Is it possible to know Good with out knowing Evil?

Not in my view, no. I dont use the term "evil" though so that would be understandable.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Has that "few hours" passed yet?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Good and bad are opposites, and like birch said evil is bad by intent. Example, your in a car accident and lose both legs (that's bad). Someone messes with your breaks and causes you to be in a car accident and you lose both legs (that's evil).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

They are both bad, one is a criminal action.

 

You need bad as a frame of reference to define good. So no its not possible.

It's good we wake up? That statement is subject to relative context. "We" as in the users of this forum, perhaps but certainly not the little girl in pakistan or whatever girl getting sold as a sex slave and raped everyday and treated worse than livestock.....

Its not possible to know good without bad, without evil - yes. These are all literary constructs nothing in absolute nature is good or bad they are concepts we utilize with descriptions of things.

John the car accident could be bad but not if it prevented a bigger accident somehow or created some favourable outcome inadvertingly or whatever whatever whatever so yeah.

 

Do you need a frame of reference to know you enjoy the smell of a rose? NO!

The result is still bad and the larger accident would have been worse.

 

Your interpretation of "the tree of knowledge of good & evil" is one that seems to have elements of Occult. Nevertheless, the usual Occult interpretation of this subject is, in general, quite different. I don't know where from you received your information, but when regarding judicial law of western civilization, its been historically understood that the ten commandments were the basis upon which western law was built

The tree of knowledge of good & evil was indeed, a real, existent tree. There wasn't anything magical about it. As I explained within my original post, eating from it didn't provide the eater with any knowledge whatsoever, as an intrinsically inherent quality of the tree itself. It was due to the act of disobedience that evil became known to the first man & woman. In turn, from having known evil with which to compare, they became aware/knowledgeable of "good"

The tree truly existed because after God completed his work of creation, he looked upon it and saw that it was good. He didn't see that it was mostly good & partly evil. However, since he loved his created children, he desired their love in return. But a forced love is in fact, not love at all. "If you love someone, set them free". Therefor, God would grant "freewill". However, freewill requires that man possess the option to do wrong. Without the option of wrong, man can do only right & that would be forced will. God needed the existence of the opportunity for man to do wrong. Thus, he created the tree of knowledge of good & evil & commanded man & woman to not take from it

Throughout history, it has been believed that the fruit of the tree was not Apple. But rather, the Golden Quince. If you notice, within nearly all renaissance paintings of the Garden of Eden, the fruit is depicted as the Golden Quince

Now, if one is inclined to be a mystic, he may waste his time in making the effort to obtain a Golden Quince, believing it to possess magical powers, capable of imparting special knowledge.

However, the tree & the fruit are obviously not a construct of the Occult. Therefor, it is not their place to determine what is fact regarding the matter. The tree is obviously a matter of the Creator & his creation. Thus, those who subscribe/believe & know of the Creator, are they more qualified to speak of such matters

It is this knowledge of truth, presented in a undeniable manner with boldness of authority, that is why Occultists prefer avoiding confrontation with those who possess it & are well capable of presenting it effectively. On YouTube, Occultists usually simply block such a commenter... often without posting even one reply. They rather that any such direct exchange not be publicly displayed

If you notice, ancient Mesopotamian figurines of persons with unusually large eyes... they are Occult origins which pertain to this particular matter

 

Evidence please.

Evidence please.

God is incompetent?

And Renaissance paintings are infallibly correct because...?

Incredulity? Surprise?

 

There was another symbolic tree in the Garden of Eden called the Tree of Life. This symbol is less understood. This type of knowledge is not polarized like the (tree of) knowledge of good and evil. This type of knowledge is neutral. It is what it is, without any value judgement of good and evil. If you know god by the tree of life, you know him without knowing evil.

The tree of life is suppose to have twelve types of fruit. The tree of knowledge of good and evil only has one type of fruit; law of good and evil.

I think science is one of the fruits of the tree of life. It defines nature as it is, without saying Moon is good and Venus is evil. There is no value judgement based on good and evil. It is what it is, period. The wonder of nature which science reveals in all its tiny and huge details allows some to know God.

I am not sure of the other eleven fruit, or even whether different branches of science defines more than one fruit. But if Adam and Even ate of the tree of life they would live forever. Science might allow extended life, someday, as we learn more and more about life. You eat of this science and you will live forever.

I would guess some forms of mediation could be a fruit, it can morally neutral, and can give that feeling of enlightenment, that allows some to know God.

 

Haddock, elephant, 3-month-old kittens, three-legged rabbits, gloss white paint, Jaffa cakes, banana, the gene for being over 6 feet tall, exhaust pipe for '57 Chevy, Bilbo Baggins and Belgium.

 

Since this has become a matter of semantics, it would require a more definitively standardized use of words to remain objective.

On one side we have the words; "good" & "right". On the other we have; "bad", "evil" & "wrong". The tree within Eden may have been given the name of "tree of the knowledge of good & evil", but as we've now seen, the word "good" can lead to a discussion which introduces the word "bad"...understood to be the opposite of "good"

However, the "good & evil" attributed to the tree, is correctly interpreted as "right & wrong".

The "tree of knowledge of right & wrong"

Some on this thread are arguing that good & evil or right & wrong are not objectively evident. But rather, that they are subjectively concluded. This ideology is correctly identified as "relativism". However, "relativism" is made invalid by its own determination

"Relativism" is diametrically opposed to "Absolutism". However, one who asserts the validity of relativism, does so, in absolute terms

All persons, save vegetables, are Absolutists. Those persons who engage in political activism, cultural modification, societal constructivism or any debate as self proclaimed Relativists, are in fact, the tyrants. For they seek to disallow by default, those who are knowingly Absolutists, while being Absolutists themselves

Since the "cultural revolution", politically & culturally speaking, Christians have been unfairly tyrannized in this manner. Notice, Atheists/Secularists assert the correctness of atheism/secularism, in absolute terms. While simultaneously condemning Christian absolutism as inadmissible by default

Also, proper reasoning would conclude that those who are aware of their absolutism, are more clear & correct in their thinking, than are those who are unwittingly Absolutists

 

How so?

Um, nooo.

Supposition. Please support this.

Maybe you should take a few courses or read some books before making another post.

 

The question is incoherent. You cannot “know” good or evil. These are socio-linguistic tropes which do not have any meaning in an ontological or epistemological sense. To assert moral goodness is merely to project your biases onto reality. To the people who are suggesting that good and evil are "subjective to the observer", I suggest you look up the subject-object dichotomy as it pertains to moral philosophy. An assertion of truth must refer to that which is objective in nature, or else it has no truth value. “Subjectivity” is meaningless in an epistemological sense.

 

If you look at the 10 Commandments, one should notice that an objective standard for good and evil is being defined. All 10 commandments help minimize social cost. They are not designed for the subjective whims of the individual, but are designed to maximize the group in tangible ways.

For example, thou shall not steal. The way to see the objective wisdom, relative to social costs, is to first look at the opposite; thou can steal. This evil side of that law, if made legal due to being defined as relative, would create social distress and cost as people set up defenses for their personal property.

If people we compare this to a land where nobody steals, the collective defensiveness comes down, and fewer material resources are needed for personal security. Also fewer mental resources are needed for the cold eye of suspiscion. What was not stolen can noe be shared with others since people respect your property, etc,

There are laws of good and evil which are subjective and therefore are not based on an objective standard. These types of laws tend to promote the individual which makes it hard meet the requirements of objectivity except a narrow way.

For example, Polititians like to lie. This will not optimize the collective social good. Based on the objective nature of the collective optimization this would be evil/sin. But since philosophy calls it subjective, having the option to lie or spin will give an advantage to individuals, but at the social expense of the objective standard.

If we apply the objective social cost standard to some man made laws of good and evil, one can see evil being called good. It is subjectively called good, yet by increasing social cost, is would be called evil on the objective scale of social csts. If you just accept it or eat of that tree, you to die (lose your objectivity) until it almost seems to be rational.

For example, the marijuana prohibition. The amount of social cost needed to support this subjective law, continues t rise each year. It goes along with the right to lie, found in politics, since that form of moral law is relative and therefore objective evil can be called good.

 

Welcome to the forum skog, I can tell by your post your looking to have fun. It looks like you might fit right in. This forum is full of people that will take a real simple concept and do their best to complicate it for as long as they can. Judging from the vocabulary you've used you might have an edge on the competition.

 

Excuse you, my post was perfectly lucid and concise; I have used basic vocabulary that I expect anyone worth their salt in philosophy 101 to comprehend. The existence of good and evil is hardly a “simple concept”. It is usually necessary to use obscure language in order to accurately convey complex ideas. If this equates to “complicating things for as long as you can”, and people are going to bitch at me whenever I try to accurately address their questions, then hey I guess I came to the wrong forum!

 

Person to person evil is well noted and defined and is generally covered just fine by civil law.

Where evil can otherwise root is in someone's arbitrary and possibly flawed "concept of good" or right, such as in some religions or other ideologies, for then the concept has to be protected, either directly against or just because the sheer existence of other beliefs seems to undermine the credibility of one' own, which may lead to anger or war by deeming other, contrary beliefs as 'evil', which is usually preceded by them being called weird and wrong, etc.

Flawed "goods" can actually be a root of evil behavior.

 

Whatever! Your going to do what you want. I was hoping for a little more humor out of you, but I suspect you have a bit of evil lurking in your personality which is looking for a safe outlet. Looks like you've found the right forum to me.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

No skog you were effective in putting your point across I think you hit it right on the head. Well said!

 

No, he's using logic in an attempt to validate traditional primtive ideas.