When you define just by saying "its not something else" that's what we call an awful definition, an accident of language, a mental process that has no repercussion or whatsoever in reality.
So to make a good definition you have to make "good" fully independent of "evil", and "evil" fully independent of "good". Either that or admit that neither good or evil have no rapport with reality and are just words.
Originally posted by Bentley
When you define just by saying "its not something else" that's what we call an awful definition, an accident of language, a mental process that has no repercussion or whatsoever in reality.So to make a good definition you have to make "good" fully independent of "evil", and "evil" fully independent of "good". Either that or admit that neither good or evil have no rapport with reality and are just words.
In Buddhism, good and evil are paths that people take. In this way of thinking, good and evil are not things, but actions (or causes).
Originally posted by Bentley
When you define just by saying "its not something else" that's what we call an awful definition, an accident of language, a mental process that has no repercussion or whatsoever in reality.So to make a good definition you have to make "good" fully independent of "evil", and "evil" fully independent of "good". Either that or admit that neither good or evil have no rapport with reality and are just words.
I agree, language is faulty
for that reason we shouldn't even try to know what is right or good 🙂
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You sound sarcastic. But seriously, why waste the time on something that you cannot by definition succeed at?
I am being sarcastic
People get too tied up in this po-mo subjective/relative stuff. Sure, we are all limited humans and everything we do is limited by our own subjectivity. Some people see this as the end of the conversation, I see it as a footnote. We can come to conclusions about good and evil and our ability to label them in absolute discrete terms can be subjective.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
In Buddhism, good and evil are paths that people take. In this way of thinking, good and evil are not things, but actions (or causes).
Yes, good and evil are actions, and there is no action that is the entire opposite of another. Its a much more reasonable way to put it, while it doesn't quite define good or evil in a concrete way.
Originally posted by inimalist
I am being sarcasticPeople get too tied up in this po-mo subjective/relative stuff. Sure, we are all limited humans and everything we do is limited by our own subjectivity. Some people see this as the end of the conversation, I see it as a footnote. We can come to conclusions about good and evil and our ability to label them in absolute discrete terms can be subjective.
You can understand good and evil, but to describe either is art, not language.
Talking about good and evil is vague and mostly useless NOT because they cannot be understood -never said that- but because they cannot be discussed. Humans are pretty cheap in thinking that not only they get to understand things but also to reduce them with fidelity into squeaks and growls which according to them are capable of any description.
ANY argumentative logic is faulty. BUT people shouldn't limit themselves to language, thought can be truer than its own articulation.
I think however than since the problem is language, it is the end of the discussion, but not the end of the experience.
Originally posted by Bentley
Yes, good and evil are actions, and there is no action that is the entire opposite of another. Its a much more reasonable way to put it, while it doesn't quite define good or evil in a concrete way....
That is because "good and evil" is not concrete. "Good and evil" is relative.
Originally posted by Bentley
You can understand good and evil, but to describe either is art, not language.Talking about good and evil is vague and mostly useless NOT because they cannot be understood -never said that- but because they cannot be discussed. Humans are pretty cheap in thinking that not only they get to understand things but also to reduce them with fidelity into squeaks and growls which according to them are capable of any description.
ANY argumentative logic is faulty. BUT people shouldn't limit themselves to language, thought can be truer than its own articulation.
I think however than since the problem is language, it is the end of the discussion, but not the end of the experience.
the same could be said of colour or any other discrete categories humans have.
We seem to be able to get past these language barriers in all of these other instances
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Alright time to come up with a near universally agreeable definition of Good and Evil.
actually, only a working definition would be necessary, but sure, lets do this. In fact, in practice, people behave and make very similar moral choices and reasoning. We can all think of gray areas and thought experiments where things aren't obvious, but at the same time, there is already tremendous overlap in how groups of people decree those within their group should be treated.
What might be more necessary for universal moral statements is to extend individual's in-groups to encompass all humanity, rather than trying to define what it is, in no uncertain terms, that is good and evil.
AFAIK, as a former Roman Catholic, Christians believe that God created Satan... in fact Satan was one of the archangels in heaven known as Lucifer.
And they believe that God created evil to test mankind (I have no idea what the **** this means).
Long story short, God created Satan.
As I see it, the creator would be more evil than it's creation.
In other words, God is one nasty SOB.
Re: God or Satan...Who's Truly Evil?
Look, think about it. You create a nice sandbox full of beings and make them a garden and they play. You give them the choice to continue to play in your sandbox or explore the rest of the playground you have created for them without your protection, but effectively die alone and go to the afterlife you have not prepared for them.
You also create guardians and servants to serve you tea, and to help you govern your new people. These are people you've hired and created to take satisfaction out of their job, a lot like you've created the humans in your sandbox to want to become better and improve their quality of life, what you want them to do anyway.
One of these guardians/servants, in fact, probably your favorite, decides that he can do your job and starts a war and you get rid of him.
Just because he hates you, and to fvck with you, this assistant manager of your playground goes down, and influences the people you've made, who have had this constant decision to follow you and NOT chose to reject you for their own survival, to reject you.
Is this really a question at this point? Who's the ******* here, the guy who owns the sandbox, or the guy who goes down and ****s with the sandbox?
the point is, we put ourselves at alot higher of a level then we are. Why do you think god made us? Did he make us for companionship? I'd like to think so, but I haven't really had a conversation with him in a bit; he keeps dodging my calls, ever since that garden thing. Did he make us in order to control his sandbox? I'd like to think he made us to be kings of this place, but not likely seeing as I'm not really king of anything.
We are a social experiment, a game, a joke. To god, we're a bunch of people he made to watch and entertain. We're his t.v. and while he loves us very much, we're not exactly in the realm of judging him for his actions. Sure, god probably made us for companionship and to help keep the sandbox in order. Things we enjoy as humans anyway.
So you tell me who's the bad guy. The guy who is bored so he makes himself a close nit group of friends with the choice to love him or reject him, or the guy who betrays the group and convinces the others to do so as well.
how did this servant come to hate his master if everyone around him doesnt? people dont just sprout up emotions and thoughts from nowhere; theyre influenced by something. if no hatred or jealousy or imperfection existed where did he get it from? the only logical answer is that god programmed it into him no?
Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
how did this servant come to hate his master if everyone around him doesnt? people dont just sprout up emotions and thoughts from nowhere; theyre influenced by something. if no hatred or jealousy or imperfection existed where did he get it from? the only logical answer is that god programmed it into him no?
He's the man who created Satan.. yet people say that he is merciful and forgiving... even though he is the ULTIMATE reason why EVIL exists in the first place!!
If he really loved his creation, he should'nt have given us these 'tests'.
Why can't he just fix what he messed up, and bring the people back to the Garden of Eden and live their eternal lives in peace and prosperity?
Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
[B]God works in mysterious ways.He's the man who created Satan.. yet people say that he is merciful and forgiving... even though he is the ULTIMATE reason why EVIL exists in the first place!!
not a test; a choice. There are no tests, only choices. Take the key to escape from the garden forever, or leave it? accept redemption and commit to a path of self betterment, or leave it? Choices, never tests.
If he really loved his creation, he should'nt have given us these 'tests'.
Because he gave the choice; live in the garden under his wing and be his companions and guests, or take they key and leave to fend for ourselves. We chose escape.
Why can't he just fix what he messed up, and bring the people back to the Garden of Eden and live their eternal lives in peace and prosperity?
God loved us enough to allow us to reject him. He never adam and eve to do anything, and this "Human nature" is not a program he put in us. It's a flaw that broke upon escape.