Good/Evil

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by WANDERER, Apr 26, 2004.

  1. WANDERER Banned Banned

    Messages:
    704
    Good/evil

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is always amusing to witness the effect of mans invention upon mans thought.
    The entire premise of juxtaposing opposites [a human method of interpreting reality and ordering existence into comprehensibility] has lead to the creation of the ideas: ‘Good’ and ‘Evil’.
    Upon this imaginative human creation- where ‘good’ is presented as that which is beneficial to man, in a general way, and that which is ‘evil’ can either be defined as the opposite of ‘good’ and that which is detrimental to man, in a general way, or merely the absence of ‘good’ or indifference to mans interests- entire philosophies have been constructed and humanity has occupied its thoughts, aspirations and hopes for millennia.
    This human prejudiced interpretation of phenomena as good/evil, when added to the other human prejudiced perspective of cause/effect is the foundation of all human religious and spiritual thought.
    The thought goes like this:
    There are two polar opposites in the universe as expressed by human thought through language in light/dark, cold/hot, up/down, life/death, and good/evil.
    The ideas deemed ‘evil’ are those where no sacrifice, no effort or consumption need take place but just is. Darkness needs no consumption but just is where as light needs a sacrifice, a burning, a consuming or combining in order for it to come to be.
    The phenomena deemed ‘good’ are those which exist only with effort and so are weaker than the ‘evil’ phenomena, which require none, and ephemeral in their existence.
    Man being a representative of life, as the only known fully conscious living entity, obviously relates himself to the phenomena that, like him, require effort, sacrifice and consumption to continue being or becoming. As such he sees himself as a kind of defender and protector of all that struggles to exist and glorifies all phenomena that, like him, are rare, ephemeral, and unique and which require consumption and effort such as light, heat, and life in general.
    Because of this he associates ‘good’ as a positive force and ‘evil’ as the negative opposition against which he and all life struggles to overcome and overpower and then create deities and powers to pacify his anxieties and insecurities.
    Man intuitively recognizes the power of what he perceives as negative and sees in its simple being without effort a threat against all that he is a result of, which requires constant and consistent effort, and so with his imagination he recruits fantastic beings of absolute power to represent the powers of ‘good’, that are omnipotent and indestructible, in order to defend his preferred side against an ‘enemy’ that is persistently present and dominant.
    Furthermore because of the dominance of what is ‘negative’ in the environment man finds himself in, such as the dominance of darkness and coldness in comparison to light and heat in our universe, man feels insecure about his position in it and so alleviates his anxieties by making the entire construct a product of the forces he finds affinity with.
    He creates a God or gods that are alive, conscious, illuminating, warm and ‘good’ as his defenders and allies or he makes the phenomena themselves deities [light is God, love is God and so on]

    But of course it is ridiculous to assume that any of this has any real meaning outside human psychology.
    What is real, even if partially perceived, just ‘IS’ and has neither a positive or negative character [Is rust positive or is iron?]. Whether we interpret effects or phenomena as ‘good’ or ‘evil’ is of no importance to what ‘IS’ and is mostly determined by our perspective on it and our own personal interests.
    There are no transcending meanings to the human prejudices of ‘negativity’ and ‘positivity’ but only temporal, localized and subjective ones that are influenced by our existential positions of shared consciousness but also defined by social, cultural and historical factors.
    What is ‘good’ and ‘evil’ may exhibit a consistency of definition, because what is defining them [mankind] has a common perspective and interest as living conscious beings, but subtly alters in time due to cultural and social needs. Some things that were labelled ‘good’ in the past are considered ‘evil’ in today’s world and may again be redefined as ‘good’ on some future date.

    As such I challenge anyone to define ‘evil’ and ‘good’ in a transcending objective manner so as to make any discussion about them a meaningful and worthy endeavour and not the childish, mythological and meaningless practice of primitive mutterings from beings struggling to deal with their own existence and their own fears and hopes.

    Original sin

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An added consideration must be given to the notion of original sin.
    In my view this expression of doubt as to what is really ‘negative’ and ‘positive’ can be found in the human realization that all that man considers ‘good’ and ‘positive’ requires force, effort and sacrifice. In other words for something ‘positive’ to exist something else must be destroyed whereas ‘negative’ phenomena require no such ‘violence’.
    Are our notions of ‘evil’ and ‘good’ reversed?
    This is why in Christianity the idea of existence imposing guilt upon the existing is of fundamental importance. To live is to kill and to illuminate is to burn.
    The very concept of ‘positivity’ is fraught with contradiction.
    For this reason the idea of an omnipotent absolute good God is necessary to redeem mans guilt for existing. An absolute ‘good’ that requires no effort or sacrifice to exist just like ‘evil’ and so can offer salvation to a creature so dependant on doing harm and dominating others. The idea of an omnipotent ‘good’ God is also necessary to exact vengeance on all those that embrace this existence and their own nature completely and that can take advantage of this ‘reality’ to its fullest by limiting the existence of others. The strong, the fortunate the cunning must be made to pay, in the afterlife, for their domination and power over the unfortunate and weak or must be threatened and convinced to limit their own abilities so that the weaker ones can also partake of existence somewhat.
    Life, in the Christian tradition, becomes an effort to limit the strong from enjoying it to its fullest by making pleasure sinful, actions restricted and nature shameful.
    The Christian God is a way out of a contradiction where what we would like to consider ‘evil’ or ‘negative’ exhibits no purpose or effort but is mostly inert and woven into the very fabric of our universe [Death for instance just is the normal state of most of the universe and needs no violence to continue being such]; what we would like to consider ‘positive’ and ‘good’, on the other hand, is a struggle against what is passive and inert and so must destroy and consume in order to continue being [Life for instance is unique and must destroy other life to persist]. The Christian God therefore becomes a mythical universe of ‘good’ where no such violence and destruction is required, just like ‘evil’ in our universe, and is the source of this reality and so a reward for all that can pass through life and show the needed humility and shame for having existed at all.
    Christians, in essence, live to die in order to escape the sin of having lived at all; life, for them, is something to pay for and to endure as a necessary step towards a universe where it is ‘good’ that just ‘IS’ and it is ‘evil’ that requires effort and violence to continue being.
    In other words Christians, are so distressed with this reality, that they dream and hope of one that is the opposite of it and are willing to sacrifice this existence and all the possibilities in it, for the hypothetical other one.

    The idea of original sin is an effort to impose the feeling of shame for mans own nature and a strategy to curb future advantages offered to the few over the many.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Xev Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,943
    You're regurgitating now.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. WANDERER Banned Banned

    Messages:
    704
    No I’m recycling some of my old stuff from the old Forum.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Xev Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,943
    That's what I meant.

    I never saw this one - it's quite good. I might take issue with the contention that Christianity is strictly a religion of ressentiment, but that I'd have to expound upon later.

    It may be that Christianity is a revenge, but a revenge on whom? Not necessarily on the strong, not on the powers of flesh and blood, but quite possibly on the Christian himself.

    Nietzsche attempts to identify Christianity as a "guilt trip" on the strong - look, your instincts are bad, we are the lambs, the children of God.
    I think - early Christianity was more an attack on the Christian himself. His instincts are bad. Are you familiar with Freud's explanation of sexual masochism? Freud viewed it as a turning-inward, in his terms a sublimation, of a aggressive and dominent will. The masochist wishes to hurt and subjugate others, but he early learns that his attempts to do so will mean losing the love of others. To retain their love, the masochist's aggressive will is turned inwards, and he wishes to be himself hurt and subjugated.

    I'm not saying I give the cokehead any credence here, but quite possibly Freud did not mean the noble Chevalier Sacher-Masoch. Instead....

    St. Paul?

    Do you see? The Christian can't stand the guilt of living, which means destroying.
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2004
  8. moementum7 ~^~You First~^~ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,598
    All that is beneficial to mans survival is the good.
    All that destroys it, is the evil.
     
  9. stretched a junkie's broken promise Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,244
    Yo,

    Thanks Wanderer for some fresh thoughts. It is obvious that religious doctrine compels man to reject his own nature in that he tries to control or ignore what are natural urges and needs. Freedom lies in embracing our natural human urges. I think this notion dis- empowers the constraints of governments and religions, hence I believe the very basis of religion is control and enslavement. The whole doctrine of the Christian religion in particular reeks of enslavement and mind control. From the concept of original sin to Christ the redeemer, the Christian doctrine drives home that we all NEED Christianity to save us from ourselves and thereby an eternal flaming. We are not worthy. Period. Looked at critically and honestly, the whole Christian shebang becomes ludicrous.

    When one embraces ones human nature everything starts making sense. Even ones place in the universe becomes clearer. I think that nature also provides us with hardwired behavioural software. I think for myself the phrase - "Do as thy wilt and ye harm none, shall be the whole of the law." is all that I require for living in peace on this planet. What is it about the Christian reward system of “do good deeds, believe in Jesus, and you’ll get to go to heaven” that I find so unsettling. Empathy for, and helping ones brother should and need not be actioned on the basis of a reward system.

    Allcare.
     
  10. WANDERER Banned Banned

    Messages:
    704
    Today’s Christianity is a mutation of an idea with some merit.
    It was when Paul took it and tried to make it popular that it lost its way.
    Later scripture was interpreted literally and not metaphorically and allegorically.
    Once one sees that the biblical story is a symbolic document that hides wisdom and that, like Homers work, it should not be taken factually one realizes the folly the simpleminded have fallen into.
    The biggest problem with Judeo-Christian theology: It starts from the position that man is vile and needful of redemption. The idea of sin is what has made ‘modern’ man unhealthy and a beggar under ‘god’s’ feet.

    Xev
    There is definitely some truth to that but I also think Christianity became a way to excuse oneself from life and from the competition of it. That is why it was so attractive to the downtrodden masses and why it spread like wildfire within the wronged and insecure populations, that is why it appealed mostly to those that felt defeated and not able to measure-up to a natural ideal. It was a way to make ‘omega’ males and females take revenge on ‘alpha’s’ and the entire natural value system that exalted them.
    What better way to deny ‘survival of the fittest’ than to slander it and propose a new measuring stick and then call it holy or civilized?
    Does not the weak man benefit by defaming strength and making meekness into a virtue, and, in the process, does not society also benefit by producing a more malleable, demure individual devoid of any desire to dominate and control?
    Interests coincided when both the individual and the whole benefited from this value system and ideal. To this coincidence of interests lies the success of many of today’s popular religions and why nature and behaving naturally has been considered something to be overcome and mocked as “primitive”.
    The belief in a single God or an omnipotent, judgmental higher authority is an acknowledgment of authority itself outside natural contexts.
    This is why the Muslim and Christian gods exist outside existence and above nature and its laws and not within it as many of the ancient ones did.

    The motivation behind many of these ideals is to keep the masses contented and apathetic.
    Making sex and the flesh into the devil diminishes the sense of anxiety derived through comparisons and competitions.
    If we cannot compete sexually, for example, and if we feel inferior and defeated every time we do, then by making sex itself into something dirty exonerates us from our self-worth.
    And is this modern tendency not found in every human endeavour today? We live in a culture of excuses, of lowered expectations, of apathy, of lowering standards as to avoid anxieties, of syndromes and diseases to explain genetic inferiority, of spreading shame for pride and arrogance and anything that displays a qualitative superiority

    This Christian “guilt trip” is focused on the few strong so that their drive to dominate is kept in check but for the weak multitude there is no guilt but only the sense of revenge or of making what cannot be reached as unreachable or undesirable or sinful.
    When the conclusions of athletic competition are too distressful, for instance, shame is attached to winning- so that those able to win are prevented from wanting to- and the virtue of finishing together, both in first and last place, are promoted-so that those unable to ever win are kept contented in the knowledge that the desire to not win is the highest human virtue given to us by God Himself.

    Yes, and they can’t stand the anxiety of living and so they defame it and look forward to an afterlife where there are no needs, no competitions, no superior and inferior and all are equal under one authority.
    Wait, isn’t that Democracy?
     
  11. Xev Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,943
    Wande:
    Of course. It appeals to the eternal weariness.

    The entire socialization process is one of breaking a strong individual and suppling a weak one.
    But NOT devoid of any desire to dominate and control. Who are our role models?
    The rich and famous, correct? Donald Trump and whoever celebrity is "in".

    Society benefits by channeling those desires - not in eradicating them.

    Yes, it also naturally attracts the authoritarian.
    The authoritarian is not necessarily one who wishes to be the dictator, but rather a sort of person who cannot exist without the

    And it reifies the lower status of women, thus allowing a permanent underclass upon whom frustrations can be taken out on.

    Is it really?
    Who starts this all but Jesus, a man of some not-inconsiderable mental discipline? Accepting for a moment that Jesus was an actual historical figure, who is this man?

    "A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another."
    -John 13:34

    What uncompromising nature is it, that demands love - love first of all, as the primary commandment?
    A weakling, bent on wreaking his metaphysical revenge on those stronger than him? But when offered power, when incited to rebel against the Romans, Jesus refuses.

    Certainly Christianity is a religion for slaves, a coping mechanism for the dispossessed. But what else?

    What horrible thing has Jesus done or seen that drives him to accept and welcome crucifiction? We know he is aggressive - he kills a fig-tree out of pettishness. His denunciations of those he finds "Pharisees and hypocrites" are venomous.
    We know he is needy - love is his primary commandment. He is compassionate, and yet unwilling to heal the Caananite's daughter until he is met with supplication. (Mt. 15:22-26)

    Certainly someone here is guilty of a horrible sin.
    And indeed, he was crucified for his own.

    You see?
     
  12. WANDERER Banned Banned

    Messages:
    704
    Xev
    This is why there are so many ‘Born again’ Christians.
    When young and energetic the mind rebels against anything that dilutes its potency.
    With time and age the weariness sets in, life experiences make the individual feel vulnerable and weak and the mind realizes its own fallibility and limitations.
    Enter religion to save the day.
    Religions, especially the slavish kind, flourish in environments of poverty and anguish; in times of plenty and of youth and vitality they diminish.
    Look at the Muslims, generations brought up with no hope grasping upon fundamentalism to make sense of it; look at the US [the most fundamentalist Christian nation that has ever existed] the encroaching degradation, brought on by decades of decadence, feeding a growing Christian revitalization.

    Precisely.
    The heroes of each civilization being the ones that exemplify its highest virtues and values.
    Rich and famous in the west, self-sacrificing and ultra-religious in the Middle-east.
    In both cases the desire to create servants to the state or the culture.

    Of course.
    When you make sex dirty and sexual promiscuity a sin, then you still need a mechanism to ensure procreation.
    That’s where you take away sexual power from the ones possessing it in nature, because nature is ‘evil’ and must be overcome.
    How do you prevent chaos and male aggressively?
    You make them guardians in their own prisons and you degrade ‘survival of the fittest’ to ‘every moron gets to have access to procreation’.
    Eventually the deterioration of the species forces change.

    A representative of the downtrodden, injured, betrayed, wronged, weak and subjugated; a symbol of the masses seeking redemption in a higher power to make up for the absence in themselves.
    But this can be said for nationalism and idealism, as well.
    Higher power centers joined by those possessing no personal power.

    Socrates: The first Christian.

    The sin of merely being human.
    The shame of self, of feeling, of instinct.

    I see, do they?
    Should they?
    Do I care?
     
  13. moementum7 ~^~You First~^~ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,598
    When ever the use of reason is abandoned, such as the Dark Ages, we will see a dilapidation of society and its people.

    Reason is man's tool of understanding. It is the method of identifying entities through one's senses. It is the means of integrating those perceptions into concepts, gaining knowledge through this integration, integrating that knowledge into the rest of one's knowledge, and evaluating and manipulating ideas and facts.

    Reason is the process of thinking. Its fundamental attribute is clarity. The use of vague notions, fuzzy feelings, or "instincts" is not reason. Reason requires clear, identifiable building blocks. It uses ideas, memories, emotions, and sensory input. The ideas must be clear and definable. The memories must be recognizable, and vivid. The emotions are recognized as emotions only, with no further meaning. The sensory input must be identified in order to be used.

    Reason is organized. It is systematic and purposeful. It concentrates on fundamentals, and makes pertinent associations. Since clarity is the purpose of reason, it must use clear methods, as well as clear tools. It must use logic, deduction, and induction.

    Reason is the method of thinking in an organized, clear way to achieve knowledge and understanding. Since it is a means, its importance and significance is in its method. The ends toward which it is used defines the validity of the method. Understanding and knowledge is the criteria for evaluating the use of reason.

    Knowledge is knowledge about reality. Its base is perception, and its method is reason. We gain knowledge through observing reality. We use our minds to identify what we have observed by gathering more perceptual information until we can understand what we see. Reason is the tool that allows us to determine how to gather more information, and what kind of information we need. Reason is then used to compare and combine that new information into the rest of our body of knowledge in order to acquire a more complete understanding.

    Knowledge requires clarity and the identification of limits and boundaries. Only reason can collect sensory data into something meaningful, which is clear and definable. To speak of knowledge that we don't understand is a contradiction in terms. Emotions, perceptual memories, or vague notions are not knowledge. Knowledge is lucid and can only be formed by the use of reason. There is no other path. Reason is absolute.

    Reason is mans primary tool of survival, when this is abandoned....... you better start praying.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Thanks for your time.
     
  14. Xev Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,943
    But of course we've gone over religion as degeneration. What do you think of the psychology of Jesus?
     
  15. moementum7 ~^~You First~^~ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,598
    If you are speaking of that psychology as altruism, and as being mans highest moral standard, then I would again have to repost this thread....
    The opposite of choosing life is altruism: the moral doctrine that holds death as its moral standard. It holds sacrifice as the only good, and all things "selfish" as evil. According to altruism, it doesn't matter what you do, as long as it does not further your life it is considered good. The more consistently a person is altruistic, the closer their actions are to suicide. The consistent altruist will give up every bit of food he owns to other people because that is what he considers good, and die because of it.

    Thanks for your time.
     
  16. Crunchy Cat F-in' *meow* baby!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,423
    Good - A moving target in an individuals mind made up of varying degrees
    of altruism and exploitation.

    Evil - Same thing.

    Both are influenced by culture, religion, personal values, and genetics.
     
  17. §outh§tar is feeling caustic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,832
    Do you claim to say before humans on the earth, there is no good and evil?


    And I stress the use of the present tense "is".
     
  18. Crunchy Cat F-in' *meow* baby!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,423
    Bingo. In fact there is no such thing as good and evil now. They are nothing
    more than man made labels.
     
  19. leda Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    77
    I find a certain circularity in an argument which says:
    "There is no objective good and evil."
    Whilst at the same time implicitly maintaining:
    "Objective truths are BETTER than subjective truths".
     
  20. Crunchy Cat F-in' *meow* baby!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,423
    I am not sure if I agree with that second statement. The word 'Better'
    is subjective in itself. I am also not sure if humans can interpret things completely objectively. Information goes through many filters in our
    brains before meaning is extracted.

    Maybe a refined statement could:

    "Empirical information is fact and subjective information may be an expression or approximation".

    Just an idea.
     
  21. leda Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    77
    That's pretty much what I was saying. Restated:

    How can you make a valid negative value judgement about value judgements?

    From a logical stance, you can only make a defensible positive value judgement about value judgements. Otherwise the act of making a value judgement debunks that very judgement.

    Its a nasty little catch 22, I think.
     
  22. Crunchy Cat F-in' *meow* baby!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,423
    Hmm... in that case we're in agreement with the second statement; however,
    I believe that something is being contested about the existance of 'good'
    and 'evil'. Lets see if we can come to some agreements about some underlying
    factors. I would assert the following:

    * Altuisim is a fact - It is observable and reproducable.
    * Exploitation is a fact - It is observable and reproducable.

    Do these seem like reasonable assertions? If so, we can try building upon
    them.
     
  23. leda Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    77
    I'm not satisfied with them as axioms. Is altruism measurable? How do we quantify it? Sorry to be a pedant.

    Isn't it perfectly valid to have the circular definition:

    Actions which cause you no guilt are good or neutral.
    Actions which cause guilt are evil.

    This seems to cover everything from mass murderers to Mother Theresa.
     

Share This Page