Is Evil needed to comprehend Good ?

[Tor-Hershman]

Many people argue that without Evil we couldn't
comprehend/appreciate/understand Good.
I consider this to be a MOST specious and/or deceptively vile concept.

Allow myself to demonstrate:
Suppose we had only these choices -
A. Dish of plain vanilla ice cream
B. Banana-splits with extra everything delicious
C. Banana-spits with yak vomit & wombat boogers

NOTE: Those of you whom would prefer banana-spits, simply reverse the order.

If one has only dined upon vanilla ice cream, one would still be most capable of knowing the difference betwixt a delicious serving of vanilla ice cream and a deluxe banana-split; no banana-spits (w/yv&wb) needed.

____________________
So, my premise is,
Evil is NOT needed to know Good, only the neutral/indifferent.
____________________

I have come to the thought that, folk whom hold to the concept that Evil IS necessary ARE either
X. Evil people making-up excuses for their nastiness
(Forgiveness, via third-parties, is THE major success factor of most religions)
Y. In need of further thought on the subject.

What do you feel/think on evil/good subject?

[cafolini]

Many people argue that without Evil we couldn't
comprehend/appreciate/understand Good.
I consider this to be a MOST specious and/or deceptively vile concept.

Allow myself to demonstrate:
Suppose we had only these choices -
A. Dish of plain vanilla ice cream
B. Banana-splits with extra everything delicious
C. Banana-spits with yak vomit & wombat boogers

NOTE: Those of you whom would prefer banana-spits, simply reverse the order.

If one has only dined upon vanilla ice cream, one would still be most capable of knowing the difference betwixt a delicious serving of vanilla ice cream and a deluxe banana-split; no banana-spits (w/yv&wb) needed.

____________________
So, my premise is,
Evil is NOT needed to know Good, only the neutral/indifferent.
____________________

I have come to the thought that, folk whom hold to the concept that Evil IS necessary ARE either
X. Evil people making-up excuses for their nastiness
(Forgiveness, via third-parties, is THE major success factor of most religions)
Y. In need of further thought on the subject.

What do you feel/think on evil/good subject?

_______________________________________________
http://www.youtube.com/user/TOR1Hershman

http://www.amiright.com/photoshops/images/album_1144326206.jpg

What is there to demostrate about something that's not important to you?
You are an agent of con-fusion.

[Tor-Hershman]

What is there to demostrate about something that's not important to you?
You are an agent of con-fusion.


Well, methinks I know quite well what business thou art an agent of starting in without a logical retort, only name calling
("Agent of Con-fusion").

When some can not develop a rational argument, They (the Religious Authority for one org.) revert to childish behavior such as name calling - - - orrrrr - - -
can you not discern betwixt tasty, e.g.,
(hot cocoa), neutral (water), nasty (fill in yourself) - - - orrrrr - - - do you feel that I am the
ONLY person that has more than one item on their menu?

However...
Con-fusion - are you quite cleaver orrrrr nay?
That requires further examination however...you can't con solar-output.

If you, Cafolini, can point-out so much as even 1 instance of "Con"
(Life is solar/fusion powered)
in any of my posts, please state it.

I'll be awaiting your silence or absurdity orrrr.....your most appreciated correction of a possible error/deceit, as you stated, by/of myself.

Stay on groovin' safari,
Tor

BTW, Cafolini, STOP trying to confuse things by making it about myself...the question is...
What do you feel/think on evil/good subject?

[cacian]

Please no more picture posting I don't seem able to keep up.
It stops me fromthinking about what you have just said.
Evil is not needed in order to understand what is good.
Doing the right thing is something inherent and we are not all monsters wanting to hurt and horrible to others.
Yes there is that element that we can do whatever we want because we can but if we know what is evil then we must also understand that we must not go there.
It is not about being good it is about understanding what is bad and avoiding it.

[Tor-Hershman]

Please no more picture posting I don't seem able to keep up.
It stops me fromthinking about what you have just said.
Evil is not needed in order to understand what is good.
because we can but if we know what is evil then we must also understand that we must not go there.
It is not about being good it is about understanding what is bad and avoiding it.

Obviously, Cacian, you are 100% correct about me wee parody pics.

[cacian]

Obviously, Cacian, you are 100% correct about me wee parody pics.

Hi Tor sorry I do not mean to be rude.
I just want to read what you write and then when I see the picutres I forget what I read. :blush5:

[Tor-Hershman]

Hi Tor sorry I do not mean to be rude.
I just want to read what you write and then when I see the picutres I forget what I read. :blush5:

Cacian, you were not in the least bit rude.
However moi 'twere snottily dismissive your post and for that I apologize.

So, I'm listing you as one for...
"Evil is not needed in order to understand what is good."

Stay on groovin' safari,
Tor

[cacian]

Cacian, you were not in the least bit rude.
However moi 'twere snottily dismissive your post and for that I apologize.

So, I'm listing you as one for...
"Evil is not needed in order to understand what is good."

Stay on groovin' safari,
Tor

Hey it does not mean you cannot pick anymore pics.
Please do I actually like them they make you you.
So I will look forward to see more the pics!!:)
I wonder what pic would go with
''Evil is not needed in order to understand what is good''?

[SkyCetacean]

The answer to this question is highly dependent on one's own personal worldview and ethical philosophy. To truly make a statement about whether evil is a necessity for the existence of good, it is useful to define both "good" and "evil". (ex. Biblical ethics suggests that knowledge of the two is indeed inseparable.)

I suggest that the OP do so, or at least clarify the worldview he's coming from. Ethics is a thorny topic after all...

From a personal perspective I feel as though my perception of good in the world is amplified by my perception of evil. In terms of the ice cream sundae example, yes, while a yak vomit and wombat booger Sundae may not be necessary for the existence of regular Vanilla ice cream, regular Vanilla ice cream after a yak vomit and wombat booger will taste better by comparison. (i.e. "The world is not beautiful, therefore it is; the horrible things in life make the wonderful things seem that much more wonderful)

Again, though, this is merely a personal philosophy based on my perception of good or evil, but really, I think that having a more "objective" answer the question of whether good can exist without evil is irrelevant. Evil and good exist in varying measures throughout all people, and speculating as to what would happen if you removed one is interesting but ultimately just that, speculation.


X. Evil people making-up excuses for their nastiness.
I resent the concept of "evil" people.

[BienvenuJDC]

I think that you are just trying to belittle others with this post. I don't think that religious people are necessarily evil as your answer tries to impose. I also think that you are into over complicating issues with your irrelevant complexity in explanation.

Is darkness needed in order to comprehend the light?

The answer is very simply...No

Maybe there are some "evil" religious people out there who have used that argument. Why do you feel the need to use this to generalize and attack on religion?

[cafolini]

Well, methinks I know quite well what business thou art an agent of starting in without a logical retort, only name calling
("Agent of Con-fusion").

When some can not develop a rational argument, They (the Religious Authority for one org.) revert to childish behavior such as name calling - - - orrrrr - - -
can you not discern betwixt tasty, e.g.,
(hot cocoa), neutral (water), nasty (fill in yourself) - - - orrrrr - - - do you feel that I am the
ONLY person that has more than one item on their menu?

However...
Con-fusion - are you quite cleaver orrrrr nay?
That requires further examination however...you can't con solar-output.

If you, Cafolini, can point-out so much as even 1 instance of "Con"
(Life is solar/fusion powered)
in any of my posts, please state it.

I'll be awaiting your silence or absurdity orrrr.....your most appreciated correction of a possible error/deceit, as you stated, by/of myself.

Stay on groovin' safari,
Tor

BTW, Cafolini, STOP trying to confuse things by making it about myself...the question is...
What do you feel/think on evil/good subject?

But it is about yourself. It is your comical desire to sustain such impossible objectivity. May God help you learn to keep all those cons away from any fusion.

[BienvenuJDC]

But it is about yourself. It is your comical desire to sustain such impossible objectivity. May God help you learn to keep all those cons away from any fusion.

Witty!

[cacian]

The answer to this question is highly dependent on one's own personal worldview and ethical philosophy. To truly make a statement about whether evil is a necessity for the existence of good, it is useful to define both "good" and "evil". (ex. Biblical ethics suggests that knowledge of the two is indeed inseparable.)
I think one is able to make a statement about what is good and what isn't without having to reach for the bible.
One knows bad/evils hurts and good does not it is not rocket science.
Evil is not just one towards another it is also towards oneself.
Jumping off a cliff is evil because it is an unecessary waste of life.
Good is prevention of what can harm or hurt. It takes sense and logic to deter from what may lead one to hurt be hurt. God could not enter this equation he is not available to pick the phone up and sort the mess out.



I suggest that the OP do so, or at least clarify the worldview he's coming from. Ethics is a thorny topic after all...
Ethics is a word made up to tell others how to live their lives. A book of rules.
Ethics and cults are not very far out.

From a personal perspective I feel as though my perception of good in the world is amplified by my perception of evil. In terms of the ice cream sundae example, yes, while a yak vomit and wombat booger Sundae may not be necessary for the existence of regular Vanilla ice cream, regular Vanilla ice cream after a yak vomit and wombat booger will taste better by comparison. (i.e. "The world is not beautiful, therefore it is; the horrible things in life make the wonderful things seem that much more wonderful)
So amplification of good through evil reminds me of Alice in wonderland and through the looking glass.
The amplification is in reverse as she sees thing in minor and get herself in all sorts of mischiefs and whatnot.
A magnifying glass does not make things appear any less important just becaused they have been magnified.


Again, though, this is merely a personal philosophy based on my perception of good or evil, but really, I think that having a more "objective" answer the question of whether good can exist without evil is irrelevant. Evil and good exist in varying measures throughout all people, and speculating as to what would happen if you removed one is interesting but ultimately just that, speculation.
I think that there is that element the more one believes in something the more that something becomes theirs.
I do not bite into the idea of 'evil resident good beware' type of stigma.
Delluding ourselves into thinking that our abilities are measure through these conflicting parameters one might as well live their life in the past to look into the present and forget about the future.
Evil is only around when one goes looking for it.
I however only look for myself to look after others and I do not care about good either.
I am not good I am me and that is enough to be decent.


I resent the concept of "evil" people.
Why?

[SkyCetacean]

I think one is able to make a statement about what is good and what isn't without having to reach for the bible.
One knows bad/evils hurts and good does not it is not rocket science.
Evil is not just one towards another it is also towards oneself.
Jumping off a cliff is evil because it is an unecessary waste of life.
Good is prevention of what can harm or hurt. It takes sense and logic to deter from what may lead one to hurt be hurt. God could not enter this equation he is not available to pick the phone up and sort the mess out.
I agree, but I know that certain people have different ethical foundations. I want to know where OP is coming from.


Ethics is a word made up to tell others how to live their lives. A book of rules.
Ethics and cults are not very far out.
Not necessarily. You can argue that certain types of morality are a type of control. The field and of ethics, though? You yourself are making an ethical statement in making the claim.


So amplification of good through evil reminds me of Alice in wonderland and through the looking glass.
The amplification is in reverse as she sees thing in minor and get herself in all sorts of mischiefs and whatnot.
A magnifying glass does not make things appear any less important just becaused they have been magnified.
I don't recall having said anything negative about that magnification.


I think that there is that element the more one believes in something the more that something becomes theirs.
I do not bite into the idea of 'evil resident good beware' type of stigma.
Delluding ourselves into thinking that our abilities are measure through these conflicting parameters one might as well live their life in the past to look into the present and forget about the future.
Evil is only around when one goes looking for it.
I don't I look for myself and I do not care about good either.
And I find that beholding to a system, a code of ethics is a useful way of doing things, it's something to keep my in line when I don't want to be, to love when it is difficult.


Why?
Because it's an oversimplification, pure evil on a human scale simply doesn't exist.

[Sydneysider]

Both good and evil are human value systems. These systems have had no definitive point through history. Christian iconoclasts thought blinding good. Nazis thought exterminating a race good. Muslims thinks cartoons bad. (basically iconoclasts in a different age)

There is no definitive answer. Each to his own.

I am left with my own values that tell me cruelty is bad. Kindness is good. But my opinion dies with me. Does this make it meaningless? The answer is another opinion.

[cacian]

I agree, but I know that certain people have different ethical foundations. I want to know where OP is coming from.


Not necessarily. You can argue that certain types of morality are a type of control. The field and of ethics, though? You yourself are making an ethical statement in making the claim.
Making a claim is saying this to be true or a fact.
I am making an observation about what I thin ethics means.
The bible is ethics. Religion is ethics.

I don't recall having said anything negative about that magnification.
Sorry you mentioned something about amplification of good through evil?
Amplify and magnify is more or less the same.


And I find that beholding to a system, a code of ethics is a useful way of doing things, it's something to keep my in line when I don't want to be, to love when it is difficult.

A system is good but a system always breaks down when it is set up by a minority to hold the majority. It does not work for everyone.


Because it's an oversimplification, pure evil on a human scale simply doesn't exist.
I don't know the difference between evil and pure evil.
I did not know there was one either.


Both good and evil are human value systems.
I don't quote evil with value nor mechanism. Evil is manmade and stems from a feeling of oppression a desire to destroy and nothing to do with value.


These systems have had no definitive point through history. Christian iconoclasts thought blinding good.
I have never heard of iconoclasts and blinding. What do you mean?

Nazis thought exterminating a race good.
Nazis did not think anything. They did what they did not throught any kind of beliefs they did what they did because they thought they could.
That is very different.


Muslims thinks cartoons bad. (basically iconoclasts in a different age)
That goes to show how religion turn people very silly indeed.
It almost has a blinding effect on some people.



There is no definitive answer. Each to his own.

I am left with my own values that tell me cruelty is bad. Kindness is good. But my opinion dies with me. Does this make it meaningless? The answer is another opinion.
I value myself if I am to value others the rest is equivocally either interesting useful or amasing.

[Sydneysider]

Read Byzantine history regarding blinding.

I thought this was a literary website???

[cacian]

Read Byzantine history regarding blinding.

I thought this was a literary website???

Thanks for that!
Yes it is a literary website only it does not always tell what to read.

[Sydneysider]

I am sorry. It is not for me to lay ground rules for who and what should be read. However, a basic understanding of history is, i feel, helpful in such a discussion.

There are many books to recommend. Google is more helpful than I.

Thanks for your patience. I am a pain. Bye.

[Tor-Hershman]

The answer to this question is highly dependent on one's own personal worldview and ethical philosophy. To truly make a statement about whether evil is a necessity for the existence of good, it is useful to define both "good" and "evil". (ex. Biblical ethics suggests that knowledge of the two is indeed inseparable.)

I suggest that the OP do so, or at least clarify the worldview he's coming from. Ethics is a thorny topic after all...

From a personal perspective I feel as though my perception of good in the world is amplified by my perception of evil. In terms of the ice cream sundae example, yes, while a yak vomit and wombat booger Sundae may not be necessary for the existence of regular Vanilla ice cream, regular Vanilla ice cream after a yak vomit and wombat booger will taste better by comparison. (i.e. "The world is not beautiful, therefore it is; the horrible things in life make the wonderful things seem that much more wonderful)

Again, though, this is merely a personal philosophy based on my perception of good or evil, but really, I think that having a more "objective" answer the question of whether good can exist without evil is irrelevant. Evil and good exist in varying measures throughout all people, and speculating as to what would happen if you removed one is interesting but ultimately just that, speculation.


I resent the concept of "evil" people.

SkyCetacean, the question WAS NOT "Can" but rather "Is it needed," this is theoretical...much as defunct The Theory Of God.
The CAN IT is answered - CAN NOT here, there or anywhere, that's a given.
Now why it can not...perhaps I'll give you that answer later or another post.
However, there is NO speculation on V-ice cream, Banana-split,
B-spit.....just try it, SC, reversed...if necessary...nor MOST events of life.
Some people think Jesus, man and/or god, was/is a good thingy...I see it thus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLGJXo8gshg

What do you resent more or less, the CONCEPT OF or the fact of their existence?

BTW The world-view I'm coming from is, "What's for dinner?," and most other, perhaps all, everyday experiences moi can comprehend.
Stank is NOT needed to know jasmine, just plan air for the juxtaposition...but, if you feel that stank makes jasmine MORE enjoyable then, Sky C., your philosophy reminds moi of

the guy who was bangin' his noggin' into a wall
a dude asks him
"Why are you hitting your head on the wall?"
the guy looked at him and replied
"Because if feels SO GOOD when I stop."
You are most definitively a Pandora.

I'll put you down for "Evil IS necessary."


I think that you are just trying to belittle others with this post. I don't think that religious people are necessarily evil as your answer tries to impose. I also think that you are into over complicating issues with your irrelevant complexity in explanation.

Is darkness needed in order to comprehend the light?

The answer is very simply...No

Maybe there are some "evil" religious people out there who have used that argument. Why do you feel the need to use this to generalize and attack on religion?


BienvenuJDC, I NEVER inferred that ONLY religious people ARE evil but that EVIL PEOPLE are evil.
You'll find that at the end of me wee video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LubuSAgB5s
I flush Atheism right along WITH most religions; I would of placed all religions and philosophies there but I just didn't have the room.
One person I intellectually dislike VASTLY is Richard Dawkins.

BTW Yes, I have viewed the "South Park" episodes "Go, God, Go."
It is one of my favorites and I agree with its main premise.

&, B. JDC, how does tasty/neutral/awful suggest to you that I use "irrelevant complexity" in any manner? Gad, if you FEEL that A.B.C. is complex & irrelevant...well.....don't sign-up for Calculus.

If you feel that the Truth belittles people ORRR is an attack, well.....that's how you feel.



Oh yeah, in your statement,
"Is darkness needed in order to comprehend the light?," what DO you propose to compare light with orrrrr do you just want
banana-splits forever?
If yes, cool.

I place ye into the 'Evil ain't needed' list.

NOTE: This is a wonderfully, intelligently peopled board.


But it is about yourself. It is your comical desire to sustain such impossible objectivity. May God help you learn to keep all those cons away from any fusion.

Objectivity: Judgment based on observable phenomena and uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices.

THANK YOU ever so much, Caflolini!
I have seldom been praised so highly!
I have to commend you for realizing that I have, on occasion, achieved a state of almost impossibly elevated objectivity, of course...you are 100% incorrect in amusin' that I have a desire for the ["...to sustain"] eternal. On that subject you are most incorrect.
However, I do fear that ye may becoming a bit TOO thrilled with myself and if not moi...then some god/satan thingy(s).
When a microscopically wee amount of me fans began to think TOO HIGHLY of myself I was inspired to make this video which includes MANY god/devil things.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_m6qC6FCiY0

The wonderment is not that it ceased, became unsustainable, the TRUE amazement is HOW IT EVER WERE.


BTW I notice that you STILL are subjectively inferring that I have "cons" but seem unable to point even one out...objectively.


Both good and evil are human value systems. These systems have had no definitive point through history. Christian iconoclasts thought blinding good. Nazis thought exterminating a race good. Muslims thinks cartoons bad. (basically iconoclasts in a different age)

There is no definitive answer. Each to his own.

I am left with my own values that tell me cruelty is bad. Kindness is good. But my opinion dies with me. Does this make it meaningless? The answer is another opinion.

BTW There is only one race, human
&
there are fine & awful iconoclasts
&
meaninglessness is best summed by -
The answer, my friend, is bllllllllllllllll.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8pdL0snjUs

[Calidore]

An analogy:

Chicago is one of the few places in the world that has deadly heat (> 100 F) in the summer and deadly cold (< -10 F) in the winter. Sometimes we'll get a rapid, significant temperature swing when a front comes through. 70 degrees always feels good, but when the temperature plummets from 95 degrees to 70 nearly instantly as a result of a hot, humid southern wind suddenly becoming a cool Lake Michigan breeze, you're talking pure ecstasy.

By the same token, I don't think evil is necessary for us to understand good, but it helps us appreciate good more when we experience it.

[Tor-Hershman]

An analogy:
but it helps us appreciate good more when we experience it.

Another for the "don't need it" yet ye, Calidore, fret to forfeit it...& a preacher & priest grin.

[cafolini]

Both good and evil are human value systems. These systems have had no definitive point through history. Christian iconoclasts thought blinding good. Nazis thought exterminating a race good. Muslims thinks cartoons bad. (basically iconoclasts in a different age)

There is no definitive answer. Each to his own.

I am left with my own values that tell me cruelty is bad. Kindness is good. But my opinion dies with me. Does this make it meaningless? The answer is another opinion.

It makes it comical.

Serious talk would be to admit that it is not a matter of opinion, precisely that you cannot turn it all into opinion; that your knowing diddy-squat about it is a matter of opinion. Why would you insist on the special value of endless opinion?

[SkyCetacean]

SkyCetacean, the question WAS NOT "Can" but rather "Is it needed," this is theoretical...much as defunct The Theory Of God.
Apologies if I am slow, but when you say "Theory of God" are you referring to the hypothetical proposition that "God Exists"? Or some other theory that happens to be named "The Theory Of God"?


The CAN IT is answered - CAN NOT here, there or anywhere, that's a given.
Now why it can not...perhaps I'll give you that answer later or another post.
However, there is NO speculation on V-ice cream, Banana-split,
B-spit.....just try it, SC, reversed...if necessary...nor MOST events of life.
The question remains - Are good and evil comparable to types of ice cream?


Some people think Jesus, man and/or god, was/is a good thingy...I see it thus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLGJXo8gshg
Was that... Really necessary?


What do you resent more or less, the CONCEPT OF or the fact of their existence?
Concept, for the reasons detailed above.


BTW The world-view I'm coming from is, "What's for dinner?," and most other, perhaps all, everyday experiences moi can comprehend.
An egocentric view, perhaps? (I don't say this to be rude, but rather I am genuinely curious why you hold to that.)


Stank is NOT needed to know jasmine, just plan air for the juxtaposition...but, if you feel that stank makes jasmine MORE enjoyable then, Sky C., your philosophy reminds moi of

the guy who was bangin' his noggin' into a wall
a dude asks him
"Why are you hitting your head on the wall?"
the guy looked at him and replied
"Because if feels SO GOOD when I stop."
You are most definitively a Pandora.

I'll put you down for "Evil IS necessary."
You can call it blindness, naivete, cruelty, whatever you like, but the idea helps me stay sane. It's like being on a ship beset by a mighty storm and thinking "the sun may yet rise, hotter and brighter than before." That's how I see it.

Other assorted comments:

Muslims thinks cartoons bad.
Seriously?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LubuSAgB5s
Seriously?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_m6qC6FCiY0
Seriously?

[cacian]

If evil and good were a person/peope what gender would they be and why?
This came up as an observation that an anti-christ is represented as a man in a program I watched.

[Tor-Hershman]

...when you say "Theory of God" are you referring to the hypothetical proposition that "God Exists"?

Yep.
____________
http://www.youtube.com/user/TOR1Hershman

[cafolini]

If I ever wanted the Catholic church to thrive in a world that was never for it, I would procede with the same atheism. Could that be the objective of this comedy? But it is understood that protestantism finished with it in the words of Luther, which put their case to rest quite a long while ago.
Other programs of intimidation are floating around. One way to make people be intimidated is to use a lie under the light of a potential truth and then as they agree as to its science, you produce a magnificent lie to catch people commited and hopelessly intimidated not to start fresh. That's the case of the ones that set out to prove that God could have parted the Red Sea with a wind. Then they demonstrate how it could be done scientifically in shallow waters. But in the process, the Jews cross, without being blown away by the wind. The people, of course, are intimidated. Using science and lies in a sequence produces that effect. There are many cases where it has been done, by the insane fascists that use the technique.

[SkyCetacean]

If I ever wanted the Catholic church to thrive in a world that was never for it, I would procede with the same atheism. Could that be the objective of this comedy? But it is understood that protestantism finished with it in the words of Luther, which put their case to rest quite a long while ago.
Other programs of intimidation are floating around. One way to make people be intimidated is to use a lie under the light of a potential truth and then as they agree as to its science, you produce a magnificent lie to catch people commited and hopelessly intimidated not to start fresh. That's the case of the ones that set out to prove that God could have parted the Red Sea with a wind. Then they demonstrate how it could be done scientifically in shallow waters. But in the process, the Jews cross, without being blown away by the wind. The people, of course, are intimidated. Using science and lies in a sequence produces that effect. There are many cases where it has been done, by the insane fascists that use the technique.
This is irrelevant.

[cafolini]

This is irrelevant.

I agree, in the sense that they can't pull it for benefit, nor will they ever. Not this is irrelevant in letting them know that the land of the free and the home of the brave will put then to sleep if necessary to preserve democracy.

[SkyCetacean]

I agree, in the sense that they can't pull it for benefit, nor will they ever. Not this is irrelevant in letting them know that the land of the free and the home of the brave will put then to sleep if necessary to preserve democracy.
Um... That's... That's kinda disturbing that you think that, but that's not what this topic is about.

Care to give your thoughts on good, evil, and their juxtaposition?

[cafolini]

Um... That's... That's kinda disturbing that you think that, but that's not what this topic is about.

Care to give your thoughts on good, evil, and their juxtaposition?

Case Closed.

[SkyCetacean]

Case Closed.

Good job?

[Tor-Hershman]

Um... That's... That's kinda disturbing that you think that, but that's not what this topic is about.

Care to give your thoughts on good, evil, and their juxtaposition?

NO!
It is NOT "...good, evil" it IS
Good - Neutral - Evil.

[Volya]

NO!
It is NOT "...good, evil" it IS
Good - Neutral - Evil.





I'm not sure if anybody else feels this way, but could you please make your posts a bit easier on the eyes? I find the random images and the change of font and size very distracting.

[cacian]

Tor-Hershman
Would you take a parallel on good- neutral -evil as love-like- hatred?
Being specific what those mean may shed more lights on the subject.

[Volya]

Tor-Hershman
Would you take a parallel on good- neutral -evil as love-like- hatred?
Being specific what those mean may shed more lights on the subject.

A better example would be love, ambivalent, hate

[cacian]

A better example would be love, ambivalent, hate

Ambivalence is a tricky one because it is more tension then anything else.
I think that having conflicting thoughts,not feelings, because one is emotionally drained exhausted or shocked tend to experience tension.
I do not believe in 'love to hate' and 'hate to love' or love and hate relationship. It is one or the other never the two together.
'The war of the roses' film is one that plays on ambivalence I think.
Love and hate at the same time.
The reason why I think is that I always go with how one started.
If one started on what one has thought as love then eventually falls out of love then it is from love- to like -to not like anymore.
It is first then it starts decreasing or increasing whiever way you look at it the it finishes or stabilises.
I believe ambivalence is misunderstood. That is how I feel about it.

[Tor-Hershman]

If you want that, then,
Love - Indifference - Hate would be, IMO, the least inaccurate with
Indifference being the less deadly, BY FAR!

[SkyCetacean]

NO!
It is NOT "...good, evil" it IS
Good - Neutral - Evil.
That's a valid answer.

The question, however, is "Is Evil needed to comprehend Good ?" I was simply saying was that what the person posted was irrelevant to the conversation as a whole, I wasn't taking a stance in that post.

[Ser Nevarc]

Would anyone care discuss the topic?

I will try; Yes, I do believe that in order to qualify one concept or state, one must have a contrasting concept or state to form a point of reference.

Thus if cruelty or evil acts did not exist in human experience, how could a person develop an comprehension of goodness? Good acts would simply be the norm, and would not be distinguishable from any other act.

A thing gains its essential characteristics through difference with other things.

If we did not have wetness, we would have no reason to define or consider dryness.
If we could not percieve light (as a blind man cannot), then the word darkness would be fundamentally meaningless.

[cacian]

Would anyone care discuss the topic?
Hi Nevarc. Sure.


I will try; Yes, I do believe that in order to qualify one concept or state, one must have a contrasting concept or state to form a point of reference.
Yes and No. Just because I can add does not mean I can substract as easily.


Thus if cruelty or evil acts did not exist in human experience, how could a person develop an comprehension of goodness? Good acts would simply be the norm, and would not be distinguishable from any other act.
I am not following.
Why does one need to commit crime to understand the killing is not right?
Surely that does not make sense.
It is a bit like saying let's destroy something in order to rebuild it.
We know that it is not true.
Humans have always aspired to build to show off.
I do not need to make someone cry in order to understand pain and sorrow. That is common sense.



A thing gains its essential characteristics through difference with other things.
How do you mean?

If we did not have wetness, we would have no reason to define or consider dryness.

Wet and dry is not evil and good. These are two very seperate concept.



If we could not percieve light (as a blind man cannot), then the word darkness would be fundamentally meaningless.
A blind man has eyes . Eyes are the window of the soul or so they say.
A blind man knows he has sensory features and therefore can imagine what they are for.
Imagination is clue here.
Through the sensation of eyes a blind person can relate to what it could mean to see.

[cacian]

Now this occured to me as part of a dialogue I am writing up.
If evil spoke what would it say?

[Ser Nevarc]

Hey cacian,



Yes and No. Just because I can add does not mean I can substract as easily.

But here we are talking about comprehension, not ability. Of course you can.



I am not following.
Why does one need to commit crime to understand the killing is not right?
Surely that does not make sense.
It is a bit like saying let's destroy something in order to rebuild it.
We know that it is not true.
Humans have always aspired to build to show off.
I do not need to make someone cry in order to understand pain and sorrow. That is common sense.


Of course one does not need to commit a crime to understand that killing is wrong. Again, we're on different pages. The issue here is that evil either is or isn't needed to comprehend good. You and I both know that murder is wrong, and neither of us have murdered (I trust). This is clear. What is being discussed is would the concept of evil be necessary for the concept of good to exist? I say yes.

You say you do not need to make someone cry to understand pain and sorrow. You are right. But you need to percieve pain and sorrow to comprehend its opposites, that is, relief and happiness. If you had never experienced sadness, how could you qualify happiness? Good and evil, unlike wetness and dryness, are human constructs; they do not exist objectively in the world.



Wet and dry is not evil and good. These are two very seperate concept.

They are, but in one sense they are the similar; they are the kinds of binaries by which we understand reality. These binaries are foundational concepts upon which we construct our understanding of reality.



A blind man has eyes . Eyes are the window of the soul or so they say.
A blind man knows he has sensory features and therefore can imagine what they are for.
Imagination is clue here.
Through the sensation of eyes a blind person can relate to what it could mean to see.

I'm not quite sure what you mean here. But I think I can safely say that a person born deaf would have no way to imagine what sound might truly be, or what the experience of sound feels like. How could a person born colorblind have any place to begin in trying to comprehend blue? Do you suggest that someone who exists in complete darkness has distinct understandings of darkness and light, and what differentiates the two?

I think what causes us to disagree is that we have different ideas as to how the human mind works. I think it makes associations by creating dual fabrications in the form of binary oppositions such as good/evil, light/darkness, happy/somber, order/disorder, etc. (could be my background in deconstruction criticism, of course!) You (correct me if I'm wrong) seem to subscribe to the notion that human beings are capable of comprehending a thing entirely on its own. But nothing exists on it's own; everything is relatable to something else, and from thence derives its characteristics.

Look forward to discussing.

[cacian]

QUOTE=Ser Nevarc;1177095]Hey cacian,
Hi Nevarc.


But here we are talking about comprehension, not ability. Of course you can.
Comprehension is ability. A mental ability.
Ability is linked to memory and memory is comprehension without it ability cannot be.
If I did not comprehend numbers I will not be able to add or substract.


Of course one does not need to commit a crime to understand that killing is wrong. Again, we're on different pages. The issue here is that evil either is or isn't needed to comprehend good. You and I both know that murder is wrong, and neither of us have murdered (I trust). This is clear. What is being discussed is would the concept of evil be necessary for the concept of good to exist? I say yes.
Evil is an act that occurs through failure to comprehend normality. It occurs when the ability to think or rationalise is lacking.
Comprehension is everything.
Evil is not needed in order to rationalise that something is normal.
Good is its extreme.
Humans exist in harmony without these two parameters/extremes because they can communicate feelings and thoughts.
Harmony is nature environment and people coming together to be.
One does not need to be good or feel happy to exist.
We exist regardless.


You say you do not need to make someone cry to understand pain and sorrow. You are right. But you need to percieve pain and sorrow to comprehend its opposites, that is, relief and happiness. If you had never experienced sadness, how could you qualify happiness? Good and evil, unlike wetness and dryness, are human constructs; they do not exist objectively in the world.
Happyness is a peace of mind.
Being able to communicate is happiness.
Being able to go places, meet people, eat, read ,write and literally being alive is the norm it is happiness.
I do not need to feel pain to experience its opposite.
Relief is not needed to feel human.
Humans are programmed to feel good already because of all the things I mentioned afore. Achieving the norms is postivity.
It is a myth to think that I must experience pain to rationalise happy.
Extreme joy being the opposite of evil is unecessary because it is mentally exhausting.
An example
I do not need to run to appreciate walking.
I do not need to starve to appreciate food.
It is within our nature to seek good things and surround ourselves with comfort and nice things because it is within us.




They are, but in one sense they are the similar; they are the kinds of binaries by which we understand reality. These binaries are foundational concepts upon which we construct our understanding of reality.
I am totally thrown about idea of wet and dry that makes me comprehend reality.
Reality for me is the measurement of people life and nature ie environment.
The impact I make whilst I am on this earth and what I leave behind me is reality.


I'm not quite sure what you mean here. But I think I can safely say that a person born deaf would have no way to imagine what sound might truly be, or what the experience of sound feels like. How could a person born colorblind have any place to begin in trying to comprehend blue? Do you suggest that someone who exists in complete darkness has distinct understandings of darkness and light, and what differentiates the two?
Let's not underestimate the power of the human brain for it is more capable then one thinks.
I cannot vouch for a blind or deaf person for I am not one but I can imagine their sensories are far more developed internally then me and you put together.
We happen to hear and see from the outside.
They do all this from the inside they may not express but I am sure their imagination is alive and quicking.
Their sense of touch for example is far more developed then ours.
I would imagine they do not need to see colours to imagine what light and sound are.
I
think what causes us to disagree is that we have different ideas as to how the human mind works. I think it makes associations by creating dual fabrications in the form of binary oppositions such as good/evil, light/darkness, happy/somber, order/disorder, etc. (could be my background in deconstruction criticism, of course!) You (correct me if I'm wrong) seem to subscribe to the notion that human beings are capable of comprehending a thing entirely on its own. But nothing exists on it's own; everything is relatable to something else, and from thence derives its characteristics.

I agree that you and me are different in the way we think.
I tend to believe that we are far more developed and able to function ways better without these extremes.
There is a fine line between things and that is the one I am talking about.
We have intelligence and through it we are able to rationalise what is the norm and what is not needed.
We need to stretch the imagination and think further into what we are able to achieve rather then assume that the opposites is what drive us to strive as beings.
It is far more interesting to understand the whys rather then the hows.
For example:
I can imagine what may upset a child and so instead of telling a child that he or she would be sad if say they broke a toy I would set out to show them how to look after it. They do not need to know or harbour this feeling of sadness inside them because this only teaches us to be miserable.
The word sad here is not needed but what is needed is the communication that sets out to explain looking after something.
Having communicated what is rational I have ensured that the child learns through play which reinforces posititvity.
This means a child carries on enjoying his/her toy and the feeling of sad is kept at far away and hopefully for quite a long time.
No need to upset when you can explain hence avoid saddness or disappointment.

Look forward to discussing.
Haha me too.
Hope this is not too long haha.

[Ser Nevarc]

There is a bit much here for me to respond to right now. Let's condense our arguments back into their basics, for this discussion has expanded like crazy.

That said, it's my opinion that you might be overestimating a person's ability to comprehend reality. What you see is not reality. What you see is how your eyes and brain interpret reality. An orange, for example, is not in itself orange. it has no color itself. The way we perceive the light reflecting off of the orange is what we call the color orange.

In the same way, when you apply the labels "good" and "evil" to particular events or people, you are using the images and concepts of your own mind, not witnessing an objective reality.

When you say evil is "an act that occurs through failure to comprehend normality," you are using your own subjective interpretation of an evil act. An evil act is just an act. You yourself interpret this act as evil, as would I, but you go further, implying a failure to comprehend. Are you saying that you think a person who understands normality could never just choose to commit an evil act?

[cacian]

QUOTE=Ser Nevarc;1177128]There is a bit much here for me to respond to right now. Let's condense our arguments back into their basics, for this discussion has expanded like crazy.
This really made chuckle sorry :lol:


That said, it's my opinion that you might be overestimating a person's ability to comprehend reality. What you see is not reality. What you see is how your eyes and brain interpret reality. An orange, for example, is not in itself orange. it has no color itself. The way we perceive the light reflecting off of the orange is what we call the color orange.
That is the point.
Overestimating is much better long term because it stretches one's ability to challenge.
The more we stretch the imagination the more able and intelligent we become.
The issue with intelligence is that it remains underchallenged hence stagnate and create zombie like effect people.
I do not believe intelligence to be a fixed number that does not alter.
Intelligence is like any other phenomena it needs working out to be able to expand and thus making us feel better about ourselves as we become reliable through rationality.
I despise compartmentalised learning because it goes against instinct.
It gels imagination and intelligence to a block of ice that does not shift.
The end result of it is evil as one becomes desensitized because one's loses touch with intelligence.

In the same way, when you apply the labels "good" and "evil" to particular events or people, you are using the images and concepts of your own mind, not witnessing an objective reality.
Objective reality is directly linked to human perception of it otherwise it is not reality.
What I mean is that humans are reality to themselve through the way they are and the way they perceive others
Real is linked to humanity otherwise it is not real.


When you say evil is "an act that occurs through failure to comprehend normality," you are using your own subjective interpretation of an evil act. An evil act is just an act. You yourself interpret this act as evil, as would I, but you go further, implying a failure to comprehend. Are you saying that you think a person who understands normality could never just choose to commit an evil act?
Yes.
I want to say that someone that does not feel anything towards anyone else else is capable of evil.
When one becomes detached from reality thorigh lack of understanding or grasp of what is happening around them then they are most likely to act evil.
Someone who harbours loneliness, who has no attachement with others through feelings, is someone detached from normality, assuming normality is people, feelings, interaction, communication and other outside factors is someone very likely to commit act of evileness.
The less one grasp what surround them and the more they are inclined to offend.

[Ser Nevarc]

Sorry for the delay, cacian:


This really made chuckle sorry :lol:

That is the point.
Overestimating is much better long term because it stretches one's ability to challenge.
The more we stretch the imagination the more able and intelligent we become.

. . .

Objective reality is directly linked to human perception of it otherwise it is not reality.
What I mean is that humans are reality to themselve through the way they are and the way they perceive others
Real is linked to humanity otherwise it is not real.

Yes.
I want to say that someone that does not feel anything towards anyone else else is capable of evil.
When one becomes detached from reality thorigh lack of understanding or grasp of what is happening around them then they are most likely to act evil.
Someone who harbours loneliness, who has no attachement with others through feelings, is someone detached from normality, assuming normality is people, feelings, interaction, communication and other outside factors is someone very likely to commit act of evileness.
The less one grasp what surround them and the more they are inclined to offend.


No, overestimation is not something to encourage. It is far more important to try to discover truth, and to develop a more accurate conception of reality, not one that meets the wishes and requirements of your mind. That's self-deception.

And as for evildoers: You think they are evil out of misunderstanding of the world, and I say they do so because they chose to do evil. Realize that what we call "good" is absolutely not "normality" regardless of whether you call it thus. Do you honestly think that "good" and "evil" exist outside of human construction? Please, demonstrate to me how our universe is inherently "good."

To use your word again, a "normal" man or woman can feel inclined to offend. All you do here is apply labels like "abnormal" or "freak" or "confused" or something to a person who does not share your beliefs about morality and acts in a way that is disappointing to you.

[Umbreon]

Yes.
I want to say that someone that does not feel anything towards anyone else else is capable of evil.
When one becomes detached from reality thorigh lack of understanding or grasp of what is happening around them then they are most likely to act evil.
Someone who harbours loneliness, who has no attachement with others through feelings, is someone detached from normality, assuming normality is people, feelings, interaction, communication and other outside factors is someone very likely to commit act of evileness.
The less one grasp what surround them and the more they are inclined to offend.

What? Inability to empathize, feelings of loneliness, deviation from social norms, a lack of friends are not the only motivations to do "evil." Perfectly "normal" people (i.e. those who are not particularly lonely, not mentally ill, not deluded, not friendless - whatever nice things we might label normal people as) do evil things. People need not be problematic (in the ways that you've outlined) to commit "evil" acts. People do so-called evil things because it is in their interest to do so. I am not lonely or friendless, yet I lie when I have to and do other morally questionable things when I have to. (All I wanted to do was question your claim that people do things because they're "problematic." Unproblematic people do tons of evil things when they have something to gain from doing so.)

Anyway, David Hume (the famous sentimentalist) says that there is no good and evil per se. There is only the human ability to empathize and feel pain and pleasure. We call an act "good" when it results in pleasure for the people who are affected by the act and we call an act "bad" when it results in pain for the people affected by the act.

N.B. In this context, when I refer to "pleasure," I mean any pleasant or positive feelings or results and not necessarily strictly pleasurable feelings. I use "pain" similarly in that I use it to refer to any mildly unpleasant or negative feelings or results.

[cacian]

Sorry for the delay, cacian:
Not at all nice to see you back and chatting you again.


No, overestimation is not something to encourage. It is far more important to try to discover truth, and to develop a more accurate conception of reality, not one that meets the wishes and requirements of your mind. That's self-deception.

I might have to disagree because overestimation is an energy and a good one.
Putting someone down is bad and contributes to the making of bad.
The truth is is that I do not care about truth, any truth.
What I most care about is myself and others in a good context and how we as people can achieve what is best for us.
I have no desire to dispute or agree with the philosophy of thoughts especially the ones that do not teach me about myself and how I can achieve happiness. Thinking is well and good but if leads to no human achievement then I consider it pointless.


And as for evildoers: You think they are evil out of misunderstanding of the world, and I say they do so because they chose to do evil. Realize that what we call "good" is absolutely not "normality" regardless of whether you call it thus. Do you honestly think that "good" and "evil" exist outside of human construction? Please, demonstrate to me how our universe is inherently "good."
Yes I do believe that evil stems from ignorance and lack of understanding of oneself others and the enviornment.
It is also an aspect of one giving up on themselves because they have nothing else to look forward to.
Evil is easy to get whereas good is natural if we let it.
The universe cosmetically is perfect humans however aren't.
Humans are by nature careless not because they want to but because they know no better.
Actions lack of sense and understanding is what drive people to commit evil.
Someone who does not understand that wild animals are needed in their own habitat but instead chose to adopt and turn them into pets is crude and highlights ignorance.
I could say that it is not their fault but one has to eventually take the buck. I think somehwere along the lines people have lost touch with themselves and so instead seek other ventures such turning to animals instead or jumping off a high cliffs because heights is their only thing left for them to pursue and when that is done and they have worn it out they would have nowhere else to go to now that space is taken up.
What to do next? I do not want to think about it.




To use your word again, a "normal" man or woman can feel inclined to offend. All you do here is apply labels like "abnormal" or "freak" or "confused" or something to a person who does not share your beliefs about morality and acts in a way that is disappointing to you.
There is not running away from the fact that we are normal.
If we weren't we would ne be humans functioning on two feet.
what is not normal is everything else we do that contributes to the human/animal/environment misery.

so back to good and evil the bible does not much tell me about why it thinks we are only that.
One must justify calling someone something if it does not then it is pointless too.

[ashpedantic]

Ah, now this is a topic I'm extremely interested in, Philosophy is a fantastic subject that should be encouraged more.

I do believe that there are certain concepts that cannot be defined by any other way than their binary opposite - so one explanation for the existence of evil could be that we would not understand what it is to be happy, or good, because otherwise this would merely be a monotonous, everyday occurence. With the existence of evil, the arbitrary 'good' moments are cherished and comprehended more, giving them more meaning.

That is rebutted somewhat by the privation of evil theory, which suggests that there is no concept of evil at all and that we have simply varying degrees of good, and various characteristics we would ordinarily associate with being 'evil' are actually the lack of a good quality in abundance. For example, heartlessness would be a lacking of empathy - that person wouldn't have no empathy at all, but would not have enough of it. In these circumstances, evil could be argued to not exist at all.

Literary ways of displaying this are particularly interesting. Jekyll and Hyde is perhaps the most obvious choice for where binary opposites are shown in their most crude sense, with Jekyll being a typically 'good' protagonist (although not without his own hubris and flaws), and Hyde being the essence of everything opposite. In this sense, good is genuinely only defined by what is contrary to the actions of the narrator (whose name escapes me).