All human systems impose their own order on nature…only simpletons cannot understand this.
Chaos is the antithesis of order and all cultures, civilizations socioeconomic and organic systems are an ordering.
Absolute order would necessitate control and restructuring of the entire cosmos…nor the imposition of severe rules to govern human behaviours.
All cultures impose such controlling restriction through laws and morals and religious dogmas and indoctrination and education/training etc.
In Americanism the method of imposing control reached is apex, by indoctrinating individuals into a worldview that associates freedom with consumerism and hedonism.
This made coercive methods unnecessary.
Slav es could be controlled using their innate drives and by manipulating them psychologically - marketing.
To this day American believe they are free, when all they have are two political options and are censored by being indoctrinated into an ideology that prohibits certain thoughts or associates them with ‘evil.’
Self-censorship.
Furthermore, its method of vetting promotes those who support the system and weed out those who do not.
Chomsky has explained how the media, for example, in the west does not need to be micromanaged by the state because those who reach positions where they can influence vast audiences are those who have been filtered through the corporate system and are those who share the system’s worldviews.
If they get out of line, in some future date, the system quickly deals with them.
We’ve seen this censorship at word in mass media outlets, like Youtube and Twitter and Facebook…
In corporate US media those in front of the cameras, reading the teleprompters are individuals that have been filtered through the corporate system because they support the corporations’ interests and do not believe anything contrary to them.
This method is subtle, not allowing indoctrinated simpletons to become aware of it, but it is becoming increasingly obvious as the Empire of Lies declines and it attempts to tighten its grip over tis propaganda institutions.
Self-censorship is part of it…associating certain words with certain ideas, accompanied with certain imagery, feelings, placed there through pop-cultrual outlets, media, and institutions.
If that fails to control an individual, then silencing punishments follow.
Americanism has reached the apex of propaganda, starting from an early age, and by controlling the world’s major information outlets.
But their control is waning.
Just look at how they deal with the genocide occurring in Palestine, and how they deal with those that expose it.
Listen to the end where the reporter asks him … “How do you know if I’m self-censoring?”
Listen to Chomsky’s reply.
No need for overt systemic control when the control is spread across multiple institutions and managed through corporations and their middle-managers.
Each driven by ambition and a desire to be acknowledged and rewarded.
Corporate fascism.
A candidate rises up the corporate ladder going through multiple middle-management filtering processes, before he is given a position of relative power.
He now becomes part of the managing apparatus, vetting new candidates.
Who reaches the top of a news media corporation?
Not anyone that contradicts the company’s policies and its politics - defined by its owners.
The ambitious ones quickly learn what is expected of them…see US media and how they collude with America’s elites and their interests.
Many examples exist.
The illusion of freedom is maintained; the slave participates and defends his own institutionalization; he maintains and reinforces his own incarceration.
The mind is already imprisoned by the delusion that freedom is defined as access to consumer goods or the ability to express and gratify his vices: consumerism and hedonism.
He will sacrifice true freedom to ensure his access to hedonistic relief, which is always offered to him by his enslaver.
The system is provider and protector.
It protects the degenerate from the negative consequences his own vices cause, and provides outlets for their continuous satisfaction and expression.
Unfortunately for many intelligence is largely hereditary. If you’re an idiot it’s likely your parents were idiots too. Hence your socio-economic place in society has largely been established beforehand and is highly accurate. Questions you could ask yourself are ‘what class was I born into’? ‘Did my parents have to work to survive’? And…are you sure the world is full of idiots, or do events appear incomprehensible to you?
Remember the elites are the most intelligent people on the planet, many have lineages stretching back hundreds and thousands of years.
Helen Keller (June 27, 1880–June 1, 1968) — the remarkable woman who grew up without sight and hearing until, with the help of her teacher Annie Sullivan, she learned to speak, read, write, and inhabit the life of the mind with such grace and fierceness that made her one of history’s most inspired intellectual heroes — penned a timeless treatise on optimism as a philosophy of life.
I know what evil is. Once or twice I have wrestled with it, and for a time felt its chilling touch on my life; so I speak with knowledge when I say that evil is of no consequence, except as a sort of mental gymnastic. For the very reason that I have come in contact with it, I am more truly an optimist. I can say with conviction that the struggle which evil necessitates is one of the greatest blessings. It makes us strong, patient, helpful men and women. It lets us into the soul of things and teaches us that although the world is full of suffering, it is full also of the overcoming of it. My optimism, then, does not rest on the absence of evil, but on a glad belief in the preponderance of good and a willing effort always to coöperate with the good, that it may prevail. I try to increase the power God has given me to see the best in everything and every one, and make that Best a part of my life. The world is sown with good; but unless I turn my glad thoughts into practical living and till my own field, I cannot reap a kernel of the good.
If something is inevitable, it must exist. Therefore it is necessary.
why would anyone want to believe that evil is necessary? Why is it necessary?
What good rational purpose does it serve?
How does the fact of evil existing mean that it was something necessary for our existence? Is evil the same as oxygen and water? They are necessary for our existence.
Goodness is necessary for our existence, not evil.
Evil just came to be because we have used and abused our free will and love is not as important to some as is greed and selfishness and control.
Being aware of what causes evil is necessary - and fighting that -as in “doing nothing” when something should have been done, is capable of causing great evil.
But even if evil is necessary (as an option) in order for love to be demonstrated volitionally, does that make it self-sustaining? It is a priori parasitic on the good (which IS self-sustaining… having both necessity & aseity). Evil is nihil. Privation - in all possible worlds. If God could have chosen/decreed hypotheticals/counterfactuals to be actual which contained no evil choices, he would have. Here we are in a world that contains evil choices. Obviously there were no hypotheticals/counterfactuals that contained no evil choices & preserved free will to love.
Would you rather be omnipotent with zero love, or omnibenevolent and sacrifice your life/power (contingently, obv, though eternally sustained) to demonstrate it?
Obviously we know how God would answer that question.
That question presupposes that God, being omnipotent, has the power to change her own nature, even though the Bible says God never changes. These are the kind of absurdities people get into when they don’t recognize that God is incomprehensible.
It doesn’t presuppose that. It asks you a question about how you would answer it.
How God would answer it is obvious (and isn’t going to change) because we are (living in) the answer.
And the question is about a hypothetical “before” anything “actuates”. (One could say there is some absurdity there if one did not understand omnitranstemporality.)
Changing God’s nature would not be powerful.
The absurdity understandably lies in your own misunderstanding.
If God is good, God would want to prevent evil.
If God is all-powerful then God would have the ability to prevent all evil.
^Those are just suppositions, who knows if they are actually true. Is there a God, and if so does he/she/it actually want to prevent evil or is actually all-powerful? Who knows.
But if you accept those premises, then it logically follows:
Evil exists, therefore God does not exist.
This is simple. Although more likely I’d say "Evil exists, therefore our idea of God as “being good as in wanting to prevent evil, and being all-powerful” are wrong. There’s really no way to argue around this. Not when you learn about the true depths of evil that occur every day on this planet supposedly created by a benevolent, loving God.
Side-stepping this issue is just willful ignorance as a defense to prevent cognitive dissonance from getting the upper hand. But even if you can’t be strong enough for your convictions you can at least try to be strong enough for your own upright thought-process. Truth be damned if it undercuts your own subjective ability to properly ascertain truths.
The question has to be aksed whether or not all the particular kinds of physical suffering we are capable of experiencing are necessary in order for god to achieve his desired end. That is to aks, does natural disaster, disease, famine, etc., have to exist in the world, or could a world have been designed without that stuff while it still being possible in that world for us to proceed through our ‘tests’ and suffer enough through other less lethal ways, and so on.
If he couldn’t have made a world without cancer and brain eating tape worms, then he had to create the world a certain way and had no choice; the only possible world had to include cancer and brain eating tape worms.
So then there is sumthin above god in terms of rules, so to speak. He may be the sweetest guy in the world but he can’t create a world without all this suffering… or else he would have (if he’s a sweet guy).
U could argue this point: a world where joe lived in which he was able to be tested, tempted and eventually convinced to become a christian after which he went to heaven, but which did not include him or anyone else getting cancer while alive, would be better than a world where he could be tested, tempted, get to heaven, etc., but also get cancer or be aware of others getting cancer while alive.
