Printable View
excuse my interjection fellas, but i have a challenge for red. show me a good that exists without evil. no bible verses and no appeals to the supernatural allowed for now please.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
personally, i think you're idealizing good. terrible events have produced some great things. here's an example that a theist could appreciate: without the heinous crucifixion of christ there would be no christianity.
Good and Evil definately flow together. Dark is the absense of light, that is true but I don't really think that it applys very much here. "Good" and "bad" are both inherent in human nature. I think that it is how one can even interperet the eating of the forbidden fruit in the bible. Inherently, if you do not take it literally, and perhaps use it to live by a code of morality of sorts (its up to interpretation), its a sign that everyone possesses sin, what makes it different is the way one utilizes it.
Good and evil exist within actions, words, the pure existance of human being. Everything has its opposite, dark and light, good and evil...etc....either way....that how it went down in my head...
You give an example how bad was turned into good. This is also applicable in life. Crises do not need to shut us down, they can be cornerstones for new phases and for growth. I don't know there is anything wrong or contradictory with idealizing good. Actually everything within language and thought is also idealizing good.Quote:
Originally Posted by billyjack
Your valuation that good can come from bad circles back to good again. It doesn't change the fact that you value good also; you are still measuring according to the good something can create. In other words, good is still predominately valued as the measurement by which anything is judged, idealized in that it is the universal standard.
The universe might be considered any of these: good, neutral or bad. Or - friendly, neutral, or hostile.
But it might be said that if we remember the good, then things are easy (even difficult things become easy), while if we forget the good, even easy things become difficult.
Or as Henry Ford said - if you think you Can or if you think you Can't - either way you are correct.
This seems like nonsense to pessimists! :) But there is very strong evidence for it.
There is also evidence for the efficacy both of positive thinking in positive results, and pessmistic thinking in undesireable results. Or another way - just consider the power of the placebo!!
Now consider what effect that knowledge of the placebo effect has on different types. For the pessmist, and this is strange - somehow it has a negative effect. "Ah, things are fake, another fact which reinforces [my] world view." But this is clearly subjective and in a bad way. Placebo effect shows us we have a great power within us over our physical health - simply, our faith.
It shows the world is subjective, but why should that affect anyone negatively? Hearing something said - how could that possibly affect us in a bad way? How do we know what we know, or what do we know? By our experiences, etc. And everything we "know," is not changed immediately. But for the pessimist, any little thing can trigger a reinforcement for their view - even something as the placebo effect, which shouldn't really have that effect. Our view, or our perception, affects reality, because reality and perception are not separate but they have a relationship.
So the idea that things are at least somewhat subjective should not really affect us; unless we think it's true, which won't happen unless we experience it and realize what we experienced. And once again we come back to the fact that we can utilize good and bad things for good or bad.
So how does this affect the idea - can there be good independently? Well, clearly for one who has complete faith in good - good exists completely independently (or almost). Just as the opposite can be true; for one who is completely a pessimist, good, neutral, or bad things can all reinforce their view.
Lastly; here is a very good, rational, reason as to at least partly explain the power of thinking. Thinking is the first step to bringing any result into fruition. Action is necessary but action is guided by thinking. It's why our consciousness has the greatest effect on our lives, both positively and negatively. It's not to say that consciousness is everything, but it does reflect how preventing oneself from negative thoughts (not just one passing by, but dwelling on them and developing a negative thought pattern) will also prevent a great deal of misery and suffering.
I know that suffering / peace/fulfillment are not the same as bad / good (just as what is good now does not mean good always). But if we include the word harmony, then we might say if all are in harmony and not suffering, then this is absolutely good, so we can say our own suffering as well as the sufferings of others is certainly bad; although if we have to weigh one's suffering vs. anothers, then it is clearly not simply that suffering = bad, and it becomes complex again.
So as our perception affects reality, we should take this into account when deciding if there can be good independently from evil. It doesn't mean that perception trumps reality, I wouldn't say that. The relationship is there but not 100% understood. But it is clear that it is at least partly subjective to say that nature or the universe is good or bad, and it's also fairly apparent that good thinking along with good actions produces good results which further reinforce the causes for optimistic thinking, as well as the opposite. Negative thinking and negative acts produce negative results, which reinforce a pessimistic view. Just consider how someone doubting someone in a relationship can begin a whole chain of events which will later end it.
I know some of this gets cliched but there seems to be some truth in the idea that good produces good while evil defeats itself. An example from something from Taoism is that a bandit might gain wealth or power but other bandits would steal it; this was part of an argument that that is not really wealth, or an individual's wealth is not really wealth; wealth is when a whole community is not lacking anything.
All I want to say is that Blake had it right in his MARRIAGE OF HEAVEN AND HELL. Good and Evil, Heaven and Hell must exist, for they are contraries but not mutually exclusive. Good is the absence of action, it is the passive, and Evil is energy, the active. In order for Good to exist, Evil must exist as well, and vice-versa. If we do not know what sorrow and suffering are, we cannot know what happiness and pleasure are.
Here are some Blake thoughts...
"Every harlot was a virgin once."
"What is a wife and what is a harlot? What is a church and what is a theatre? are they two and not one? Can they exist separate? Are not religion and politics the same thing? Brotherhood is religion. O demonstrations of reason dividing families in cruelty and pride!"
"Without contraries is no progression. Attraction and repulsion, reason and energy, love and hate, are necessary to human existence."
"You cannot have Liberty in this world without what you call Moral Virtue, and you cannot have Moral Virtue without the slavery of that half of the human race who hate what you call Moral Virtue."
NikolaI.
yeah, i agree with a lot of what you stated. the subjective "goes with" the objective just as good "goes with" bad. niether can be known independently bc there can be no knowledge of a "thing in and of itself." but some claim to know to know the "thing in itself", such as, say, good, and then apply this knowledge to moral theory or metaphysics when in fact, that knowledge is complete hogwash, nonsensical rub that cannot be known and must be left as an unknown. we might think of things as independents, that's the nature of thought, but not the nature of reality
Kant
Quote:
"...though we cannot know these objects as things in themselves, we must yet be in a position at least to think them as things in themselves; otherwise we should be landed in the absurd conclusion that there can be appearance without anything that appears.
Because I do not feel like typing it all out again, I wrote this in another thread minutes ago - basically a whole synopsis of Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion by David Hume, Beyond Good and Evil by Friedrich Nietzsche, and a bit of 'Self-Reliance' by Ralph Waldo Emerson.
In my opinion, and you will read why in that linked post, no, I consider the 'good and evil' debate absurd.
One more thing, has anyone else realized that when something seemingly 'bad' happens, people ask "How could God have let this happen," when, on the contrary, something 'good' happens, no one ever asks "How could Satan have let this happen"?
:lol:
we share a similar taste in authors. oh and quoting yourself, nice, very nietzschean.Quote:
Originally Posted by mono
and yeah i noticed that. just once i am waiting for a well known athlete to blame god when his team loses.
First I'd like to say, with no disrespect to your religion, that your last sentence shows great closed mindedness. Good and evil are relative terms, which is determined by one's views, such as yours. You might find killing a man in revenge for the murder of a family member as an evil deed, whereas another would see this as a justified action, and fully support this person.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
I do find it disappointing, though, to see that religion is capable of singling out an entire point of view, proposing that it is quite unforgivable.
I agree fully. Everything is relative, and it is awful that a person that believes that Jesus died for our sins, and that he loves us equally, and is forgiving, would then preach the opposite of what Jesus stands for...Quote:
Originally Posted by Schecter85
So people like the Dalai Lama and such cannot in any way be good??? JUst because he does not have "Jesus in his heart"? How silly. And how silly to think that an atheist cannot be good... I have met many more "bad" people that claim to be religious, and many more hypocrites that worship Jesus, than I have met non-religious or purely spiritual people...
ahh, but this is not an attack on religiosity or anyone's faith. I am merely saying that one has to be open-minded and accepting, otherwise one can be blinded... and in this blindness commit atrocious acts.
Just look at a simple aspect, child A loves his fish and feeds with care, child B feels bored and kills his own fish. One child's act is good while the other is bad.
If good and evil doesnt exist, no one can perceive which child's act is good/bad.
Do I need to be hit with a two-by-four to appreciate a hug? Do I need to eat moldy cheese to love chocolate? Do I need to starve to appreciate the taste of good food? I think not.Quote:
Originally Posted by billyjack
I am, because the author of good is God. That God can take something bad and use it for good doesn't negate the badness of the bad thing. It also doesn't make bad necessary. The crucifixion was necessary because God needed to solve a problem we created and that problem was so serious that there was no easy "good" way out of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by billyjack
My last sentence is "Welcome to Lit Net, by the way."Quote:
Originally Posted by Schecter85
Forgive me if I come across a litte testy here, but I'm really, really tired of being called "close-minded" because, frankly, it implies that you consider yourself "open-minded" enough to sit in judgment of my intellect and that strikes me as clearly arrogant. You know next to nothing about me and how I view the world, yet you condescend to tell me the construction of my mind? Puh-leez. If you wish to say my world-view if flawed, go ahead. If you wish to say you disagree with me and here's why - go ahead. But please spare me the tired cliche of telling me I'm "closed minded" simply because I have a view you disagree with. Thanks.
Why on earth should I take your relativistic subjectification of good and bad as some sort of "open minded" and authoritative opinion? Can't I just fire back that you're being "close-minded" by denying that my view could be correct? Isn't that the heart of being so-called "open-minded" (which you must be because only an open-minded person could judge whether someone was close-minded or not - right?) - that you are "open" to multiple views and perspectives?
That someone might feel "justified" in committing a certain act doesn't make it right, my friend. Surely that's obvious. Certain things are flat-out wrong. Telling me that "good" and "bad" are simply our determinations is absurd because sooner or later, you'll say "that's bad" and simply by saying that you're appealing to some sort of standard that I'm supposed to agree with.
I agree with redzeppelin. You don't need evil to see good but alot of the time they go together.
Redzeppelin -- Nice post.
Here's what I've never understood in this debate: most people essentially argue that good & evil don't exist because they are perceptions. There's a lot of fancy arguments that make this point, but most of them boil down to something like that.
Okay, so good and evil are perceptions. Perceptions exist, right? Kind of how "love" exists; it's a perception. Do the people who say good & evil don't exist tell their girl (boy)friends: "I feel objectively neutral about you because feelings are perceptions, and perceptions don't exist". There's not a lot of action in that statement, if you know what I mean.
:)
.....
Nobody so far who has been arguing about moral relativity has really mentioned disagreements on specific moral issues. Probably there are certain moral issues which we would disagree on, but those are more superficial than what we all agree on. I don't see why we would argue so much about whether morality is relative or not, especially when, if I am correct in my suspicion, almost everyone involved agrees on basic things - Killing is wrong, stealing is wrong, things like this. And again, it's quite simple, the reason for it is that no one likes to be stolen from. These things just follow natural to be necessarily enforced for the harmony in society. Other wise we would have the rule of warlords or what not, which almost always comes from anarchy.
Here's the argument for moral relativity. Up and down exist on earth, but in outer space they have no meaning. Similarly, humanity's right and wrong exist here on earth, but in an ultimate or cosmic sense they do not matter. But that's almost an insane argument. If you hurt someone, they will hurt, and that hurt is very real. There's not an argument which can prove this wrong. That is the reason for morality. The reason for moral relativity or subjectivity is that everyone has their own view, and no one's is really invalid, or what's the use of fighting over it? It's subjective. I think we fight over things that don't matter, and it's a cause of suffering. When actually, all of us here, we are intelligent, and we would agree on things like, "It's wrong to be disrespectful" etc.
There's enough suffering in the world that we should actually be mature enough not to be stupidly rebellious against morality, but actually realize that suffering is the issue here, empathize with that suffering, realizing that helping those who suffer is a worthy goal.