I'm thinking that most literature that's ever written shows the world to be evil. Do you agree?
I'm thinking that most literature that's ever written shows the world to be evil. Do you agree?
I'm just guessing, but I think for something to be evil rather than not evil you would need a frame of reference which would be neither. The world might be such a frame of reference and so it wouldn't be either evil nor not evil. For the world to be evil, one would need a larger frame of reference by which the world is judged.
I don't think that most literature presents the world as evil. What books are you referring to specifically?
My blog: https://frankhubeny.blog/
It's an unavoidable dichotomy. It's not that it is up to you. It's circumstantial. Some people exaggerate it one way or the other.
I too do not agree in fact and good books do not have a judgement like this though they depict both evil and virtuous characters. In fact what we call evil and good is something of your mind and your reaction to a particular stimulus. Inherently nobody is good and bad. Somebody maybe very bad in your eyes the same person may turn out to be very generous to others and in fact in response to a particular circumstance one behaves. thief maybe evil to somebody but his theft has to do something good, maybe for his or his family sustenance and look at it from his standpoint his justify the theft.
An interesting contention which I would like to pursue (and was sparked by a Sandburg poem I read just the other day), essentially, in this proposition, there are two frames of reference. Implicit and explicit. I would like to agree with your statement that the world is a frame of reference, in this case, an explicit one. However, I believe that we all have an innate frame of reference (a Nature vs Nurture ordeal) that is instilled within us. An internal check of what is proper and improper. Right and wrong.Originally Posted by YesNo
Food for thought
“Thou Mayest”
I think we could access the frame of reference innately as well.
My blog: https://frankhubeny.blog/
I think alot of portrayals about the "world" in general seem to be one of an adversarial potrait- as in, despite the many difficulties we have to overcome, there is a possiblity for change, betterment, etc.
I think a lot of literature portrays the world as a place of complex relationships, and where "right" and "wrong" is in constant flux.
www.greenthumbdepot.com|Hydroponics
In fact there is right or wrong and wrong and any judgement is misleading in fact and they are our attitudes and responses only to a particular circumstance
Robert Frost had a horrible past and nearly everyone in his life died, and we know what his work is mostly about. I think depending on the life an author or poet has lived, their perspective changes.
Evil is about intent, and so something like the world, landscape, sea etc can't be evil. A person's actions can be evil because of the intent to cause harm to others, and whilst some people's actions may cause harm, it might be that their intention was to cause good, but that they were misled or misinformed or unlucky.
Pretty much, yes. But there is enough goodness, kindness and love in humanity to make it worth caring about. If human beings were, without exception, rotten to the core then literature itself would be pointless.
Every good novelist understands in some way that a portrait of evil is an essential precondition for a plot, as there needs to be an adversity--some antagonistic factor--which the protagonist must overcome. Often this factor manifests as a character or set of characters; however, this is not always the case. That said, I don't think we're right in implying that a book which contains such portraits is pessimistic. In fact, I think most books we read are optimistic in the sense that they at once present a solution in (the form of a moral) to the very problems which they depict.
Dare to know
Exactly what I was thinking. The world cannot be judged morally. You could accuse it of being ugly, or harsh, or something else, but not evil. Maybe a better word to convey the original poster's meaning would be "bad." Bad and evil are similar but not the same.
In fact the word is not bad or good or evil and virtuous. In fact nobody is bad or good and if they seem so is for some reason. People kill and it is not only an idea of freewill and there are certain ideas of conditioning and programming. People's will is not free and some circumstances compel to behave him in some ways and you cannot skip in fact. What we call evil maybe justifiable from another plane.
People can make choices, and though in some circumstances there may be valid reasons for bad choices, many more people can choose to do an evil action or not.
I think to say otherwise is to excuse the inexcuseable, and takes away personal responsibility.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
