is a two dimesional way of seeing which only sees loss and self-advancment. While this view may be narrow (and becuase of this narrowness, often capable of executing the inthinkable actions which we label evil) its focused attention upon one gaol - self-advancement - oft leads a person to some success and quite often a long life.
On the other hand, those who view things in three dimesnions - taking into account “others,” Will slowly step away from the stance of self interest. In doing so the more selfless they become, morally - the more “good” they become. And often in their selfless defense of the good, they are put into harms way, sometimes even consciuosly sacrificing themselves… and die young.
Those that live long are those that cling to life in a selfish manner and have never really faught for a belief.
Those that die young faught for justice and truth at every turn, and thought past their nose.
I say this as though a fact - but only to elucidate a plausible explanation for “only the good die young.” What do you folks think?
People cherry pick their examples. Lots of counter examples exist. Good and evil are extremely subjective.
Billy the Kid - died age 21
Caligula - died age 29
Che Guevara - died age 39, was he evil or divine … depends on which side you ask
I think the bigger issue is that also evil people die young, but who cares?
They say that “only the good die young” merely as a propaganda spearhead so as to inspire more selfishness.
More selfishness means more money and power for those who stay out of and above the fighting.
It is true that the good take greater risk by not being aggressive and thus not only advance more slowly at first, but also reduce the probability of short term success. The sophisticated young require more protection (mothering) than the less sophisticated.
Being “good” (having to consider others), requires more detailed analysis and time to learn and reflect, and thus is more susceptible to harm until fully developed. Being good is more complicated, but causes less complication because the complication has been allowed within the individual rather than being forced upon others.
The good requires more time, but achieves more in the long run, if one makes it through the developing stage. Being good develops into higher energy momentum of harmony whereas being evil develops into a higher energy of chaos. In the long run, if survived, the momentum of harmony continues to grow protecting those within, whereas the energy of chaos destroys those within it.
Additionally, entropy is easier than harmony. Harmony requires more adjusting, attention, and care. Thus the less capable can use evil so as to gain more readily but cause their own enemy while doing so. Entropy spawns entropy easily. Harmony spawns harmony only carefully.
Amy Winehouse is dead at 27. Was she good? She was certainly self-destructive, but what about her music? Did she or didn’t she build up a fan base because of her music; i.e., she caused good.
I think what you’re asking brings up the ambiguity of the definitions of the words ‘good’ and ‘evil.’ People can be both.
I think they were spiritual tyrants… but Euripides and Sophocles died around 90 and I think they were good writers. And a young guy who shot up a mall in Holland recently also pulled the trigger on himself, so… goodness (being good at something / good for someone) and early death have no exclusive relation, thankfully… if that would have been true somewhere at some time, that trend would have been evolutionarily rooted out.
The world must necessarily be good to itself, otherwise it would not exist. Or looking at it differently, otherwise the word good has no meaning. “Good” hereby defined (because that was lacking) as the favorable disposition from the perspective of the object toward its own existence. Not that it really needs to have a perspective, but if we interpret it into it, then we gain an understanding of what it is that it’s doing nevertheless!! How is this possible?? It’s a miracle! No, it’s only consciousness, learning to properly relate to itself.
Positive valuation, favorable disposition, are not necessarily concepts restricted to consciousness, only to tendency. Objectively only defined historically in retrospect - but as we understand it, we can apply it in regard to the future. This is what happens at the start of every revolution on some level - “the good” is understood anew. Now, there is no more “the good” - except as it pertains to “the world”. Now, “good” is applied as a necessity to being itself. But this is a world of conflict, and there are many goods. Conflict, therefore, is good. It brings out the best.
Best better good better best better good - the cycle is purely positive because no existence could ever exist negatively. Concepts of negative existence are the weird ways in which the mind is stretched - The fabric of the mind curves like space time, forms gravity of notions and movement of notions around them - tension between notions - emotion, the physical body also such curvature, but in these specific dimensions, regulated by the most fertile selection of principles, resulting in the most abundant self-relating a creature of self-preservation and continuation has ever been (or maybe not, but impressive to itself nevertheless) privy to… the senses, a crazy experiment of the self-relating to increase it’s self-suffering, self overcoming, bliss (self-value).
I can’t help but think of modern philosophy as a symptom of the disease that was Plato. The same goes for Christianity and common-sense aesthetics. But this might be nothing more than the result of being forced to endure too many Ancient Greek classes that were really only so many ways of reading Plato’s Socrates. Regardless, I think it’s when someone “good” dies young that it is the larger social issue (as opposed to someone socially uninteresting). Thus, we’re left with the picture that an inordinately large amount of the “good” are dying young.
Cappotra, though I agree with phyllo, I like the spirit of your post. It’s not necessary to survive as long as possible, and quality of life may improve greatly if we don’t think of survival as necessary.
I’m not saying that good people don’t live long and evil people don’t die young, lets not get lost in the details, this is obviously not a concrete rule but perhaps a generality I’m saying.
And I’m not even making a valuation on what constitutes good and evil, other than perhaps this:
The highest good, by most definitions, would entail risk, risk in performing good deeds and elimintaing evil ones. The nobelest of individuals could not afford to be embodied merely by self-serving protection - and self-serving protection oft leads to a longer life span… or something to that effect.
I’m not asking why we say “Only the good die young.” I’m asking, if it is true, why is it true? Perhaps in finding a viable underlying principal which would help validate the staements theoretical truthfullness we will not be so fast to say “Its not true, we merely lionize the dead.”
We may have some unconscious assumptions or readily made ways to dismiss this statement. However there are many colloquial sayings which seem to have superficial flaws yet somehow seem to stand the test of time… perhaps their resiliency isn’t also superficial.
There may be an underlying truth which outshines a statement or philosophical positions prima facie flaws.
Good people die and its newsworthy - yes.
It is easy to reflect on this fact and say “that’s why people build this mental bridge, thats where the saying “good people die young” stems from.”
Perhaps, but to me that seems to be a shallow explanation.
Evil people also die young, those stories also are news worthy, yet there are no “only the evil die young” sayings that seem to be as culturally pervading as “only the good die young.” Why?
I would say because there is some more fundamental underlying principal which causes the latter statement to be weightier than the former. (a metaphysical principal perhaps?)
I know I am open to ctricism on this, but rather than tear apart my argument for all its flaws, I’m hoping perhaps you can see past my short-comings to the larger point I’m trying to make.
Have I digressed too much?
I have love for idealists and transcedentalists who die trying to make things better - For those who die changing the rules of the game for the better for everyone…
For there are those who change nothing but find how to thrive in a flawed structure - in my view they often live longer.
I would rather die young trying to make the world better, then meek out a mediocre existence which in the end feels to be drained of true meaning.
I feel that people become cynical, and “come to terms with the real world” in such a way often ends up meaning they gave up on their beliefs, dreams, selves… Their animal drive for survival and acceptance, (their lower self in many ways) overcame their drive for higher ideals.
I belive that when enough people share an ideal it becomes a reality. Yeah I definitely digress. Sry.
