They look surprisingly alike, that is what first comes to mind. Were they related closely? Perhaps incestuous?
EVIL.... is the desire to 'rule' over ones enviorment. (controlling nature, not being part of it.) acts of EVIL.... are acts which inact or effect that rule and control over some part of our enviormental reality, REGARDLESS of ethical or moral consequences. EVIL plans... are plans designed to fascilitate that rule and control. all acts of evil, be it rape, murder, stealing, or oppression... all, are the result of ones desire to forcably control things, and make them happen by nothing more than the strenght of our testosterone and muscles..... throwing aside all considerations for fairness or kindness or concerns for hypothetical feelings of others. Acting without a heart. To commit evil acts, is unfortunately, an easy, and often natural thing to do. Hence the need for the principles of behavioral training which is found naturally in the habits and ways of all the major world religions.. Training the mind, to aviod evil. -MT
evil is born from fear. there's nothing to fear in the world, but because people think there is something... people think others want to hurt them... so they defend themselves already before anything has happened. defence becomes offence. nothing should be feared except the fear itself. they had good reasons to murder them. poor sick people. but there are a lot more evil things than that in the world, just use your imagination. murder (killing) isn't always evil.
"It is only ignorance which drives a man to do acts of evil to others, even though he is misunderstands good for himself (at least in a limited sense, as no evil good on the scale of good)." Or rather, evil = trying to achive good, but failing due to ones failure to grasp how to achive this. And ignorance causes people to stop learning, leaving them less capable to achive their ideals. For example, this guy, call him Piers, is in a bar, and drunk as a duck. Some guy starts toa annoy him and he decides to pop one on him (that is, punch him). He does, and leaves muttering "that oughtta teach 'im". (so he gets arrested and gets fines etc etc) The key word here is "teach", which implies that Piers tried to teach, or enlighten the man. And as stated above, ignorance leads to suffering; this is then a noble goal. But does anyone think Piers actually learned anything from said lesson? I doubt it, unless it was "lawyers can sue you for punching someone". So Piers tried to acchive something good, but failed, and propably made things worse, at least for himself. There is Evil (according to me). (also an important lesson about anger: Anger seems then to be a somewhat compassionate force; though it often causes hurt, it is often done in good intentions. The ability to accept anger, but accept that the simplest way of solving things most often fails, gives birth to PASSION; a driving, nonviolent, force. Also, without anger, people are as so much sheep; unable to think for themselves. Suppress yor anger and you suppress yourself.) But of course anger leads often to violence, due to ignorance, so it has been named "evil", although it is that only when tempered in ignorance. This, amongst others, created the view that good and evil are just two opinions, or that both are justified. I'd just argue that all these things are good, and evil should just be defined as imperfect action, not as a set of actions. Any action, perfectly done, would wield good things.
Look closer Oh look, we're at page two already! *browses* "I'm surprised no one gave an example of something they find to be evil yet." -nicholas1M7 Real monsters don't exist. So, okay, some really cracked and weird people do, but I don't think that's evil. That's more like a reaction to evil. If we're talking about a couple of psychos, just give FBI more funding. Insanity is always a reaction to the surrounding environment. Real evil is some five million people who just go lah-de-dah through their life, trusting that "someone will tell me what is right, someone will take care of the problems or tell me if I'm needed, someone will protect me anyway", whether this is Dad, God, the Government or Superman. Then some guy comes and says "oh no, the economy is in ruins, let me take care of everything", and everyone votes him. Next thing you know, your burning Jews, and being happy about it. And at war with the rest of the world. I think that people like the Moors just kind of look at the world, and despair. Then, when they think, and realize how meaningless these people are, they just figure no one would miss them if they're gone; or that they've got the right, or whatever. So okay, that's evil too, but it's relatively easier to take care of, and ultimately not the Root of Evil. How can you change the minds of some 6 billion people, before they destroy themselves? edit:I think Nieztche was the first filosophist, who discovered this; that basically there were smart, good people, and then some people, who just let everyone decide everything for them. And I've read that he had great deal on anxiety and emotional problems because of this. (Also they're more scary, because they represent a view of the world we don't want to see; we're afraid they're right. We're not scared of them, but rather what this happening means. Everything can't be alright if these people are trying to do good, like anyone else.)
Mosheh Thezion: So what you are claiming is that control and power are not in and of themselves evil, but only become evil when we throw aside other considerations? But well, what do you rest these other considerations upon? C7ityi_: "nothing should be feared except the fear itself." Quoting Roosevlet? I'd pay to see you quote Hitler in context. Ogmios: "Or rather, evil = trying to achive good, but failing due to ones failure to grasp how to achive this. And ignorance causes people to stop learning, leaving them less capable to achive their ideals." Yes. In essence, evil is caused by the seeking of good without wisdom. "The key word here is "teach", which implies that Piers tried to teach, or enlighten the man. And as stated above, ignorance leads to suffering; this is then a noble goal. But does anyone think Piers actually learned anything from said lesson? I doubt it, unless it was "lawyers can sue you for punching someone". So Piers tried to acchive something good, but failed, and propably made things worse, at least for himself. There is Evil (according to me)." Yes. Misapplication and ill-conceived answerings. "(also an important lesson about anger: Anger seems then to be a somewhat compassionate force; though it often causes hurt, it is often done in good intentions. The ability to accept anger, but accept that the simplest way of solving things most often fails, gives birth to PASSION; a driving, nonviolent, force. Also, without anger, people are as so much sheep; unable to think for themselves. Suppress yor anger and you suppress yourself.)" I agree. Anger often provides the impetus to many good things, so long as it is taken under control and not allowed to spark into an unquenchable fire. It is when the reigns of the bull are loosed that there is trouble. "But of course anger leads often to violence, due to ignorance, so it has been named "evil", although it is that only when tempered in ignorance. This, amongst others, created the view that good and evil are just two opinions, or that both are justified. I'd just argue that all these things are good, and evil should just be defined as imperfect action, not as a set of actions. Any action, perfectly done, would wield good things." I would in general agree with this.
Notations and provocations "EVIL.... is the desire to 'rule' over ones enviorment [...] REGARDLESS of ethical or moral consequences." -Mosheh Thezion Yes. The bad guys tend to play safe, not to have random variables in their game, believing these to be always against them. But often we see people, who refuse to plan, or plot, or to take control of his enviroment, because he belives in freedom. Or they belive that "Love cures all", or some other bs. But while it is the means, which justify the end, the better man always wins. So what does it tell, that the good guys haven't yet won? (to speak metaforically) While lying and manipulation is out the window, does it still mean that no form of control should be used? Should we just trust the goodness of the people, or god, or fate (or karma) to just to work? Or does the gods help those who help themselves, and hence should we not just use whatever means necessary, as long as we do not cross over? Not to avoid "evil" (as defined as a opposed set of virtues), but to emrace it; and then to see which parts of it to ignore, by cross-refering it to "good" (defined as a set of virtues). I think talk of self-discipline is complitely ridiculous. Don't stop youself from doing anything; just try to seek BETTER ways of achieving the same goal. (Having said that, you might want to avoid doing anything, before you know why you want to do it. Though sometimes you have to do it in order to find out. Just trust your heart, or subconsious mind..)
no, i read it in a donald duck comic... i don't know who roosevlet is, but i googled it a bit and i guess he's a president, and i guess you mean he was a bad guy. but hitler was a nice guy, he was just a little sad, and people were mean to him... so he decided to become the bad guy, so that he could get revenge on the world. in reality there are no such thing as evil spirit. everyone has good intentions, everything is necessary, and it eventually leads to peace. then fear and evil is born from the peace again, and so on, the process repeats itself, indefinitely. i don't know why you would pay me for quoting hitler... i don't know any quotes of him anyway, and i don't need money. the entire universe is just an eternal battle between the good and bad guys, and no one ever wins, because they're both the same, and the battle is already over. we are gods, and the karma works. nothing has to be done, you are free can do what you want (nothing=everything/anything)
c7ityi_, I rather meant that do we just trust karma to do it's job or do we take a stand at it's side. Do we just watch, how people suffer for their actions, or do we actually do something to prevent people from doing stuff which causes Karma to retaliate. Also we're not gods, but there are no other gods doing our job for us. There are, I think, gods doing their own job, but they couldn't care less for wimps, who come around whining for them to do their job also (or so I believe. Can't prove anything.) But the real good point you raise is that people were mean to Hitler, so he took revenge on people (ironically by giving them exactly what they wanted..). It describes bitterness and cynicism beautifully. We're all good; some are smart, other are stupid and others have just given up on trying and accepted "the facts". These (the last) would be the Moors couple, Hitler and numerous others, who just got bored of carrying the weight of the world, but still couldn't return to ignorance or subservience of the normal people. Think about Cypher; the guy from Matrix, who wanted to return back to matrix, disgusted by the fact that good guys had worse pay. The metaphore isn't exactly right, but something like that.
We are also tools of karma. But karma will do the job if we don't, it will come to us if we don't stand at it's side. If we could change ourselves and the world we would do it. But we can't because we need time to evolve. We must first experience all kinds of karma, then we are free from karma. I guess it depends on what you mean by gods. I mean they're just creators, and I think we created the world. Everything in the world is my (everyone's) fault, but it's not my fault that it's my fault, because I didn't choose to exist. There are "other gods", like the God who makes earthquakes, but it's actually just us... the omnipresent life. There is only one God, one self, in infinite forms. -The gods inside us makes us do what we do- I mean... suppose that you cut yourself with a knife... the wound will heal... why? Because the minigods inside you are repairing it. In the same way, the universe (or earth) is a big creature, and if it's hurt, we heal it. Everything works because everything strives for survival. When we're trying to survive, we help the great universal being. We strive for survival because the mini-beings inside us strive for survival which causes us to strive for survival. They cause our feelings, and humans are controlled by their feelings. And yeah... the universe acts like it acts because we (universe, omnipresent self) make it act like that, with our actions... and we act like we act because the beings inside us do the same. Worlds within worlds, life within life. Wimps whine because they have courage. Wimps are not wimps and evil is not evil. We are all the same ultimate being, so if we don't help others, we don't help ourselves. Egoism is created because people think there are several beings. There can only be one being, one existence, one nothing-everything. There are infinite bodies. The consciousness -of- the body is not the body, although the body is made of self/consciousness. Everyone does the job for everyone-- I do the job for me. /'nothing-everything'
Subsititute the word "power" for "evil". If I start singing, Spit your game, talk your shit,grab your gat, Spit your game, talk your shit,grab your gat, Spit your game, talk your shit,grab your gat, call your clicks Spit your game, talk your shit,grab your gat, call your clicks, Spit your game, talk your shit,grab your gat, call your clicks, squeeze your clip hit the right one, pass That weed I got to light one, does this make me evil?
Ogmios: So you suggest what precisely? That when met with evil, we ought to use all means we can to circumvent and overcome it? That we should not feel restricted in our aims? c7ityi_: "no, i read it in a donald duck comic... i don't know who roosevlet is, but i googled it a bit and i guess he's a president, and i guess you mean he was a bad guy. " Well he was a Communist bastard, but no, he wasn't that horrible. And was the comic based off "Der Fuhrer's Face"? And Donald Duck truly is hysterical. "but hitler was a nice guy, he was just a little sad, and people were mean to him... so he decided to become the bad guy, so that he could get revenge on the world." Actually, he came to his political ideas less so over sadness and moreso over frustration with the Communist threat and cultural undermining he saw as part of the Jews. He actually lived an okay life beforehand, including becoming quite the honoured soldier on the battlefield. "i don't know why you would pay me for quoting hitler... i don't know any quotes of him anyway, and i don't need money." Extreme amusement. nicholas1M7: "does this make me evil? " No, but I guess you think you're "gangsta" or something. I myself am just pimpin' James. "I believe they had two different last names. " I'll look up more about them.
I'm on sciforums. Look at who I'm talking to boss. How does "gangsta" fit into this? Hindley... Brady.
Nothing is evil. Nothing is good. Without a universal will, there is no universal truth. With subjective morals, everything is up to the definition given by the individual. In the english language, the word "evil" is used to describe something that involves wrongdoing.
I superimposed your quote simply because it was the most convenient basis with which to discern my thoughts on "evil". After reading each response, this is my rejoinder. Please exonerate my moderate fallacies. *By that premise, every single carnivore is "evil". However, I assume the theme is applied in provisos authenticating what is "evil" of/in humans civically. Thus I retain prudence of the aforesaid notion. Than surely, Nature, throughout its cumulative prolongation, must be unequivocally "evil". Could that not be inferred from the affects of the massive earthquake and subsequent tsunamis that devastated Indonesia and proximate regions in 2004, killing multiples of, tens of thousands of people without contrition? Or for that matter any other natural event of disaster killing a human, such as a lightning strike? Since we are coexistent with Nature, and Nature can resist us at any seemingly infinite moment, whilst time is elongated, would we not than be a mine of "evil" with which Nature refines? If not controlled, fire engulfs without restraint, made up of oxygen, necessitated fuel, and high temperature, which of course we are composed of. We breathe oxygen, burn fuel, and emit heat. Interestingly, fire needs air that contains at least 16% oxygen; the earth’s atmosphere is 21%. Please, correct me if I’m mistaken on that figure. Maybe a puritanical formula is a reactant précising "evil". If morality in human performance is the only avenue being taken to account for the chemistry of "evil", than it will be pacified as a diversion to the act, or eulogizing, of what is institutionalized as being “good.” It would be likely, that everyone profits from both “good” and “evil.” If one advertently decides to cut a man down with sword, for no other reason than to shed blood, it is an "evil" thing indeed. Yet the result of this action does not define what is "evil", the ultimate product is “good”; bought, sold, or enslaved in the commerce of manners seen fit in our container(s) or threshold for substantiating life. The funeral home or crematorium, would receive benefit, the employees making their living would be assured service, and one contributing factor to this would the “evil” act. Perhaps the slain man’s kin would compensate the “evil”, by cosseting “good,” “good” which might not otherwise have been transparent, resulting in nix “evil” and nix “good.” Thereafter, one may theorize the manifestation of hominid nekton. Each act is hand in hand, just like every spec of life is obligatory to the entire aspect of the universe. Many believe that humanitarian aid is "good", and war is innately "evil". Reciprocally, they are subterranean in a motley sense, yet one would not be the same without the other, and both are extremely different acts. Still, we can decide to act in neither, in one, in the other, or in both. If war did not exist, and still starvation/disease did, humanitarian aid is still “good”, and starvation/disease would be a dominating “evil” in the vanguard of debacle. In a bland pathological sense, “good” and “evil” are conveyed by the actors portraying in lieu of neither, of one or the other, or of both……………………….Alas, cadit quaestio.
C7ityi_, I agree with what (I think) you mean. But not with the words you're saying. And improper definitions tend to cloud the mind. I'm merely trying to offer another point of view, to be used as one wills. "Wimps whine because they have courage." Sure, as opposed to those, who say nothing, they are brave (=willing to risk something to help others), but I define courage as willingness to risk EVERYTHING in order to do the right thing. It wouldn't "the right thing" to get killed in an attempt to stop a non-violent robbery though, that would be foolhardy. Real courage would require knowledge of what you should do. But which is more brave; the man who says nothing, the man who says something or the man who DOES something. "If we could change ourselves and the world we would do it." Only too true. This is not an argument for passivity. There's an old tale about a convict (during reneissance, propably...), who said that he is not responsible for what he had done; It had been his fate. The guard simply replied "sure, and it's my fate to bring you to court, the judges fate to sentence you and the executioners fate to kill you." We cannot achive what we cannot achive, but a fate we cannot choose we must ignore. It has no use to us, but to give us an excuse not to do what we should. Too much talk of such a fate, and you will no longer change yourself, and hence cannot evolve. "We must first experience all kinds of karma, then we are free from karma." And that is why we should seek confrontation and bravely do whatever we will, in order to succeed, or be corrected if we fail. Also why we must hate those who fail; how else would they know their failure? "But karma will do the job if we don't," No, don't think it will. It might project itself through someone else, but then again the perfect moment for perfect action might already have passed. Also I don't think Karma can do much on it's own, it merely empowers us when we try to do the right thing. And come against us when we aren't. THAT, I think would be Death. "it will come to us if we don't stand at it's side." More like it's always there. But our choices remain our own; karma can't force us. But standing against it is like standing against the wind; You either stand tall and break, or bow and never touch the sun as others rise above you. To bend and rise where appropriate seems sensible. "If I meet an 80 year old man I can teach, I will. If I meet an eight year old child that can teach me, I will learn." -Some zen-buddhist monk. "I mean they're [gods are] just creators" 'k, but as you pointed out, this basically makes a god out of everything, hence making the term rather useless. Mine gods are just powerful creatures constantly connected to karma, and hence immortal (by mundane hands, or in the face of time). And by helping gods, I meant gods trying to make us do the right thing. They're propably called angels these days (since this terming of the word "god" makes it pretty pagan). "Egoism is created because people think there are several beings." Only if you're short sighted. It's rather that the whole universe tries to "play team", since it's more efficient. And those who won't are either ignored, or punished if they try to harm "the team" (taking and not giving, murdering etc). But since the universe is TOO DAMN BIG, it's on our shoulders to take care of it. Just that if we punish more than necessary, we'll be the ones taking and not giving. We do our BEST, and Karma better take care of the rest, cuz' we just can't do any better ("Do it bester!"?). (and having said all that, I'll just say I have no proof of any of this, hence feel free to ridicule. I'll just say nothing proves it WRONG, and hence it remains a theory, that cannot be disputed. And it seems right to me Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! )
