 by -
Aule
(Fri Dec 13 13:17:21)
|
|
In the Allegory thread, Wally and a few others have been debating the whole LOTR/WWII allegory issue. Recently, the question of evil was brought up. I believe Wally was basically saying that history is written by the victors, and therefore what is evil is determined by those same victors. I thought this was a topic that needed more direct attention.
Is there such a thing as universal truth, or universal good and evil? Or, are these constructs of our culture? Are cannibals in New Guinea evil? They don't think so, and yet for most of the world, eating people is considered so.
What Wally is saying, is that a Nazi victory may have eventually changed our perception of what is right and wrong, good and evil, etc. The feudal lords in Europe didn't think they were evil by keeping serfs. They thought it was good and proper. The slave owners (most of them) in America or elsewhere didn't think they were evil. They considered the slaves to be beneath them and simply fulfilling their natural station in life. Most of us now consider such things evil.
Is evil an absolute concept or is it dependant upon a moral baseline that is common to a given society? A baseline that changes from society to society and from era to era.
Most people make the mistake of judging past events, people and societies on today's standards. Perspective and perception are very important.
But still, is there such a thing as true evil, separate from cultural influences, universal, and absolute?
A second question is, what was Tolkien's representation of evil? What did it stem from, and how did it manifest itself? How did was it differentiated from good?
|
|
|
|
Tolkien-Meister Tom Shippey was interviewed last year by CNN and was quoted as follows:
"My colleagues in the literary department say it's all very escapist stuff. I think, 'No, no, no.' It's actually all about what happened in the 20th century. The 20th century has basically been industrialized warfare," Shippey said in a phone interview from St. Louis.
"Tolkien went through it himself (as an infantryman) in World War I. But it just got worse in his lifetime," Shippey said. "I think he was very preoccupied with the nature of evil, the nature of technology, the way in which things could be abused, the way good intentions are subverted. That's what it's all about."
In terms of your questions...Tolkien represents evil as a force that works through subversion and failed intentions. It stems from his own Christian beliefs and is aptly covered in The Silmarillion. Good is anything natural. Evil is anything artifical or the attempt to control the natural. It was that simple for Tolkien.
But, I agree with you. Evil is completely relative and changes far more in its manifestations and definitions than Middle-Earth ever changed. Middle-earth essentially remained the same in terms of its socio-technological reality from the First Age through the Third. Comparatively, human history is the story of accelerating technological change. The world has changed twice over since Tolkien first published is magnificent works. As things change ever-faster the nature of evil becomes more elusive.
The triology for the postmodern world will most likely be The Matrix rather than LOTR. That's not meant to take anything away from Tolkien. His work is an unmatched historical masterpiece. But, then, the impact of, say, Moby Dick (the great single book ever written) is not what it once was. So it goes.
Interesting topic.
Oh, it's amazing what a little brain damage will do for your credibility.
- Leonard Shelby
|
|
|
 UPDATED Fri Dec 13 16:53:09 |
This message has been deleted by the poster
|
|
|
Interesting topic
two points that come to mind
1. The nature of what is percieved as good and evil as what would be considered evil if the Nazis would have won the war has already been a subject in the art world, very recently and very controversially as well. In an exibit an artist made a LEGO set of a concentration camp. All types of ideas are conceptionalized in this work. Consumerism and mass production/destruction are two that I can think of now but it also deals with the concept of evil. The nature of the concept manifesting itself as a children's toy is part of the reason why it recieved such critisism. Many people thought it trivilized the experience of the Jews who died, perhaps this was also the artists point in trying to draw attention to the holocaust industry as well. But it also brought up the idea was this peace of art Evil itself?
2. The second topic is that the Matrix is the trilogy of the post-modern age. How do you mean this, because nothing is what it seems. That the morings of morality and reason have become unhitched from their foundations and now we are floating in a sea of relativity. I thought the Matrix was more of a messianic flic. That neo was the savior that will wake us from our collective sleep. I don't think the Matrix was a post-modern flic like the way say Adaptation is, although I have not seen this movie yet I understand the concept from reading the reviews, I will not attempt to summerize what it is about though. For this reason I don't see why not LotR can not be the Trilogy for our age, especially during a time where we are questioning the role of technology in our lives as the road to progress and shangra la. LotR is a throwback, its looking foward to a future through a distorted past, tolken's fantasy adaptation of middle-age myths. Also moral choices are easy, there is evil and there is good. In a post-modern age were everything seems to be reletivistic and fractured why can't this meta-narritive not be the trilogy of the present moment.
Hey what about 'Beyond Good and Evil'
|
|
|
| by -
BB-15
(Sun Dec 15 11:01:35)
|
|
Hi joeblimp;
"the Matrix is the trilogy of the post-modern age. How do you mean this, because nothing is what it seems. That the morings of morality and reason have become unhitched from their foundations and now we are floating in a sea of relativity."
One problem I had with the Matrix was that the Neo, Messiah, is just a terrorist. In the cartwheel scene in the lobby he is just cutting innocent people in half with a machine gun. What he does is evil. The morality is video game reality, everyone is a bad guy and you kill everything that moves.
The morality of the Matrix is the moralty of every insane killer who thinks they are justified to kill the innocent because of the their "cause".
Tolkien's books have the complete opposite view of the world. There are ultimate rules and there is ultimate morality. Partly because of this, I perfer LOTR over the Matrix by a wide margin.
Have a good one. BB ;-)
|
|
|
I think the problem with this question lies in the abstraction of the issues. Not being able to prove something in all cases does not invalidate it for some cases. If you are asking if a nomadic wanderer in the area of Uganda in 3000 B.C. would consider Nazism evil, then I have to answer that frankly I don’t care. Unless explicitly stated otherwise, I think when someone today says something is evil it is clearly implied that they mean within their cultural context, since they really can’t speak from any other viewpoint without research.
We are not asking if Nazism was evil in comparison to a universal standard. We are asking was Nazism evil when measured against the standards of its time. We might also ask was it evil within the context of our times. The answer to both these questions is a resounding “Yes”.
We are fortunate in that the events of WWII are not yet obscured by history. There are many, many people alive today who can tell you point blank whether it was morally acceptable in the culture of the 1930’s and 1940’s to put to death Jewish people because of their religion. I personally know many of them, and I can tell you conclusively that it was not. This is not judging events by today’s standards it is judging them by their own.
Whether or not this is universally true is not something that we are capable of answering, as we cannot simultaneously be members of all cultures at all times throughout history. However, it is a bit of a stretch to imply that the culture from 60 years ago is so far beyond our comprehension that we are unable to make a fair judgment. It is also ludicrous to claim that had the Nazis been successful that within 60 years they would have so changed the fabric of society that genocide would now be acceptable. Perhaps it would be as a matter of law, but not in the minds of rational men. Soviet Communism tried to stamp out organized religion for a longer period than that, using some equally extreme measures yet it was ultimately unsuccessful. If you cannot stamp out religion with the boot of tyranny then how much harder would it be to beat out the basic sense of right and wrong?
As to Tolkien’s view of good and evil I think the best source is the Silmarillion. The conflict between Melkor and the other Valar seems to be the conflict of creation versus destruction, harmony versus discord. Wanton destruction seems to be at the heart of Tolkien’s conception of evil. It is a wonderful literary device then when he flips the tables in “The Lord of the Rings”. Here it is Evil that has created something and Good that must destroy it.
Cheers.
|
|
|
| by -
Aule
(Sat Dec 14 11:33:09)
|
|
Based on our own standards, I can't argue with what you've said about Nazism. But what if our own standards are wrong. Maybe in 500 years, they will have different standards. That is what my question was about. What is evil? Not, who was evil based on our standards.
Interesting point about evil having created something that good must destroy, by the way. It serves to prove my point that destruction, in and of itself, is not evil, but only a part of the equation.
|
|
|
| by -
Ronin One
(Fri Dec 13 21:36:30)
|
|
| UPDATED Fri Dec 13 21:37:38 |
Very good, interesting topic you've started Aule.
Much of what I wanted to say at this point has already been said, so my post is going to be a short one, for a change. I just wanted to get in a quick word on what I feel is part of the nature of evil.
To me, one of the easiest ways to hold something up to a light and determine if it is evil is the following; if an act was done maliciously, with no intention besides that to cause pain, then that is the definition, (or at least a definition), of evil. While good intentions can lead to evil endings, (and sadly, they often do), When something is filled with nothing but viscousness and malice from the beggining, that is as close as humans get to the heart of evil.
"His madness keeps him sane, doesn't it?"
"Do you think he is the only one?"
|
|
|
| by -
Shakra
(Sat Dec 14 00:56:51)
|
|
There are those that believe that no evil exists in this world. Although I follow Wicca to some degree, I do believe that there is evil in this world. However, my best friend does not believe in evil.
One day, we were having tea in this little cafe in Lavenham, England. There's a point about explaining where we were at. Anyway, I asked her to explain Hitler if there was no evil in the world. Now, think...we're sitting in this little cafe in England...a country that the Nazis nearly destroyed. She says, "Hitler wasn't evil, he was part of a divine plan. Because of what he did, people from all over the world united." Before you start attacking my friend, think about what she said. Although I do not agree with it, I can definitely see her point. She is one of those people who always looks for the positive in everything. Anyway, we were treated pretty rudely by the wait staff after that discussion.
So I'll define evil like this - Evilness is only labeled "evil" once somebody in power defines it as so. Don't believe me? Why was it evil for Hitler to attempt genocide and it wasn't any big deal when the U.S. killed all those Native Americans? Yes, I am an American. Not an anti-American statement, just food for thought. After all...how many tribes were killed off completely by the settlers?
From now on, whenever anyone thinks of wood, they'll think of Trojan.
|
|
|
Strangely enough, Shaktra, I do see the point in your friend's argument. Good things actually did come from Hitler's efforts and it is entirely possible that his actions were indeed part of some divine plan. In fact, as a divine determinist (one who believes that everything that occurs in the history of the universe is ultimately controlled by an omniscient being) I myself must confess to personally holding such a belief.
However, having this "ultimate perspective" on the events of human history does not change the fact that we are still a part of it. Therefore looking at Hitler, not from the transcendant level but coming from the same level as him, I would call his actions evil. One can still acknowledge the evil in any given situation while recognizing that good can come from it. I admire your friend's optimism and desire to accentuate the positive in everything, to always look for the silver lining in every raincloud, but if in fact there really is no such thing as evil and everything in that happens in the world is really good, then why do we human beings naturally feel so wronged and recognize the injustice when we get mistreated or see anyone else abused? To say that the act of leading an organized industrialization of mass genocide is ultimately no different than the act of selflessly saving thousands of lives is to essentially just flip over the chess board. There are no rules anymore. Anything goes. No act is any better or worse than any other act. So, like you, I would have to disagree with your friend's statement that Hitler was not evil nor were his actions evil. Of course, I do not think that the killing off of Native Americans by the early settlers was right either. Am I making any sense, or am I totally incomprehensible at this point? Where I am it's pretty late right now and I'm tired.
P.S. This is a great topic! I have been thoroughly impressed by and enjoyed reading all the previous posts. It has caused me to think quite a bit, and I've really learned something in the process. This is good stuff (as opposed to evil stuff). 
"The only way to have a happy ending is not to tell the rest of the story."
|
|
|
| by -
Shakra
(Sat Dec 14 02:54:01)
|
|
Actually, it's Shakra, but that's okay. No...I do agree with you that there is evil. As a society, I believe that there has be rules, whether they're lawful or moral. Without them, we would have a chaotic society.
I suppose my point is twofold: One, evil is subjective. Two, an evil act may depend on what side of the fence you're sitting on.
From now on, whenever anyone thinks of wood, they'll think of Trojan.
|
|
|
| by -
Alizarin
(Sun Dec 15 06:18:46)
|
|
| UPDATED Sun Dec 15 06:20:26 |
It's an interesting point you've made Shakra, and it's easy enough to see what your friend was driving at. I just wonder what she would say to any girl who has ever been raped? The relatives and friends of the victims of Son of Sam, Ed Gein or Myra Hindley and Ian Brady?
Does she have a reason why, in Hitler's case, so many inoccent people had to die to unite the rest? That could very well be interpreted as evil in itself.
Taking it back even further - I wonder what purpose the slaying of the muslims by the knights of the crusade served? Even further still - in Alexandria, AD 415, what purpose came from a bunch of Christian monks scraping the skin from Hypatia's bones with abalone shells while she was still alive for being a mathemitician, and later, razing the Bibliotheca Alexandrina to the ground, destroying the world's greatest repository of wisdom, learning and knowledge?
Just my view on it - optimism IMO can only deal with so many circumstances and at other times it becomes a euphamism for blissful ignorance.
Al
:)
Yet dawn is ever the hope of men...
|
|
|
| by -
BB-15
(Sun Dec 15 10:54:58)
|
|
Hi; Alizarin & Shakra; Al you said;
"it's easy enough to see what your friend was driving at. I just wonder what she would say to any girl who has ever been raped? The relatives and friends of the victims of Son of Sam, Ed Gein or Myra Hindley and Ian Brady?
1. New Thought
I'm going to guess at where Shakra's friend got this idea that there is no evil. There are several religious groups associated with the title; New Thought. These groups include; Religious Science and Unity. I've attended both of those churches.
An early definition about evil from an influential group called the Metaphysical Club of Boston, founded in 1895 is;
"Evil then can have no place in the world of permanent reality and power. It is not denied that it exists now, but only as an accompaniement of incompleteness...the absence of good...Sin, and moral evil are largely an ignorant selfishness, ignorant of an Almighty Love under whose divine providence all things work together for good to those who obey its law." Spirts in Rebellion: The Rise and Development of New Thought, p. 10
So, what is called "evil" is a real behavior but in the greater scheme of the universe since God/Spirit is good and God/Spirit is throughout the universe, "evil" is ultimately not real.
2. The Eastern Religions - Reality as illusion
Is it a coincedence that religious movements denying the reality of evil were started at the same time that people in the West became aware of the relgions of the East which believe that all reality is illusion.
In Hinduism there are the famous concepts of Brahman and Maya. To be at one with Brahman/Atman your ego is to be absorbed. This is a state like meditation in Buddhism described as Nirvana. This is a state beyond good and evil. This is supposed to be the ultimate reality.
Maya is the state of the world we live in. It is an illusion but since that is where we are, we live in that illusion and continue to live there through reincarnation until we reach Brahman or Nirvana.
3. Using Christian terms to explain these ideas
Using Christian terms, Heaven would be the ultimate reality and living on earth would be an illusion. There is no evil in Heaven and so evil is an illusion. In this religious system there is no Hell. A soul keeps being reincarnated until their soul is worthy of Heaven.
4. My problems with these conceptions
I am not an Angel or God or a Supernova or a Galaxy. I live in the physical world. I can meditate but soon I am back in the physical reality. That is where I live and that is where we all live. I can imagine a far away ultimate reality but I live in this reality.
Where we live in the physical world there are actions that would be called evil by people around the world. There is a concensus today for instance that genocide, torture, rape are evil. People may do those things anyway. They may rationalize their actions. But once these actions are judged, they will be called what they are evil.
Have a good one, BB ;-)
|
|
|
All I can really think to say right now is that it's damn scary knowing people can bend their perception to take on any ideal, no matter how strange, in order to believe they are right. 
Al
:)
Yet dawn is ever the hope of men...
|
|
|
| by -
Shakra
(Sun Dec 15 22:15:01)
|
|
Many Wiccans also believe that there is no evil in this world and she is closest to that religion in her ideologies than in any other. Although I do know that she deals somewhat with Eastern religions.
Personally, if I could be as optomistic as her, I would do it. This woman is one of the most beautiful creatures on the face of this earth. I'm not talking outer beauty so much as inner beauty. She is going to be 60 years old this April and you'd be shocked to discover that if you ever met her. She has endless amounts of energy. If she dyed her hair, she could pass for 45 easily, and she certainly hasn't had any enhancements. All you feel from her is unconditional love. I tried to get her to adopt me, but...I think I have to do more begging.
Still, I wonder if we shall ever be put into songs or tales. (Samwise)
|
|
|
| by -
BB-15
(Mon Dec 16 11:00:55)
|
|
| UPDATED Mon Dec 16 12:24:19 |
Hi Shakra; I know a few people involved in various nature religion traditions whether Native American or Wiccan. All of them are very nice and it is a pleasure to know them.
Your friend sounds like a spiritual loving person. Isn't it great to have friends like that?
Anyway, just a few more thoughts on the topic.
I guess all I was saying is that underneath the statement "I do not believe in evil" there is usually a philosophy that;
* Recognizes that the terrible events that happen in the physical world are wrong.
* That the word "evil" is not believed in due to either not wanting to give that word power or because it would deny the goodness of the universe or that this reality is an illusion.
* That all "evil" events are part of a divine plan. A version of the physical reality as illusion idea.
If people have a hang up with the word evil, then I might use the term "bad things" just so we can communicate about terrible events that happen in the world or tragic events in our personal lives. At that point it becomes just an issue of vocabulary.
Examples; Whether it is the Dali Lama talking about the Chinese occupation of Tibet, Wiccans talking about the burning of witches or Native Americans talking about the slaughter of their people; while they may deny the concept of evil, all of those folks IMHO have some problem with these events and would give them some negative label such as "wrong" or "bad".
Have a good one, BB ;-)
|
|
|
| by -
Aule
(Mon Dec 16 13:27:39)
|
|
Hi BB-15, I was hoping you'd stop by for this one.
I think that "bad things" and "evil" are not the same. Certainly evil involves bad things, but bad things doesn't necessarily involve evil. As you pointed out, it depends on your definition of evil, but that is what I'm trying to get at. Bad things refers to results. Evil, I think, necessarily involves intent to cause bad things to happen. It would be bad if my friend died. It would be evil if I maliciously and intentionally caused his death or events leading to his death.
I think that these people that deny the existence of evil are referring to evil as some sort of force or entity. I can't see how they can deny that evil intent exists.
Further, I think that looking at life as an illusion is counter-productive from a practical perspective. If life is an illusion, then everything within it is too. What's the point of that? Whatever the ultimate role of life is in this universe, it's what we're experiencing and we're trying to form a basis of understanding of this experience. So, within this reality, we have to consider the meaning of things as they pertain to us. Good and evil are a part of that.
|
|
|
| by -
BB-15
(Tue Dec 17 13:38:35)
|
|
Hi Aule; In my comments I was trying to broaden the definition of evil which IMHO is appropriate to the spirit of Tolkien's myth to not stress allegory but various interpretations, applicability.
So, from the start I tried to get away from traditional images of evil, the Devil for instance and popular icons that follow that path, the film the Exocist for instance. As you said;
"I think that these people that deny the existence of evil are referring to evil as some sort of force or entity."
So, I began with broad definitions of wrong doing that are accepted in many cultures; sin, Karma, taboo. In everyday language; wrong or bad.
IMHO this is where we need to begin.
"Evil, I think, necessarily involves intent to cause bad things to happen."
Yes, but I'd qualify it a bit more. The being or thing that intends to cause harm needs to be informed of the difference between good and evil to be clearly labeled as evil.
In Tolkien's terms the evil forces in his myth; Morgoth, Sauron, the balrog, know the rules. These are intelligent entities who choose not to follow a moral course but instead choose to cause bad things to happen. If you don't know right from wrong, how can you be evil?
The Ring is an encouragement to do evil through the seduction of power and championing of some cause. The Ring only corrupts those who are ambitious; not with the Hobbits who do not thirst for power or have an ideology to promote. Saruman is the classic example of the well intentioned becoming tyrant and butcher. How many times has history given us those examples in the relgious wars, the Inquisition, the French and Russian Revolutions and with the 19th & 20th century genocides that are always justified but in which people should have known better.
The problem of evil in our society IMHO is not that we are ignorant but that we do not follow what we know. We are too greedy, too unwilling to compromise, too willing to push our agenda. Even in the "free world" there are death squads, torture and the bombing of the innocent. That is how I apply the concept of evil from Tolkien's myth.
Have a good one, BB ;-)
|
|
|
| by -
Shakra
(Mon Dec 16 15:55:07)
|
|
If people have a hang up with the word evil...
That is the point. She says that nothing is evil until it is labeled as such. Along those same lines, it's like cursing. Who decided that "damn" was a bad word and why?
However, this all leads back to the beginning of the conversation about who decides what is evil. Evil always seems to be a label we hang on others or other countries. Hell, even Ted Bundy's mom supported him to the end and didn't believe he did anything until he started spewing his guts at the end.
You bring up something very interesting when you talk about Wiccans and the burning of witches. It confirms my "evil being on which side of the fence" theory. These "God fearing" people were trying eradicate "evilness" from society by burning witches, who they felt worshiped the devil. Quite interesting since wiccans didn't even believe in the devil or evilness at all. Besides which, most of those killed had absolutely nothing to do with witchcraft. They were closer to what we would call midwives.
I was going to say that I'm sure that, looking back, a lot of people do look at the situation as evil on the part of the inquisitors. Granted, the tortures they used were horrendous and I've often wondered what kind of mind could come up with devices like that, but I don't feel that they were evil so much as completely ignorant. They probably felt that they were doing God's work, yet something as simple as a freckle on the nose could get you labeled as a witch.
Sorry, sweetie...I could go on and on about that time period, but this is long enough.
Still, I wonder if we shall ever be put into songs or tales. (Samwise)
|
|
|
| by -
BB-15
(Tue Dec 17 09:08:48)
|
|
Hi Shakra;
"She says that nothing is evil until it is labeled as such.'
Yes, I understand that idea. As I said in my original post, I've attended the Unity and Religious Science churches and they define the concept of evil in a similar way.
"Evil always seems to be a label we hang on others or other countries."
Again, I agree. At a young age I spoke my mind about our nation being wrong in our treatment of Native Americans and our involvement in the war in Vietnam. I think the measure of good and bad should be applied to everyone, including ourselves.
"I've often wondered what kind of mind could come up with devices like that, but I don't feel that they were evil so much as completely ignorant."
That's a painful subject to read about. Why human beings can sometimes be so cruel to others is at its deepest level a mystery IMHO.
Thanks for the reply and take care, BB ;-)
|
|
|
I am a Christian, and that is not what I believe. According to what I know and understand about my own faith, we do believe in evil. We also do not believe that earth is merely an illusion. Our belief is that we are merely living out our mortal lives here on earth and when we die we join God in heaven. Ever heard the phrase "not of this world?" That kind of applies to Christians. I don't say that to sound superior or anything. That is just one of the phrases that is part of our faith. I have heard it in church many times.
I am not trying to start a religious or spiritual debate. I just felt I had to state what I believe and what many Christians believe.
:)
|
|
|
| by -
Shakra
(Sun Dec 15 22:05:12)
|
|
Hell, bud...you're closer to her than I am. You go pick her brain.
Still, I wonder if we shall ever be put into songs or tales. (Samwise)
|
|
|
| by -
LisaQ
(Sat Dec 14 11:58:20)
|
|
| UPDATED Sat Dec 14 12:00:22 |
However, we have the foresight and knowledge to look back and state that what occurred was wrong, just as in Nazi Germany.......even though we are Americans.
I do believe in absolutes. If the intent is to maliciously hurt someone else, it is absolutely wrong.
Our lives can change with every breath we take
|
|
|
| by -
Shakra
(Sat Dec 14 13:06:22)
|
|
But...was it the intention to be evil at the time? Hindsight is always 20/20.
From now on, whenever anyone thinks of wood, they'll think of Trojan.
|
|
|
| by -
Ptero-valley
(Fri Dec 13 22:22:04)
|
|
| UPDATED Fri Dec 13 22:25:04 |
Evil is "live" spelled backwards. A good definition of evil is that which attempts to kill life, either physically, psychologically or spiritually.
What happened to the elves (that were turned into orcs) in Tolkien was a spiritual death, done to them by a great evil.
|
|
|
"His madness keeps him sane, doesn't it?"
"Do you think he is the only one?"
|
|
|
| by -
Aule
(Sat Dec 14 11:26:32)
|
|
I know what you're getting at, but I think the definition is incomplete. Death is not evil, killing is not necessarily evil. It depends upon reason and intent. Killing and death are a part of nature.
|
|
|
People who are evil (I'm not talking about the balances of ecological systems, or nature, here) attack others instead of facing their own failures.
|
|
|
Yet dawn is ever the hope of men...
|
|
|
I don't believe LOTR has anything to do with WW2, or any war in particular.
Tolkien's thoughts on evil seem to be based around ones desire to acquire power, the more power you get the more Evil you get.
So if you get absolute power, Evil gets you.
Politicians therefore must be the most evil folk out ;)
I don't hold with an absolute existence of an evil force, conscious or not. And the same must therefore be said of Good.
But ... subjectively ... YES!
In most societies Good and Evil are defined, some more clearly than others.
Bottom line is you KNOW when you do something morally wrong, though some are very good at lying - even to themselves. If you were ever in doubt you were not doing the right thing, it usually becomes obvious after the act if it wasn't the right choice.
Why that is, is another question.
Clue - animals seem to know instinctively.
Regards Evolbob
"If I had absolute power, I'd be very kind to everyone - just to annoy some"
|
|
|
... if I won't be able to make my point all that clear, I find it hard to express myself when it comes to such topics.
The nature of evil is one of those things that can't be pondered over without their opposite component. It is noticeable that there some things in this world that we consider bad: death, illness, poverty and sadness to name a few. But it seems to me the only reason that we do think all the above are bad, is because we love their opposites dearly: life, health, welfare and joy.
The same thing has to be applied in the case of evil. The only way that we can reflect what evil is, is to set a standard on what we consider good. And there is the problem. The standards that set an action as good or bad change all the time (IMO). We say the murder of another man is bad, and it is punished by the law, but when it comes to war, the murder isn't punishable; it's even awarded, because it means that that person has done his duty for his country, which is good. Cannibalism, to set another example, is condemned by a lot of cultures, but, then again, one HAS to become a cannibal, when his own life depends on it (remember those plane crash survivors?).
I think that the same principal can be applied in every other occasion and action. Hitler's actions are condemned now, because they caused the suffering and death of a lot of people. But back then, I'm sure Hitler wasn't thinking anything of that sort (Oh, I'll kill so many people and I love it!). He was probably thinking that he was saving his country and making it a better place to live in.
I guess, as some people said earlier, an action can be judged as good or evil by the outcome of it (what has been gained by that action and what hasn't - again a matter of balance). And still there can be no clear answer...
YOU SHALL NOT PASS! 
|
|
|
Glad you are pondering this subject Beregond. And you do express your self well. No need to beg though.
Over at the Philosophy NG they "discus" this and other subjects, and I have a lot of fun 
Evil only exists when defined as such.
Had America lost the war after "A" bombing Hiroshima, that decision to bomb would be seen as Evil, and by implication - all Americans.
Do you know what is right or wrong in any situation?
Try this scenario.
A man is sentenced to death. He says he is innocent. Just before the execution a man in the invited gallery barges though and before anyone can stop him, he shoots the condemned prisoner.
"Take that you bastard for killing my son" he yells.
It transpires that the son is not dead and the condemned man was telling the truth.
1 Does it matter, even if the condemned man was guilty, should the father be charged?
2 Has an evil act occurred that would have been worse than the execution?
3 Lets say they let the father off, because they feel sorry for him. But later on the police find evidence that the son was killed by his father. Legally nothing can be done.
4 What was the greater evil act, - letting him off?, - executing an innocent person?, - the fathers 2 killings for which he can not be punished for?, - or the law for the way it is written?
Another story of a couple that insured their children for $1,000,000 then killed them for the money. At trial the mother was charged because the father turned states evidence, and she was subsequently convicted. After sentencing he came forward to the judge and said he lied and he was the guilty party.
Needless to say after she was acquitted, the story got changed again. They both had conspired to create a situation of 'Double Jeopardy', by then no one could be charged.
The question here is - because the law is designed to protect the innocent the way it is - is that not evil because it can be taken advantage of?
Something to ponder.
Regards Evolbob
|
|
|
I don't need to beg? Good, just when my knees were starting to ache... (stands up with relief) 
Now, getting serious, your question seems simple enough at first glance, but again it's a matter of balancing things (and still of not getting any clear and straightforward answer, I'm afraid to say...).
You see, I can say that the law itself is not evil, but the people that twist it for their own purposes are. And then I'll most probably get as an answer that the law could be designed in a way that it will not be twisted and thus the criminals would get to be punished. Than the counterpoint, that flexibilities have to be applied so that innocent wrongly convicted would get a chance, could pop up... and the debate would go on forever without any result; it's quite depressing.
It seems that the answer lies on how you decide to look upon things (set of standards again; and this time, it's individual's standards).
P.S I can't help it, but this whole thread reminds me of a very pessimistic quote I heard some time ago: "When I was a child, everything was simple: there was good and evil, black and white; and then I grew up to discover that everything was grey..."
YOU SHALL NOT PASS!
|
|
|
| by -
LisaQ
(Sat Dec 14 12:08:46)
|
|
| UPDATED Sat Dec 14 12:10:19 |
1 Does it matter, even if the condemned man was guilty, should the father be charged?
2 Has an evil act occurred that would have been worse than the execution?
3 Lets say they let the father off, because they feel sorry for him. But later on the police find evidence that the son was killed by his father. Legally nothing can be done.
4 What was the greater evil act, - letting him off?, - executing an innocent person?, - the fathers 2 killings for which he can not be punished for?, - or the law for the way it is written?
Another story of a couple that insured their children for $1,000,000 then killed them for the money. At trial the mother was charged because the father turned states evidence, and she was subsequently convicted. After sentencing he came forward to the judge and said he lied and he was the guilty party.
Needless to say after she was acquitted, the story got changed again. They both had conspired to create a situation of 'Double Jeopardy', by then no one could be charged.
The question here is - because the law is designed to protect the innocent the way it is - is that not evil because it can be taken advantage of?
1&2. Yes it matters and the father should be charged because the law states (whether you agree or no) that capital punishment is to be determined only by the state and only after a fair trial by the peers. To burst in and shoot the man before he is executed forestalls any chance at that infamous last minute reprieve should it occur. He kills for vengeance not for punishment. Good or evil in its own merit, who knows.....but that's a different dilemma.
3. Legally the man can be charged for a first degree murder for the original condmened man.
4. That's to presume he was 'let off'. In this day and age, that probably wouldn't occur. Looking for degrees of evil, IMHO, can be as pointless in looking at degrees of beauty. While I agree that murder is evil, IMHO, child molestation is much more so...to others, rape would be. Evil is evil is evil.
5. The law is designed to afford the most protection for the innocent as well as the suspect. There are flaws simply because of that fact. BTW, in your example, is it the law that is the 'evil' or those that take advantage of its merits?
Our lives can change with every breath we take
|
|
|
| by -
Aule
(Sat Dec 14 12:29:15)
|
|
There is much debate regarding the subject of jurisprudence. Is punishment just punishment? In other words, something related to vengeance?
Is punishment a deterant? Does a weighty punishment deter would be criminals from committing acts of violence or engaging in criminal activities?
Is it meant to reform?
Or, is it meant simply to protect? By this, I mean are we simply removing transgressors from society, thereby removing the threat?
I think that to some degree, all of the above should apply, but most importantly, the last. Personally, I don't care whether someone was insane or not when they wantonly murdered several people. Remove the risk. If they can be cured or reformed then great, but I doubt this happens with any regularity.
Punishment probably does deter to some degree, but I believe that primarily, the law should serve to remove dangerous elements from society.
But there is a distinction between wrong and evil. One is an incorrect choice and the other is enacted with malicious intent.
By the way, I agree about the father shooting the accused. There is no question that any system of law will be flawed because there are limitless possibilities, but we must follow the system set in place because it attempts to provide an impartial mechanism for judgement. Fortunately, the system in place is inherently open to change.
|
|
|
| by -
LisaQ
(Sat Dec 14 16:57:26)
|
|
I agree totally. I don't care either. In my father's case, IMHO, if they give him one year in jail, that's one year I know that he won't be drinking and driving with the possibility of killing someone.
I find it humerous and disgusting at once to see how we bend over backwards to 'reform' criminals. When the penal system was harsher, it seemed people had more fear of going to prison than they do now. It is a joke. The first time my father spent time in county jail (for DUI), he said "boot camp was harder. It wasn't tough at all, just boring". So, now, if he goes again.......no biggie to him. IMHO, we do all we can do to protect ourselves from dangerous animals, why should we not do the same against man, an animal that can reason and can sink into all depths of depravity.
Richard Ramirez, The Night Stalker serial rapist, when he was arrested, was bought a new suit to dress him up for court AND......AND had his teeth fixed all at taxpayers expense. One of the identifying characteristics of Ramirez were his gnarly teeth. Why in the world would they even consider doing this before he went to trial? To confuse, possibly, the witnesses.....what a perversion. Also, if it had never been an issue before, aside from serious health considerations, why should it have been done at all? Why do criminals have cable tv and weight rooms or conjugal visits? It is supposed to be 'hard time'. Anyway, I stray yet again.
I think the penal system should be about punishment. I am personally acquainted with a two time felon, coke whore who has been successfully through all the reform programs in prison, to no avail. I say spend time on energy on prevention before hand, not on changing those after. But then, you know what a hardliner I can be.
Our lives can change with every breath we take
|
|
|
| by -
Aule
(Sat Dec 14 11:47:27)
|
|
Some really good points. I like the reference to the plane crash (it was a soccer team or something that crashed in the Andes mountains, I believe).
However, you said:
I guess, as some people said earlier, an action can be judged as good or evil by the outcome of it (what has been gained by that action and what hasn't - again a matter of balance). And still there can be no clear answer...
I don't think the outcome is part of the determination of whether it is evil or not. It is just a result. If, while walking by a panel, I pressed a button out of curiosity, and it launched a nuclear missile which killed millions of people, would that be evil? The outcome would be horrendous, but the act would not be considered evil. Perhaps irresponsible or unlucky, but not evil. If the button was clearly labeled "Launch Nuclear Missile" then it could be considered evil.
|
|
|
I see your point, Aule. And thank you for reminding me that one's intentions is an important factor as well... 
YOU SHALL NOT PASS!
|
|
|
This is a difficult question, Aule. Part of me wants to believe in a universal standard for good and evil, but another part of me can't quite make the stretch.
I do not believe in a universal standard for Truth, and I think that whether a thing conforms to Truth or not is the primary measure for judging it as good or evil. In other words, for me, the concept of good and evil is a function of the relative PC value of Truth. 
It makes sense to talk about these things in our ordinary daily lives, because we must deal with events in order to get by in life. As Shakra pointed out, it's possible to view Hitler in a very different light if one considers the effect of his acts, but people of his time had to deal with his direct acts, so they needed to regard him as evil.
And perhaps that's the key to understanding good and evil. Every act has consequences, so a very evil act, such as Hitler's, can also be seen in light of its consequences. Do good consequences change the degree to which an act is seen as evil? Or does that only say something about the consequences? I am completely undecided about this. The problem with that argument is that it's hard to make sense of it the other way around: if your intended good act turns out to have evil consequences, does that make it an evil act or you an evil person? I don't think most people would agree with that.
And then what about the influence of others? Are you still good if you were influenced by someone else to do something evil? Is your level of understanding a factor? Are Orcs evil if they were made to be the way they are and never taught about good?
Thanks for opening up this very interesting topic, Aule!
"I sang of leaves, of leaves of gold, and leaves of gold there grew..."
|
|
|
| by -
Aule
(Sat Dec 14 10:32:55)
|
|
I think it depends largely on the scope in which we are considering the question.
On a truly universal level, we would be considering all of reality, both perceived and otherwise, from the sub-atomic to the maximum reaches of the universe, and perhaps beyond. It's an impossible task because we know so little about ourselves and what we can perceive, let alone the undoubtedly vast amounts of knowledge that we have yet to attain. Even what we do know is only what we think we know at this time. It think that the combined intelligence of all of the people that have ever lived would not be able to comprehend all that there is.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, we cannot predict the position, momentum and behaviour of sub-atomic particles. "The more precisely the position is determined, the less precisely the momentum is known in this instant, and vice versa. By attempting to predict, we are affecting the behaviour of the particles, and thus changing it. So, we can never know. If it is impossible to "know" at this level, then it follows that it is impossible to know at any level above that. Admittedly, Heisenberg may have been wrong, but this just further confuses things.
The question as to the nature of evil inevitably involves the question as to the existence of a supreme being, God, or gods, or whatever may have been responsible for creation - if there is such a thing as creation. Stemming from this is the concept of determinism versus free will, which involves entropy.
To believe in determinism is to believe that there is a being or entity or force that actively controls and manipulates every particle in existence. There are billions of galaxies with billions of planets and perhaps levels of existence that we will never knowingly encounter. A being capable of such control would be unimaginable to us.
Does God exist? Certainly not in the way that anyone alive today or that has ever lived or will live understands it. If such a being existed, it would be neither good nor evil, or both, since that being created everything. Whether such a being exists or not, things just are. That is, particles interact and react and combine to form molecules, and to create and destroy, and expand and contract, and so forth. So good and evil don't actually exist except within a context that we can perceive based on our severely limited understanding of things. So, is there a universal evil? Perhaps, but not within the bounds of our understanding.
The very fact that we must examine this from our own perspective is evidence that good and evil are subjective. What we see as good and evil today, in our respective cultures, is sometimes quite different from what another culture, in another time would perceive. When we examine the actions of individuals and civilizations from history, we must keep this in mind. We judge things on our own standards. In order to judge these actions, we must do so in relation to the perceptions and moral ideals of the time, as well as our own, and others that existed before and after.
Good and evil, I believe, are relative, and are determined by our cultural beliefs and relative understanding of life. In the short time that human beings have existed, self preservation seems to be the one constant that has prevailed. We seek to survive, prosper, and propogate our kind. That is good, because it is in keeping with nature. But it is not good if it is taken too far, and results in the unnecessary destruction of others or of other forms of life or if it ultimately leads to our own destruction.
I think we are born amoral. We have the instinct for survival, but no real propensity for treating others well or not. We learn, through nurture and experience, that treating others in a civilized manner is conducive to a better set of circumstances for us to survive and prosper. Chemical imbalances can cause individuals to vary in their relative understanding of this, or their ability to suppress agressive tendencies or the reverse, but in general, I believe that morality is mostly a product of learning.
Within our own context, we have to define what good and evil are. Is it evil for a lion to kill an antelope? No, because the lion is doing so for it's own survival and the survival of it's pride and ultimately it's species.
Is it evil for one man to kill another? Sometimes. If I kill someone who is attempting to kill me, it is self preservation. There is no evil in that, unless I was doing something that gave just cause for my assailant to attempt to kill me.
If I think about killing someone for no just reason, but never attempt to do so, is that evil? I don't think so, because it would mean that I thought about it, and decided against it.
If I think about killing someone for no just reason, actually try, but don't succeed, is that evil? I believe it is, because the intent was followed by the act, even though no harm was done.
If I inadvertently kill someone, without intent, is that evil. I think not. It would be a tragedy, but it wouldn't be evil. I believe that evil, as it pertains to our known reality, must involve malicious intent and subsequent action. The degree of evil is determined by the intended result, not the result itself.
So, I believe that evil, as it pertains to us, is the intent to knowingly and maliciously cause harm (in any form) combined with corresponding action (or in some cases inaction), not just to human beings but any life, without just cause or rational reason. From the perspective of human beings, I believe this is as close to a universal concept of evil as we can get.
Sorry for the long post.
|
|
|
It seems as if we are defining the scope of good and evil here, which is helpful, because if I think of the Universe, the whole concept of Good/Evil becomes meaningless. If you define it in terms of human experience and human drives, it takes on manageable parameters.
treating others in a civilized manner is conducive to a better set of circumstances for us to survive and prosper
This is an interesting thought. I have just been reading some 18th and 19th century philosophers and economists who hold the same opinion, that morality and ethics are based on enlightened self-interest. Those who act for the betterment of society and who encourage unity and common cause are 'good' and those who act against it are 'evil'. I found this same line of thought in Hegel, who suggested that the ideas that act for the unification of all things in the final Concept are the 'good' and those things that work against this ultimate unification of being are 'evil'.
This kind of thinking makes it possible to include in 'good' a lot of questionable acts, however, such as war. And there is an interesting consequence- if you consider that certain advancements to society would not have occured with the stimulus of discovering, countering and overcoming evil acts. I'm thinking of medical advancements that have resulted from scientific research originally used to support warfare.
Another unusual twist here, is that we could begin to view evil as the necessary precursor to good. Can a thing be perceived as 'good' unless it is in contrast to something not good? It's a question of awareness. Looking at Lisa's examples, those are some pretty evil practices. Yet, consider- the practices are discovered. They are defined as evil. They are overcome. We progress. We are now aware of yet another thing that is evil and to be avoided and overcome. We are smarter, more compassionate, and closer to ultimate Unity.
So, Aule, should the real question be "the necessity of evil"?
"I sang of leaves, of leaves of gold, and leaves of gold there grew..."
|
|
|
| by -
Aule
(Sat Dec 14 16:08:29)
|
|
So, Aule, should the real question be "the necessity of evil"?
Necessity or inevitability? If an act is necessary, then can it be described as evil? Isn't it all just possibility and resultant behaviour?
We have choices. We make them. Some are good, some are bad. We, as a society, label them as good or bad. We form these designations based on what our society has deemed right and wrong, which all goes back to the root cause, which is survival and prosperity, but is still dependant upon our perception of things.
The concept of good cannot exist without the concept of evil because it would be meaningless. It is good, because it is not evil, and vice versa. Otherwise, it simply is, so there is no need to label it. Now, if you are referring to bad things happening being necessary (and I think you are), then yes, absolutely this is necessary. Otherwise, we'd have unmanageable overpopulation, for example. Nature has a way of balancing things, even within our species. Death is necessary, however hard it is to take.
And yes, I see your point about evil/bad things being a catalyst for progress. We learn from our mistakes. Great point. If we made no mistakes, then how could we possibly know what not to do? If there is no need, then why do we strive to learn? But you know, the more we learn, the more we realize how little we know. We are infants and probably always will be.
Great post, Athene!! You've got me thinking about all sorts of things. Thanks!
|
|
|
| by -
damianarlyn
(Sat Dec 14 23:38:52)
|
|
| UPDATED Sun Dec 15 00:02:21 |
I would have to humbly disagree that the concept of goodness requires evil in order for it to exist. It seems to me that evil presupposes goodness but that goodness does not necessarily presuppose evil. Goodness, as I understand it, is so much more than simply the "negation of evil." Goodness is one of those universal concepts which we are naturally born with and use as a foundation with which to build any and all knowledge (if you don't believe in the tabula rasa, i.e. "black slate," idea). Evil depends upon goodness for it's exsitence, but goodness does not need evil to exist. Goodness has more ontological reality than evil does. It has more substance.
In this sense I am heavily influenced by Greek philosophy. Socrates believed that knowledge resided within all humans, including his students (they just didn't know it) and he saw it as his "job" to draw that knowledge out of them using his "method." He was alway trying to find the universal defintion of any given conecpt that could then be applied to any and all instances, but he was constatntly acknowledging his failure to do so because he would always find one circumstance that was an exception. Thus, he would facetiously conclude that "I guess we can't really know what goodness is" when all along he was attempting to prove that we all really do know what goodness is. Socrates was a moral objectivist but not an absolutist.
It seems to me that, even though we can't satisfactorily describe goodness, we don't need to because deep-down we all really understand it. "Good" is a category that we use to sift all other ideas into place in our own minds. Evil is pretty easy to describe. It's a rebellion against what's good, but goodness (like justice, mercy, love and other such concepts) cannot be defined using our own fallible language. However, we can recognize it when we see it. It's like trying to define yellow. You can't. You just point at it and say "That's it."
|
|
|
| by -
Aule
(Sun Dec 15 10:00:23)
|
|
The concept of good cannot exist without it's opposite, and everything in between. If there was no such concept as evil or bad, then everyone would simply behave exactly the same. There can't be a "less good", without there being negative aspects to apply to the behaviour.
If only good existed, then every time you asked somebody how they felt, the answer would inevitably be "good". Every movie would be "good". The term becomes meaningless because it applies to either nothing or everything. If I have 10 apples and you have 5, who has more? I do, but only because negatives exist. I can't have more if you don't have less. Without the concept of "less", despite the fact that I have 10 and you have 5, we'd have the same number of apples.
You can't have big without small, fat without skinny, tall without short, light without dark. Actually, dark is the absence of light, so I suppose you could say that evil is the absence of good, but then again, I think something can lack any semblance of good, and still not be evil - just sort of there, serving no purpose, harming nobody but benefitting nobody. If there was no such thing as dark, then nothing but light could possibly exist.
Good cannot exist without evil, and evil cannot exist without good. What is in question is our definitions of these terms. Describing anything as good presupposes that there is a "not good" or "evil" or "bad". Now, bad and evil are not necessarily the same, but sometimes are, so good has two meanings here. One instance describes a result, the other describes an intent or purpose.
Without opposites, a concept ceases to exist, because it describes nothing. For every action, there is an equal but opposite reaction. For every concept, there is an equal but opposite concept.
Beyond that, your statement "It seems to me that, even though we can't satisfactorily describe goodness, we don't need to because deep-down we all really understand it." is based on a subjective approach. That is, you are supposing that good is universal, and so we all "know" what is good, but we only know what is good because we know what is not good too. And all of it is dependant upon our definitions of these terms and our understanding of the universe around us. What we consider good today, may not be considered good in a thousand years, or by another culture.
|
|
|
| by -
eidge
(Thu Dec 19 07:21:22)
|
|
IMHO, I always thought that the nature of good and evil is based on how one perceives the truth. "Good" is the upholding of the truth, while "evil" is the exact opposite. Gray areas occur when we people are having difficulty perceiving the absolute truth. In the same light, good can be perceived as evil because of a wrong perception of the absolute truth.
I don't know if I am making a point, it's just what I think.
|
|
|
| by -
Aule
(Thu Dec 19 09:00:51)
|
|
All sincere points are welcome in such a discussion, and I think that, at the very least, the question of good and evil involves the concept of truth, which leads to more questions, and so on. Thanks.
|
|
|
I realize that Platonic Idealism holds that the knowledge of goodness is a priori. I do not agree with this viewpoint. I believe that one cannot have awareness or knowledge of the quality of goodness, without the presence of evil.
My case is Adam and Eve who existed in a state of complete innocence in the Garden of Eden, until they partook of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. It was only at that moment that they were aware of the condition of goodness and the condition of evil (not-goodness). Up until then, they may have been good but they could not have knowledge that they were good. My argument is that the state of being good is not the same as having knowledge of good. I think Socrates was wrong in saying that this knowledge was present and only needed to be drawn out. It requires, in my opinion, awareness of evil to start the thought process of comparisons that leads to awareness of good.
So, I would say that goodness is a product of thought, and not the object of thought and that evil is a necessity if we are to be aware of goodness. Goodness and evil can both be defined with our languages because they are based on situations, not on a priori knowledge.
Although I'm disagreeing with your premise, I very much enjoyed your post.
"I sang of leaves, of leaves of gold, and leaves of gold there grew..."
|
|
|
| by -
sinaes
(Thu Dec 19 04:04:06)
|
|
| UPDATED Thu Dec 19 06:47:34 |
Sorry ... this is not my full reply. However, this is a long thread ... and I had to comment on something before I lost it.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, we cannot predict the position, momentum and behaviour of sub-atomic particles. "The more precisely the position is determined, the less precisely the momentum is known in this instant, and vice versa. By attempting to predict, we are affecting the behaviour of the particles, and thus changing it.
True.
So, we can never know. If it is impossible to "know" at this level, then it follows that it is impossible to know at any level above that. Admittedly, Heisenberg may have been wrong, but this just further confuses things.
At higher levels the uncertainties eventually cancel out. The more levels one moves away from the level of quarks and leptons ... the less bearing quantum mechanics has. At the universal level .. it's not even noticeable.
Furthermore ... not all things are the sum of their parts.
And as to Heisenberg being wrong ... well Einstein sure thought he was :)
But then again ... Einstein was used to looking at the universe from the top down.
|
|
|
| by -
LisaQ
(Sat Dec 14 11:54:26)
|
|
I think that there is an absolulte basis for good and evil. Absolutely morally bad things that occur, despite how it is viewed in the individual societies.
I agree with Wally in that history is written by the victors. I do still believe, however, that people will still know what absolutely wrong is. If the Nazis had been successful, don't you think that people would still know that it was or is wrong to kill because we don't like their race or religion? The problem that I see is that this 'evil' is allowed to proliferate because people are, in general, afraid to stand against the perceived majority or ruling party. How many people in Europe during WWII knew to a degree what was going on but did nothing to stop it to save themselves? Who knows....I just think that the majority of people are more concerned with self-preservation than care for others. Revolutions are started by minority groups. IMHO, it's when those groups have a modecum of success that others garner their courage.
In the world today, we have countries that abort babies because they are female. In our cultures, we know this to be wrong, we rail against it, yet in that individual society it is accepted. In countries today we have women being forcibly circumcized for whatever reason the male dominated society feels it to be necessary. In some countries it is okay to kill your children if they are disobedient (especially so if they are daughters), it is also okay to beat your wife. In many areas, children have no rights and very little protection. The weakest members of our society unprotected from the will and whim of adults who make decisions for them. Is this wrong? Absolutely!!!!!!! When knowledge and teaching of human rights and human dignity is paramount, I believe change has and can occur. But, change starts with all of us, individually.
We cannot wait for our neighbor to change. We cannot wait for our spouse or children to change. We have to effect a change in ourselves and mirror that for the world to see. Anyway, I'm falling away from the topic.
Tolkien's representation of evil, to me, is based a lot on the above principles. Greed, self-preservation, self-exhaltation. The fellowship, in particular Frodo, battle this evil not through might, but through self-control, self-giving, and friendship. I know this is very simplified, but hope it explains a bit what I think.
Great topic, BTW.
Our lives can change with every breath we take
|
|
|
Great answer Lisa. 
Yet dawn is ever the hope of men...
|
|
|
I have been reading all the posts, and several excellent and very valid points are made IMO. Actually, I am still trying to process it all and give a good response.:) But, here is what I believe.
I believe in evil.
I believe in God.
I do not believe God is partially evil.
I believe evil is the corruption of things good. I believe it is also, as others have said, malicious intent followed by action.
Coming from a Christian background, and also being one who wishes to consider carefully the opinions and thoughts of others, what I think and feel is rather hard to explain. It is more that I "feel" it inside. It is an instinctual reaction that I have to this topic and the posts that have followed.
I think C.S. Lewis said it better than I ever could in his book Mere Christianity. He starts out the book by saying we all have an inherent sense of good and evil, of knowing right and wrong, of realizing when we have been wronged. And yet why should that be? Where does it come from? He gradually works the book into an argument for Christianity and God, but his thought processes start out simple and logical and non religious. He gradually comes to the point of saying that God gave this inherent sense of right and wrong. And there is a lot of other stuff too, but you need to read the book for that. :)
I do believe that our sense of right and wrong comes from God, because I also believe in the concept of God giving us free will. Maybe that is why sometimes we ask, why would a benevelont creator allow evil to happen? Would you rather live in a world where all our decisions were made for us? I think the cost of having free will is that we must live with the fact that the free will of some includes actions and thoughts that we don't agree with.
But, in the end, I think it all comes back to humanity. Animals do not kill for pleasure. They do not abort babies, shoot people down in the street, murder, torture, rape, or do anything else we consider wrong or evil. They live. Simple as that. That is because that is all they know. They hunt, they eat, they sleep, they have babies, they die. They do not think and feel on the same level as we do. True, animals can love, but they do it unconditionally. Many humans do not.
Humans are complex beings, full of good and bad, beauty and ugliness, and all the other kind of "flip sides" you can think of. Life is duality. We have to live with both sides of the coin whether we like it or not.
Oh, dear, I fear I have strayed off topic. If I have, I am sorry. I hope some of this has made sense. I don't know quite how else to explain it unless I sit down and think for a really long time and write an essay or something.
:)
|
|
|
| by -
Aule
(Sat Dec 14 15:40:48)
|
|
Human beings are animals. We're just more intelligent than other animals. Because of that intelligence, we don't need to rely on our instincts like other animals do, so we don't. Take away the ability to create tools, start fire, our opposable thumbs, etc, and we'd be sniffing each other's butts just like other animals do.
Long ago, all we did was hunt, eat, sleep, have babies, and die. All of our time was consumed with survival, just as it is for the animals in the world today. Some animals do kill others within their own species, and who's to say whether or not some take pleasure in it or not? Animals may not abort babies, because they don't know how, but some animals do kill their young.
Why do dogs with full bellies chase cats (or anything else for that matter)? I've seen my dog leap into the air and catch a bird just taking off into flight and then just look at it. She had no interest in eating it. She walked away. It is instinct.
Everything that we, as human beings, do, is based on this as well, but due to our intelligence, we have created a much more complex society wherein instinct is no longer at the forefront of our behaviour. We temper instinct with more advanced thought and a vast societal structure. Living within this construct and suppressing some of our base instincts is the challenge. Those that can't are outcasts and criminals.
No offense to anyone here, but I think the idea that human beings are somehow special, and not just advanced animals, is ludicrous. If there is a God, then I believe that God would consider all life equally important, as it would be part of creation, which is a vast and complex interwoven system. If we have a soul, then so do dogs and cats and bears, etc. More than that, I think the idea that we are the most advanced beings in the universe is utterly arrogant and even more ludicrous. What are the odds that God created billions of galaxies, stars, quasars, nubulae, and quantum singularities just so that human life on this one small planet could exist and be tested?
Human beings like to think that we are special - apart from all other life. The Earth is more than 4 billion years old, and we've only been on it for some 50,000 years or so. And that's just one planet out of many billions of billions of planets. We are insignificant gnats in the greater scheme of things, and we are only beginning to discover just how insignificant.
We have a need to label things, so have come up with the terms beauty and ugliness, good and evil, etc. Who's to say that my dog doesn't appreciate beauty? I've seen her sitting in the back yard in autumn, just looking around as though she's appreciating the serenity and the smells of the season. She knows right from wrong, from her own perspective. Or at least, she knows what behaviour on her part will be considered good or bad by me. But, she'll also step over the line knowingly, despite this. Why? She is provided for. It's not just survival - it's pleasure. I can say to her "go get your bone". She'll look around for a moment, then stop, and all of a sudden race upstairs, and come running down with her bone. She reasoned it out. She remembered where she left it. Nah, we are more like other animals than we care to admit.
We are attracted to others because of things like fermones. Our biological state affects our behaviour, just as is the case with animals. Behaviour is affected by the female monthly cycle, for example, whether we care to admit it or not. Visually, the shape of a woman is a strong stimulus for males. We give off signals to potential mates just like other animals do. We eat food and we excrete urine and feces just like other mammals. Females produce eggs and males fertilize them with sperm, just like other mammals. We have hearts and stomachs and intestines, just like other animals. We are just intelligent animals - nothing more.
Perhaps we are aware of things beyond that which other animals are capable of recognizing - for example, the possible existence of God, spirtuality, etc. Perhaps we have also lost some instinctual understanding of the nature of things as well.
|
|
|
| by -
LisaQ
(Sat Dec 14 17:13:16)
|
|
Ah Aule, Aule, Aule, Aule, Aule. We aren't going here again, are we?
 To accept what your posts says presupposes that your belief structure on the evolution of species is 100% truth, which, you well know, I don't. I know we've hashed it out before, and the bottom line is, none of us will truly know.......unless of course it is true that there is an afterlife. Then and only then will we know the truth. Until then it is speculation and theory.
I think I am advanced over animals. I can reason and love by choice...........not because I'm fed and watered. I am more than a dumb animal (and you all know how much I love my animals). Animals operate on instinct, humans can rise above the feral approach and reason things out.
Sydney goes to get her bone because she has been trained to know what bone means. My dogs know when I say get the ball/toy or do you have to go potty. Why? Because of repition. Now, we do the same to a large degree, with children in the beginning. Repetitous words become familiar. The difference between a dog and a human child is that the child will eventually learn to adapt that knowledge to other circumstances. So, I say, honey go get your night night for bed. I can then tell the child, go get a, b, c,d, or z. The dog will only ever know the one word UNLESS retrained. My dogs know toy and ball because the tone of voice we use. If I say, Bear go get your ball, in a very monotone voice, the dog has no clue. If I tell Ash, go get your night night, in ANY tone, she would understand. Stupid, simplistic explanations, I know. I have been around animals all my life. Currently in my home I have two large dogs, three cats, two rats, and a mouse. Trust me, there is differences.....even amongst the animals (I happen to think the cats are the smartest).
As for God......I believe God asks us to care for our world around us. I don't believe that a TRUE god-fearing xian (using an example close to home), would mistreat his children OR his animals. I believe, rather ardently, that God expects us to care for animals, the environment, our fellow man. I believe many (myself included at times) falls short. Do animals have souls? It doesn't matter to me whether they do or don't. They are mine to care for and protect......that's all......the rest is up to God.
Our lives can change with every breath we take
|
|
|
| by -
Aule
(Sat Dec 14 19:01:51)
|
|
I don't question that human beings are smarter than other animals, I question whether or not there are other differences. Judeo-Christian doctrine would have us believe that human beings are somehow special - that we have souls, and that we are the point behind creation. Given the vastness of the universe, I find this to be ridiculous.
I can believe in God, that is a force or entity or whatever, behind creation, but not in any way that any human being claims to know. Why? Because how could anyone possibly understand what such an unbelievably complex being wants or has done or anything about them? It would be more likely that an ant would understand quantum physics.
So, I'm not against the concept of there being a creator - I'm against the idea that this creator is anything like what any religion suggests it is. It's simply not possible that anybody on this planet could understand a being that created and controls every particle in this vast universe. It also seems extremely unlikely to me that we are the only ones, regardless of whether or not there is a creator. Mathematically, it is highly improbable.
As for animals, maybe your animals are not as bright as Sydney. She understands subtle gestures and tone of voice doesn't seem to matter for many words. Ask Paul, he'll confirm that she actually has a vocabulary. Dogs do have a vocabulary and this has been shown. It is quite limited, but that doesn't preclude them from having intelligence. They just have less intelligence than humans, which is what I said.
My point was that if humans have a soul, then so do animals. In other words, I don't think there is any difference between humans and other animals (other than obviously physical differences) besides the degree of intellectual capacity. We are just extremely intelligent animals. (Notice I avoided the term evolved? ) I don't think that our existence has any more significance in the greater scheme of things in the universe than other animals, other than the fact that we have greater intellect.
|
|
|
| by -
LisaQ
(Sun Dec 15 15:08:29)
|
|
What? Sydney more intelligent than my cats, gracious, no. LOL. I don't care whether or not animals have souls (in whatever context that means). I do care how they are treated. It is God's job to sort out the intricacies of this life, not mine. Do they have the capacity to choose right and wrong as we do. Probably not. Not to the degree we do. But that's a different story.
As for us understanding the nature of God. I think it is beyond presumption to assume that we do. We understand in part because we only know in part (scripture verse I might add). We understand as much as we are able given it deals with a 'spiritual' realm. So, we try and fit God into the best understanding we have. I believe some of that belief is valid. We don't understand the intricacies and delicacies of love or attraction or whatever, but we accept those for what they are......why not faith to the degree that we can?
It also seems extremely unlikely to me that we are the only ones, regardless of whether or not there is a creator. Mathematically, it is highly improbable.
......much like evolution.....lolololol 
BTW, I have no problem thinking that their are other beings elsewhere in the universe, possibly more advanced possibly not......BUT, not experiencing or seeing evidence to the contrary....why shouldn't we think we are the pinnacle of 'evolution' or creation or whatever? A friend of ours said it was egotistical to think that we are 'it'. Again, until proven otherwise....why shouldn't we? Just curious.
Our lives can change with every breath we take
|
|
|
| by -
Aule
(Sun Dec 15 17:24:05)
|
|
Hi Lisa. You should care whether or not animals have souls (or spirits or whatever). It is a fundamental aspect of Christianity that human beings are judged when they die, and their souls go either to Heaven or to Hell. Depending on the particular flavour of Christianity, going to heaven requires believing in Jesus Christ, and the fact that he died on the cross to purge our sins.
If non-human animals have souls, then what happens to them? Do they get an automatic pass into heaven or do they go to hell? Or is there some sort of animal afterlife that's separate from our own? If humans are animals, which they are by every definition we know of, then it stands to reason that if we, as living beings, have souls, then so do other animals. But these other animals lack the intelligence to grasp the concept of Jesus Christ and what he did.
As for evolution, not only is it not mathematically improbable, it is almost a certainty. We can't trace it, unbroken, back to the origin of life, and we so far can't reproduce the conditions under which DNA first came to be, but there is significant evidence that this is how we came to be what we are today. We can measure this (on a micro scale), and we have found many fossils of not quite human, but very much human like beings from many thousands of years ago. Just because we haven't found "the missing link" doesn't mean it didn't exist.
I checked out some of the claims of Christian scientists and found them to be lacking. For example, fairly recently, they have been using The Second Law of Thermodynamics to prove that evolution is a false theory, when in fact, The Second Law of Thermodynamics supports evolution. The problem is, they take specific ideas out of context and come to conclusions based on them. You can't do that. You have to take all things into account. When you do, you get an entirely different result. In the meantime, right wing Christian groups have been calling for the Second Law of Thermodynamics to not be taught because it contradicts Christian doctrine. Who's right?
I don't know the answers. Nobody does. I have a problem with the concept that somehow human beings were magically popped into existance and are God's pet project. Why? Because of the vastness of the universe. We are such a small part of it all. We live on a tiny planet in a tiny solar system within a galaxy that is so large that we may never explore it's boundaries. There are billions of such galaxies. The idea that we are "it" is so improbable that I can't begin to find words for it.
I can accept the idea that there is a creator, but I can't accept that our (human beings) existence is completely different from the rest of life, or that we are the purpose behind creation. I believe that, if there is a God, he/she/it put in place the forces and mechanisms that made us what we are today. I don't believe that Adam simply popped into being and then Eve was created from his rib, and then they had many children, and then those children engaged in incestuous activities over hundreds of years, etc. Did God just create two dogs, two cats, two elephants, etc.? Or did God create a thousand, or two thousand? The only thing that makes sense is some sort of process. What we see in the world today is the result of evolution.
|
|
|
I do believe that animals have souls. They are beings, have understanding, feelings and beliefs, just as we do. The difference for animals may be that they were never given the word, as we humans were. Animals did not partake of knowledge of good and evil. They continue to exist in that state of innocence which is what is necessary for salvation.
In the Christian faith, for humans to be saved requires that they have their 'sins washed away' or become innocent again. It requires extra steps for humans, because we know too much. Animals don't have that knowledge- they are already innocent.
Another way to say this is that humans are a part of the chaos of creation, the part that pulls away from completeness; animals are art of the order of creation, that part that cleaves together. So animals are guaranteed a spot in heaven, we humans have to earn our places.
"I sang of leaves, of leaves of gold, and leaves of gold there grew..."
|
|
|
I've had similar arguments in the past, but I'm not in the right frame of mind just now so I'll leave you two to it, but I just wanted to point out something about it I thought was a little odd or interesting.
Unfortunately, I can't prove either of you wrong, but I can say quite categorically that I do not believe in God, especially the Christian God. So I can't go with Lisa's arguments on that one.
Aule knows from a post I made before that I share very similar views on the whole idea of the existence of life throughout the universe, but I can't go completely with him either because of his own 'belief' - evolution.
The two of you are debating this as though these are the only two possibilities open to us. I don't have infinite knowledge, so no, I can't tell you exactly what else you should be discussing but I don't believe evolution is any more viable than the ridiculous idea of being created in a puff of smoke and left to desecrate an entire planet.
I have a lot of trouble believing that a species like ours could suddenly appear and evolve so rapidly by comparison to every other species on the planet. I've dreamt up various ideas in the past about 'how we got here' but I really, honestly don't believe the human race as we know it 'evolved' from something intangible over such a short period of time - I don't see how that's any more acceptable than believing in something you've never seen heard or experienced based on an old piece of text.
The point being, you're conversation is interesting, but I think it's particularly interesting that you are discussing the origin of man, the concept of souls and the afterlife, the superiority of species intelligence, the nature of good and evil - and all of this through eyes which have metaphorical blinkers on so that they can only see POINT A & POINT B - such narrow scope for such a huge subject!!
I hope that doesn't come across as insulting - it's just an observation and I respect both of you guys so don't kill me!!
Al
:)
Yet dawn is ever the hope of men...
|
|
|
| by -
Aule
(Sun Dec 15 19:48:12)
|
|
Hi Al,
Metaphorical blinkers? Trust me, I've looked at it from more ways than I can describe. That's the problem. It's difficult to put into words because it is so vast. I believe I said something to that effect, didn't I? In all my searching, the one thing I've come to know is that there's so much that I don't know.
When you're debating a topic, you kind of have to make points, and back them up. I can state my overall impression or belief in the way things are, but that's only a statement, and it would be incomplete. You have to narrow the scope in order to make the discussion manageable.
I don't necessarily disagree with the idea of the existence of God or with the essence of anybody's faith - I disagree with the details. Lisa and I have been friends for quite a while now, and she knows what I'm about, and that I respect her and her faith. We just enjoy the discussion. We agree on more than we disagree on.
I think it's impossible to know the absolute truth. That's my point. We're not smart enough to know the nature of evil or creation. We can only look at it from our own perspective and speculate.
the concept of souls and the afterlife, the superiority of species intelligence, the nature of good and evil
These things are related, don't you think? We could discuss just one aspect of this, but we would be doing that topic an injustice if we didn't look at what surrounds it, because nothing exists in isolation from everything else. Humankind, the world, ideas, etc. interact with other things. Our methods of communication are limited, so we must tackle these things one thing at a time. When we do so, related issues pop up, and we tackle them too.
If not creation or evolution, then what? Aliens from another planet? If so, it still begs the question, how did they come into being? As for "the human race as we know it 'evolved' from something intangible over such a short period of time" - is 4.5 billion years a short period of time?
Somehow, whether we popped into existence or evolved from single celled organisms, we came to be what we are today. There is no question that we have evolved/changed from early man. The question is whether or not we evolved from previous species. There is no absolute proof that we did, because there are missing pieces of the puzzle, and that is where the debate lies. Lisa agrees that species change. She just doesn't agree that we came from another species.
Many people think that creation versus evolution is God versus no God. Not true. I'm not certain about the existence of God, but I believe that if God created us, then God put things in motion and we came to be through some sort of process such as evolution.
Life exists on a molecular level. Scientists today cannot create DNA. It must have come into being somehow. Some say God simply willed it into being. Many scientists today say that it formed from RNA, under the right circumstances. They are attempting to recreate those conditions, but it is difficult to recreate a set of conditions that took place several billion years ago, deep in the seas of a volcanic planet being bombarded with fragments of comets and asteroids.
|
|
|
| by -
Alizarin
(Mon Dec 16 06:02:46)
|
|
| UPDATED Mon Dec 16 06:43:02 |
Well first off, yes, you did say something to the effect of 'looking at it as many ways as possible' so apologies for not taking it into account. And I see what you're saying on the narrowing of scope to make a debate easier.
I was simply struck when reading both your posts that it had come down to such a simple stance: God vs Evolution.
It's probably just me being me because of the way my discussions used to get out of control whenever I went over the same ground.
Anyway, I wasn't looking to distract you two from your own debate and so I'm not going to, but I'll answer a couple of the questions you asked.
afterlife/intelligence/good-evil
Yes, they are related and that stands as an example of what I was thinking in a way. It started out as the nature of evil and it's now covering religion, mathematics, philosophy etc. - so it's branched out into other areas, but where your own debate was concerned you turned that around and took all of those things and filtered them down into two areas. That's not to say you shouldn't, but it just struck me when I noticed it. I know for a fact you can range outside of it, much further than I could in many ways no doubt - that's why I said metaphorical blinkers: I know you aren't narrow minded, but was amazed at the way the discussion narrowed down the way it did. Make sense?
If not creation or evolution, then what? Aliens from another planet? If so, it still begs the question, how did they come into being? As for "the human race as we know it 'evolved' from something intangible over such a short period of time" - is 4.5 billion years a short period of time?
Well, I did say I wasn't going to get involved! 'Aliens' always conjures up an image in peoples minds, which frustrates me. Who's to say that we aren't just a splinter group of the human race which has it's origins in another galaxy? Fair enough, if we are you still have to wonder where they came from but when dealing with life on Earth, which was my impression of your discussion, it always has to be we were created by God or we evolved from sludge. Why is there never an in between? So let's say that humans evolved into an intelligent, bipedal lifeform 8,000,000 light years ago on a planet so far away from here we could never hope to find it. And over the course of time that race overpopulated the planet. They developed the ability to travel through space and when the planet was overpopulated they sent ships to the nearest planet that could support life. And then, either through the same cause or through sheer ingenuity and experimentation they send another load off to some other planet which is inhabitable. And it goes on like that for some time so that there are 'humans' on several different planets. As so many thousands or millions of years pass they all develop in different ways, in the same way that we have different cultures here on Earth. Some become isolated from others, some travel regularly through vast areas of space to exchange technology, raw materials and so on. Scientists planet-hop to learn as much as they can about the ecological systems, geology, indiginous lifeforms etc. etc.
Maybe one time they discover another planet which is inhabitable - something they would no doubt be looking for constantly given their history:
1) Further surveys show it's too small for them, they decide to send a probe loaded with bacteria and fungii, and a couple of species from different planets to the new one as an experiment. Voila! Dinosaurs and disease!
2) Millions of years later, one of the planets they have populated is struck by a plague which begins killing off the population at a phenomenal rate...in a few years after it begins there is widespread death, the place is going to waste and the other planets in the group have scientists working round the clock on a vaccine. They produce a weak one at the eleventh hour but the only way anyone who uses the vaccine will survive is to be in a healthy environment. Their home planet is a mess so they have to be transported elsewhere. Worried about the spread of infection, a board of officials decide that the best option open to them is to give the vaccine to those most likely to survive and transport them off-world to the planet they discovered so long ago, with the idea being that if things got out of control, they had done their best and the planet was insignificant anyway. So a couple of hundred thousand people are dropped off on their new home planet in purpose built cargo ships which are then destroyed in orbit to prevent further possible contamination. Voila part 2! The Human Race as we know it!
OK, so someone might read all that and say it's crap. But the idea is there and I like to think you can see where I'm going with it. And that kind of theory holds just as much water (if not more) than believing in the existence of an omnipotent being who created the entire universe and it's contents...and evolution seems just as unlikely to me in the grand scheme of things because, as I understand it, we have only been kicking around for about 60,000,000 years - not 4.5 billion. The dinosaurs were wiped out, it is believed, by the devastating impact of an asteroid and there's no evidence of there being any humans at the time of the dinosaurs. Are you suggesting there were and that they survived? And despite the fact that there are no cave drawings, archeological or geological evidence like fossilised human remains or tools made of T-Rex bones to back it up.
Right, that was way too much....I'm gonna shut up now, I think you get the idea: I'm not saying I'm right and you're wrong, I'm just allowing for other possibilities.
Al
:)
Yet dawn is ever the hope of men...
|
|
|
| by -
Aule
(Mon Dec 16 07:53:23)
|
|
The Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old. They say that life began about 3.5 billion years ago. Dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago. At that time, there were no humans but there were mammals. If I remember correctly, the earliest man lived about 3.5 to 4 million years ago.
So, the 4.5 billion years that I mentioned is the time it has taken to reach where we are now, from the beginnings of the planet, and including the formation of life itself.
|
|
|
I screwed up on the numbers - but as far as man goes: 3.5 mil?
Heh!
We are just so radically different in certain ways, and if that's down to evolution then there's something very freaky going on!
I mean, look at an elephant and a mammoth...at least there is some kind of link going back a while. And evidence. We just seem to have appeared out of nowhere and not only that, in a very short space of time have 'evolved' into the only creature on the entire planet capable of random, intelligent thought; the dominant species on the entire planet; and we have become completely dependant on our own artificiality.
And everything else just died out or lost some fur!
Al
:)
Yet dawn is ever the hope of men...
|
|
|
| by -
Aule
(Tue Dec 17 07:25:18)
|
|
Very small differences in DNA amount to seemingly significant differences in traits. I once read that a human being's DNA is 97% the same as a banana. The DNA differences between differenct species of mammals are very small, and between different human beings, smaller still (approximately 1 nucleotide in 1000). But it is not just the differences in DNA that make living things different, it is the differences in how they are arranged and in the number of chromosones. These things interact during the embryonic stage to determine the shape and characteristics of the life form.
Whether as a result of the introduction of external factors, such as radiation, or the random transposition of DNA fragments from one position to another within chromosomes, genes change (i.e. mutate). Through natural selection, these changes either proliferate or not. It can take generations for this to occur, and such changes are typically small. It is many such changes over many many generations, combining with other such changes, that result in relatively significant change.
3.5 million years ago is the earliest evidence of what we classify as humanoid beings that were distinct from apes. Homo Sapiens have only been around for a couple hundred thousand years. Along the way in between, various branches occurred. Some died out, others prevailed and branched off again. The most recent example of this is Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens both being branches of Homo Erectus (there may have been another step in there - I can't remember). Neanderthals were apparently quite smart. That is, they used tools, and they actually had a larger brain than Homo Sapiens. For whatever reason, they either died out or were absorbed into Homo Sapiens or something to that affect.
|
|
|
I just think that when you look at the human race and consider level of intelligence plus rate of development and divide by the timescale involved and try to fit the answer within the limitations set by every other known example supplied by nature, the result is out of range.
Al
:)
Yet dawn is ever the hope of men...
|
|
|
| by -
LisaQ
(Tue Dec 17 05:12:25)
|
|
| UPDATED Tue Dec 17 05:15:20 |
Oh Al, what do you know......you believe the moon landing was real or was that not real. Oh well, alzheimer's again. LOLOLOLOL. Just kidding. Interesting post, BTW.
Our lives can change with every breath we take
|
|
|
| by -
Alizarin
(Tue Dec 17 11:21:08)
|
|
| UPDATED Tue Dec 17 11:38:51 |
I'm gonna have to crawl into my little cave now. 
Was that pun intended btw? 
Alzheimer's.
Al
:)
Yet dawn is ever the hope of men...
|
|
|
| by -
LisaQ
(Wed Dec 18 18:32:33)
|
|
Just wait until you're my age......egads, the only things that seem to leave my brain are the simple things, you know,,,,,,,words in everyday conversation. They say for women that forgetfulness gets worse when menopause hits.......I'm in deep doodoo.
Our lives can change with every breath we take
|
|
|
Don't believe that, Lisa. It's just propanganda to make women buy herbal supplements. There's nothing wrong with my... ... ...ummmm, 'm'...'more'...'mammogram'...'monkey'...'MEMORY!' Jeez!
"I sang of leaves, of leaves of gold, and leaves of gold there grew..."
|
|
|
I don't need to wait, I'm messed up already. I can be right in the middle of making a point and just lose what the next word was meant to be in the sentence - and to make it worse, whenever this happens I never seem to be able to think of bloody alternative!
Yet dawn is ever the hope of men...
|
|
|
| by -
LisaQ
(Tue Dec 17 05:10:14)
|
|
I was teasing love. BTW, not having a soul does not necessitate that an animal will go to 'hell', IMHO, just cease to exist. For that I don't have an answer, that's why I don't care......it's not my job to figure it all out.
Actually, for the 'big bang' theory, I read somewhere that the odds of that occurring were like placing a red dot on a silver dollar and throwing it into an area the size of Texas full of silver dollars, and then being able to find it. Not impossible, just not probable. As I said though, evolution or creation, it doesn't change my belief in God. BTW, I do believe in natural selection......I just believe that DNA is stable and animals don't evolve into other species, no more no less. But again, this doesn't change my belief in God.
About the Christian scientists, who knows. Both sides will try and prove their points rather than finding evidence and seeing where it leads. There is evidence of this from both camps. I believe what I believe because it makes the most sense in my own head, not sense that came from someone elses. Scary as that might be
I actually think that if the whole reincarnation thing were true, I know what nirvana would be. Nirvana would be the life of a spoiled house cat.....am I right, Athene?
Anyway, I'm just razzing you, Aule. You know I am, I hope.
Hugs to you and have a great day.
Our lives can change with every breath we take
|
|
|
purrpurrpurr! Spoil me rotten, I'm ready to be a cat!
"I sang of leaves, of leaves of gold, and leaves of gold there grew..."
|
|
|
| by -
LisaQ
(Wed Dec 18 18:34:26)
|
|
Pat, Pat, rub rub.....scratching the chin.......just don't claw the furniture. BTW, my little boy cats are now eunichs......didn't seem to slow them down for more than a few hours when they got home.
My christmas decorations have just provided a playground for them.
Our lives can change with every breath we take
|
|
|
Aule, I never meant to imply that humans are better animals than others; or that we somehow think we are so special in the universe. I was just giving my thoughts and feelings on the subject based on what I know and what I believe. And really, isn't that what we are all doing?
:)
Thanks for your input. And I know the response was not meant merely for me.
:)
|
|
|
| by -
LisaQ
(Sat Dec 14 16:48:46)
|
|
Great post litchik. I totally agree. Just not to long ago, I asked friends why do they think humans act in such a way as to hurt those that they love. Doing something they know will cause pain or heartache. I also brought into the discussion animals. While I know some animals do kill for 'pleasure' once they grow a taste for it (read the book, Ghost and the Darkness), it is not a commonality. Humans seemed to have developed a penchant and expertise in the matter. BTW, in the book The Ghost and the Darkness, while the animals killed, the man (portrayed by Val Kilmer in the movie) was an ass. The animals were killing and eating anyone, the whites were taking advantage of the local citizens. Anyway, that's another story.
I too believe in God, ardently. I too think there are absolutes. I think when you look at children who have not been jaded by adults, you can see that clearly. Children have sympathy for those that are hurt, children don't like to see animals hurt, children don't understand when people hurt each other, children will play with and love anyone of any race, creed or color. We adults change that innocence for them. Again, that's a different story.
Again, great post.
Our lives can change with every breath we take
|
|
|
Thank you. :) And I knew about Ghost and the Darkness too. In fact, I love the movie. But that is for another board discussion...:)
|
|
|
| by -
Alizarin
(Sun Dec 15 07:06:58)
|
|
| UPDATED Sun Dec 15 07:10:53 |
Seems to me that first of all, evil is an exclusively human trait. As you've touched on already, death and killing are part of natural selection and not associated solely with evil. Rather it has something to do with reason and motive, the intention of the evil party.
The intentions and motives vary greatly depending on age, culture, upbringing, place in time and in many cases state of mind. But even the most psychopathic lunatic imagineable has one thing in common wwith the most sane and rational people who have commited acts that are considered to be evil: personal gain.
That does not mean money, though it could in some cases. Nor does it mean fame and noteriety, though again it could.
As Hitler has been mentioned, his gain would have been to see his people flourish and to be the one responsible for purifying the world.
The same thing can be said for the church and for Osama Bin Laden.
In the case of some twisted serial rapist it comes down more complex reasoning but the result is still identifiable as a personal goal - like acceptance or control over the opposite sex. In some cases it may just be outright hatred but they are still getting what they want by committing acts which 'normal' society sees as wrong or evil. In such cases the 'gain' is internal gratification as opposed to an acheivement or accolade such as the Nazi's would have been.
When the native Americans were slaughtered by the white settlers - it was personal gain.
In an example I gave earlier re the Bibliotheca Alexandrina, the motives were to rid the world of 'pagans' and ensure Christianity was the only religion.
I'm sure there are lots of other examples, but the point is it is some form of personal gain (whether individual or as a group) which can be either physical or mental, but it's always there. Whether that goal is 'right or wrong' is debatable but I think the very human trait of evil has it's roots in those goals.
Man is a very complex being, capable of the great and the terrible and there are many levels in between but in the end there is a drive to be better - better off financially, better off mentally (knowledge), better than those around you (idolisation), create a better world through invention & creation, create a better world for you and your peers by destroying the values / systems / cultures / beliefs / creations of others etc.
Why do we discuss thing like this? Because we like to think we're better than that, and we want to strive to better as a race, to have better understanding of ourselves so that we can be better as a group.
Somewhere, in the darkest recesses of our psyche is this determination and drive, perhaps it's an irrational fear which manifests itself through greater expression of oneself - bettering yourself to strive off the subconcious belief that you're nothing more than pond-scum. Perhaps we all have some untapped region where we still fear our origin and want to prove ourselves to be more than second best to our creator.
Anyway, I'm going off on one now...I hope I've made my point clear? The achievement of some agenda, real or imagined, seems - to me - to be the seed of evil.
Al
:)
Yet dawn is ever the hope of men...
|
|
|
I'm going to jump in here Al; I would like to add to your last line in your threads train of thought.
The achievement of some agenda, real or imagined, seems - to me - to be the seed of evil.
Long ago on a post I said something similar to Val but it applies equally here so I going to use it again.
In the chemistry of man's soul almost all noble attributes honor, hope, faith, courage, duty, love, loyalty, and so on can be converted into ruthlessness. Therefore compassion alone stands apart from the continuous movement between good and evil proceeding within us. "Compassion is the antitoxin of the soul". Where there is compassion, even the most poisonous impulses remain relatively sedate.
On a similar note it is interesting to observe one of equations that promotes or produces evil. When the weak want to give an impression of strength they hint menacingly at their capacity for evil. It is by its promise of a sense of power that evil often attracts the weak of will.
I also would like to comment on governing institutions and the fertile grounds for evil that it can produce. Watergate for me would be a prime example!
One could surmise that it is a governing principle of nature, that an agency, which can produce the most good, when perverted from its proper aim, is most productive of evil. It disrupts the well intentioned, and it is interesting to observe in hindsight the tendency of even these most highly prized institutions. Since they were established in the interests of the right, may so easily become the agents of wrong.
|
|
|
Where there is compassion, even the most poisonous impulses remain relatively sedate.
I wonder if it's quite so simple though? When I think of some of the most unsavoury characters I've met in life, it seems there is a black to every white, even this one.
My simple example is of a guy who was, quite frankly, scum of the earth - a typical gangster type who had been known to be involved in - amongst other things - armed robbery. He'd kneecap you if you looked at him the wrong way, and even at a party with his friends he would start fights for no reason: one minute he's asking you for a light, the next he's head-butting your face. I never knew of him behaving any other way, and the people who really knew him confirmed he was an *beep* ALL the time BUT, when it came to kids, especially his own, he was insanely protective and loving, to a degree that was totally unfathomable by comparison to his normal behaviour. A bit like a rabid dog rolling over and playing dead, if you see what I'm saying.
The point being, even this total social misfit, who's goal in life seemed to be making everyone elses existence a misery, was able under certain conditions to show compassion.
The other thing is that some of what you said reminded me of something I was thinking about in regards to my own thoughts about the origins or nature of evil; which is to say that something you can't predict or even hope to identify is the catalyst which causes any individual to choose their own path. I mean, I believe every human has the ability to be evil and I also believe there is a very fine line between good and evil, that the mind is very delicate and, coupled with the multitude of experiences that any individual may endure throughout their lifetime, this makes for a multitude of potential trigger mechanisms which could sway the outcome of someone's attitude / belief / perception etc. and any resultant behaviour.
Al
:)
Yet dawn is ever the hope of men...
|
|
|
Hi Al,
BUT, when it came to kids, especially his own, he was insanely protective and loving, to a degree that was totally unfathomable by comparison to his normal behavior. A bit like a rabid dog rolling over and playing dead, if you see what I'm saying.
The point being, even this total social misfit, who's goal in life seemed to be making everyone elses existence a misery, was able under certain conditions to show compassion.
It seems that this man has been scorched emotionally and perhaps is only capable of showing compassion when unconditional love is present. After reading many of these threads, I can't help but keep thinking of the mathematical variables that’s needed to be present for the end equation. I know this is a bit of a stretch in this thought process; I spoke to Aule about it the other day.
It seems one maybe able to draw parallel’s between math, and philosophical moral conditions of humanity. A kind of (A+B+C=D) sort of equation. The variables may differ but I keep thinking of it for some reason. In considering what leads up to the essential elements of good or evil etc...
A precursor or forerunner to the end result you could say!
|
|
|
| by -
Aule
(Sun Dec 15 20:19:15)
|
|
Yes, mathematics and philosophy are closely related, on a certain level. You know what I'm talking about, my friend. I recently went out with a girl who has a degree in philosophy. She says she sucks at math. I thought, how odd, since both involve logical thought and the exploration of and search for truth and meaning. Philosophy does it with words while mathematics does it with numbers and variables and spatial concepts.
|
|
|
| by -
Alizarin
(Mon Dec 16 06:29:00)
|
|
| UPDATED Mon Dec 16 06:43:51 |
I recently went out with a girl who has a degree in philosophy. She says she sucks at math. I thought, how odd, since both involve logical thought and the exploration of and search for truth and meaning. Philosophy does it with words while mathematics does it with numbers and variables and spatial concepts.
That's a surprise coming from you Mark. It simply isn't as cut and dried as applying logical thought. Mathematics require a completely different ability to understand and work with numbers and formulas, not just straight thinking. Speaking as someone who is absolutely terrible with numbers, I can see perfectly why someone would be able to excel in one and not the other.
You could say it's called aptitude. You've either got it or you haven't. I haven't and I know it - working with numbers is more than just a learned set of rules. Right back from when I was a kid I had trouble remembering times tables and so on. But I could handle anything else that school threw at me.
I've had a lot of breaks in my education and one time when I headed back to school after being dragged around the country, I had to catch up on Chemistry. Well I caught up and I passed everyone else. Meantime my maths still sucked, as it always had. But the weird thing is I was dealing with atomic weights, I was dealing with numbers in a different form and I had no problem with it. The moment that really defines this is when I had to do a test and after a bit of messing around with my materials, I knew I wasn't getting the correct answer on one of the experiments. So I reasoned it out logically, did my own tests to compare results then came to the conclusion that I'd been given the wrong materials to work with - one with an atomic weight that was less than it should have been. I alerted the teacher who thought I was just being slow with this test and he was adamant that I couldn't be right. He went away to his supply room to check his materials and came back with a look of shock on his face because he discovered that one of his technicians had indeed supplied me with the wrong material.
I still can't count to save myself - you either can or you can't. It doesn't mean you can't work things out or apply logical thought processes to certain situations. There may be some identifiable similarities between philosopy and mathematics but they are not the same by a long shot.
Al
:)
Yet dawn is ever the hope of men...
|
|
|
| by -
Aule
(Mon Dec 16 09:17:26)
|
|
I understand that there are people that are adept at philosophical thinking while not being good at mathematics. It isn't that I thought the girl was odd, I thought this fact was odd. Actually, odd isn't the right word - perplexing is a better word.
Philosophy and mathematics have more in common than you may think. Mathematics is not just about working with numbers. It is also about relationships and abstractions. The majority of the world uses mathematics to calculate the answers to questions using known methods and formulas. Mathematicians try to discover new methods and formulas. Thus, they are searching for new truths using logical thought.
A philosopher is not someone who can tell you what Aristotle or Descartes said about a given topic. A philosopher is someone who searches for new truths using logical thought.
Mathematics is not about memorizing formulas and times tables, it is about understanding and exploring them. Try taking a course in theoretical calculus, and you'll see how little you need a calculator. Calculus, in particular I think, has much to do with symbolic logic. It is not about pumping numbers into a formula to get a result - it's about understanding how these formulas are derived based on certain principles - straight logic. Actually, insights gained from calculus have been used to solve philisophical problems.
I used to tutor students in math. One girl was failing miserably by the end of the first semester, so her teacher sent her to me. I taught her the concept of first principles. One must understand the fundamental principles of anything in order to understand the result. I showed her how to understand the evolution of formulas (no pun intended), rather than just memorizing. She finished that semester with a grade of about 80%. She had trouble memorizing, but not understanding. She'd just never tried before. In other words, she wasn't bad at mathematics - she was approaching it the wrong way.
The girl I mentioned who had the philosophy degree was the same. She said she tried to memorize. From what I can tell, she has a very logical mind, but she misunderstood what math is about.
In school, I was very good at calculus, relations and functions, and algebra. My friend was perhaps just above average in these. He was superb at Physics, however, and this was a more difficult subject for me. One would think that being good at math would naturally mean that Physics would be relatively easy, and vice versa, particularly with calculus and physics. Somehow, despite the fact that physics is based on logic, I had a tougher time with it, and never achieved anywhere near the level of mastery I did with mathematics.
Mathematics and philosophy are very similar in thought processes. They both attempt to apply what we know in order to find answers and they both do so with logical thought. It is the questions being answered that differ and the application of the answers.
Ever notice that some of the great philosophers were also mathematicians? Plato's academy focused on teaching philosophy and mathematics. I believe the famous mathematician, Euclid attended that school. Descartes was both a philosopher and a mathematician, and he pointedly applied mathematical principles to his philisophical studies.
|
|
|
I'm going to toss in my two cents worth here, as I know somewhat about the mindset of contemporary philosophers. At one time, mathematics, geometry, and physics were subsets of the field of philosophy. While no one has ever adequately defined philosophy, it's generally accepted that philosophers attempt to describe the nature of reality. Maths, geometry and physics were the tools, plus intuitive and deductive logic, that were used to measure and describe the world. As time went by, each of these fields became highly developed in its own right and eventually was no longer considered to be a subset of philosophy, but a peer field of study. It's a rare philospher who is not interested in mathematics, geometry and physics, if only from the point of view of trying to understand the historical context of the big questions.
However, just as there are many areas of knowledge in philosophy, there are people who are inclined to or excel in some areas while not in others. And there are questions in mathematics that are more applicable to philosphy than others. For example, working in base 12 is not very applicable to philosophical questions, but understanding the probable existence of nested infinities and what that says about Primes is.
There are certain areas of mathematics that are more 'conceptual' than others. I find most philosophers have less trouble with the concepts than they do with the application. To be highly successful in mathematics requires that one be able to detach from the concept and apply a whole set of rules to achieve an outcome. Many philosphers prefer to work at the conceptual level, dealing with probables or maybes, than to work with specific outcomes.
Today, a lot of philosphy is concerned with ethics, perception and language. These two areas do not require a deep mathematical ability - they are closer to pure philosophy than to mathematics. Even so, perception and language are being specialized into sciences of their own in which measurables are as imporant as concepts.
I once knew a philosopher who wedded linguistic analysis, Benjamin Whorf's work on Hopi language, and game theory. Mathematical statistics, perception, language, ethics- all in one package. And this philosopher was not very adept at math, just enough so to apply game theory to the mix. Perhaps this is the historical value of philosophy- to synthesize the sciences and produce new concepts. Although there may be similarities between mathematical and philosophical thinkers, I think this is where the difference can be demonstrated. This person came up with a new concept, by synthesizing these elements. They really weren't 'solving' or 'proving' a problem but were presenting a new way of thinking about things. I don't think these are entirely the same thought process.
"I sang of leaves, of leaves of gold, and leaves of gold there grew..."
|
|
|
| by -
Aule
(Mon Dec 16 13:09:19)
|
|
Just as there are different approaches and areas of study in philosophy, there are different approaches and areas of study in mathematics, as you pointed out quite well. Certainly mathematics and philosophy are different. If they weren't, there wouldn't be such designations.
However, there are significant similarities in the kind of thinking that goes into each. Each requires extreme logic. There's alot of "if this, then that..." involved, for example. Each requires that we establish certain principles before we can tackle further assumptions. Calculus differs from Algebra or geometry as well, but they are all mathematics, and share a common approach.
My point was, that the type of thinking and to some degree, the method, that is used for each is often quite similar, while the medium is different. So, the person who is adept at philosophy but not at mathematics does not understand what mathematics is really about or has difficulty applying the same thought processes to a different medium, just as I had more difficulty with physics than with calculus.
Again, I'm not talking about mathematics as used in statistics and everyday life, I'm talking about the processes involved in arriving at the theories of mathematics, which is what mathematics is ultimately about. In a similar way, I'm not talking about what philosophers have proposed, I'm talking about philosophical theorizing.
Today, a lot of philosphy is concerned with ethics, perception and language. These two areas do not require a deep mathematical ability - they are closer to pure philosophy than to mathematics. Even so, perception and language are being specialized into sciences of their own in which measurables are as imporant as concepts.
Good point. Even perception and language involve logic, and the presupposition that principles must be defined and understood before proceeding. If we don't establish a basis of understanding, then there can be no understanding.
Mathematics seeks to answer different questions than philosophy does, but the logical thinking behind these pursuits is generally quite similar. Geez, it's tough to put into words what I'm thinking here. It has an esoteric aspect to it, and it is based on approach, which is difficult to define. I hope you understand what I'm trying to say, even though my ability to get it across may be limited.
|
|
|
I think I understand. The type of thinking is the same, but the nature of the thinking differs. In mathematics, it seems to me that you are actually doing something with a set of tools, established rules that have been worked out and can be applied to a problem. In philosophy, you are employing some rules of thought, but you may also have to invent some rules because you may be tackling a problem that is outside the existing rules, or you may have discovered a problem that has new rules because it is a new way of looking at things. And of course in theoretical mathematics, the same thing happens. It's like having musical talent and being good either at playing piano (very mathematical) or singing impromptu jazz (you may be using mathematics but you don't know it).
But I do agree in principle that the rigor and strictness of logical thought are present in both. I used to think that I should improve on my mathematical skills until I realized that the area of science that I really like, physics, doesn't require much math at all, but you'd better be able to wrap your mind around some pretty extreme concepts. But if you should think of a good text that teaches mathematics according to your method, I'll be happy to give it a try.
"I sang of leaves, of leaves of gold, and leaves of gold there grew..."
|
|
|
| by -
Aule
(Tue Dec 17 06:02:57)
|
|
"WHEN the objects of an inquiry, in any department, have principles, conditions, or elements, it is through acquaintance with these that knowledge, that is to say scientific knowledge, is attained. For we do not think that we know a thing until we are acquainted with its primary conditions or first principles, and have carried our analysis as far as its simplest elements."
Aristotle said that, in a paper on physics, in 350 BC.
It is an approach to study, and it applies to virtually everything, not just math and physics. When most people learn math, they make the mistake of memorizing formulas. They should be examining how the formulas were derived, from their first principles. Should they forget a formula, they should be able to recreate it. In other words, focus on the concept and the method, not the result.
Any decent math text tells you these concepts and begins with first principles. But students typically focus on what will be on the next test, and that is generally an application of the formulas in question, and not an understanding of the fundamental makeup of the formulas themselves. That is a mistake. Math is more about how we arrive at these results than it is about the results themselves. It is also about solving new problems.
Taking math in school, or simply studying math, or even getting a degree in math, does not a mathematician make. The same goes for philosophy. Studying philosophy is not the same as being a philosopher. Someone might know what Kant or Descartes said, but can they effectively argue for or against it, or can they come up with their own ideas? There is a creative component to it - the ability to think outside the nine dots - to understand and expand upon what has been presented to you - to perceive relationships and to extrapolate - to prove a premise by using logic.
Math is no different. I'm not talking about what most people seem to think math is. I'm talking about the study of mathematical concepts and related issues. The math that we are taught in highschool is simplistic. It is not until you get into higher mathematical studies that you begin to understand what it's really about. Those who think that it is just about working with numbers are understanding it at a superficial level. It's part of it, but not all. Webster's defines it as follows:
the science of numbers and their operations, interrelations, combinations, generalizations, and abstractions and of space configurations and their structure, measurement, transformations, and generalizations
Physics actually involves a great deal of math, athene. Newton and Liebniz invented calculus, largely as a tool for physics, engineering, etc. All areas of scientific study involve some form of mathematical application and theory, physics perhaps more than most. If mathematics isn't logical, then I don't know what is. That same logical thought is a part of philosophy.
Great mathematicians are often philosophers as well. If you can understand the spatial, abstract and relational concepts of mathematics, then that same type of logic can be applied to philosophical thought.
|
|
|
i'm a kind of mathematician with great interest in philosophy ...
the thing is, mathematicians and philosophers don't (or wish not to) understand each others anymore.
here's a simple example:
most of philosophers would not want to understand mathematical induction, in fact most of them consider that as madness.
most of mathematicians do not accept inductive conclusion as a valid way to a deduction.
also, you can't imagine how hard it is to explain to a philosopher, our (mathematicians) view of tautology ...
so, there are differences ... multiplying day by day ...
|
|
|
Hi Athene & Everyone;
I find most philosophers have less trouble with the concepts than they do with the application. To be highly successful in mathematics requires that one be able to detach from the concept and apply a whole set of rules to achieve an outcome. Many philosphers prefer to work at the conceptual level, dealing with probables or maybes, than to work with specific outcomes.
In the past I have written aphorisms, which I have casually contemplated the possible connection with math and metaphysical philosophy. (Flipping pages in my journal here!) ok found one!
In consideration of humanity and metaphysical implications in reference to a mathematical singularity. Perhaps there is a link between the astral plane and a mathematical singularity. Which resembles Swartzchild’s solutions to Einstein’s field equations. I have a drawing that is similar in shape to a cone. As an example of Swartzchilds conceptual theory, "Sorry I can't provide the drawing."
Problem to consider, if the body obeys the laws of general relativity. Then it is possible to hypothesize that a sort of mathematical singularity occurs within the mind to make a pass over at physical death.
I have others but I'll see how this goes over first.
I hope this compliments your thoughts Athene.
|
|
|
| by -
Alizarin
(Tue Dec 17 00:21:19)
|
|
| UPDATED Tue Dec 17 00:28:32 |
I used to tutor students in math. One girl was failing miserably by the end of the first semester, so her teacher sent her to me. I taught her the concept of first principles. One must understand the fundamental principles of anything in order to understand the result. I showed her how to understand the evolution of formulas (no pun intended), rather than just memorizing. She finished that semester with a grade of about 80%. She had trouble memorizing, but not understanding. She'd just never tried before. In other words, she wasn't bad at mathematics - she was approaching it the wrong way.
See this to me sums up (woohoo, no pun intended there either) what I was trying to say, in reverse.
You say she had no trouble understanding and simply had problems memorising - but who says that's applicable to everyone? Like me...I cannot 'do sums' in my head very well. I mean, even when I could use all the formulae I'd been taught, the old brain just would not process the information the way everyone elses could. It's not that I can't work something out, but that it isn't ocurring subconciously, as is usually the case with a learned process.
If I asked you right now what say, 132 divided by 7 was, you'd probably arrive at the answer pretty quickly - I on the other hand would be giving it 'well...10 times 7 is 70...leaves 62...7 times 7 is 49...leaves 13...so I can get another 7...that's 70(10 7's)+49(7 7's)=119(17 7's)+7=126 (18 7's)...that leaves 6...that's 18 times 7 with a remainder of 6!
(please note that applying similar methods I worked out a gas bill for my sister to the exact pence-per-therm, which was not a round figure - it was quite a complex task!)
Yes, a very long drawn out affair for something you can probably do without blinking an eyelid or conciously considering each part of the process you apply to it. But where the significance lies is in the fact that as slow and bad as that process may be, it's still a logical process.
Just to make it clear: I don't doubt there is a correlation between philosophy and mathematics in the ways you're suggesting, but I don't believe that having the ability to perform one with any level of skill will automatically give you the capability to get your head around the other (though again, I can see why being a good mathematician may affect the processes you go through as you analyse a subject).
The brain is a strange thing, 'specially mine!
Al
:)
p.s. I'm enjoying reading the posts between yourself and Athene, so I'm gonna butt out unless you wish to reply, or if I see something I want to add to.
p.p.s. I second Athene's suggestion: you got a good way of teaching me math?
Yet dawn is ever the hope of men...
|
|
|
| by -
Aule
(Tue Dec 17 06:24:49)
|
|
You're talking about arithmetic, which is a teeny weeny part of mathematics. The ability to add, subtract, multiply, and divide in your head has little bearing on mathematical study. It is not what I'm talking about when I compare mathematics to philosophy.
I'm not saying that one must learn mathematics in order to be a philosopher. I'm saying that the logical and conceptual abilities of a true mathematician lend themselves significantly to philosophical thought. They deal with different questions, but the fundamental thought processes are similar.
|
|
|
You're talking about arithmetic, which is a teeny weeny part of mathematics. The ability to add, subtract, multiply, and divide in your head has little bearing on mathematical study. It is not what I'm talking about when I compare mathematics to philosophy.
I conceded your point Aule, I was simply trying to say that it depends on the individual - being able to apply logical thought one way doesn't necessarily mean an individual can do so on X amount of levels: fair enough, most people are probably not prone to the kind of problem I'm referring to, I hope; but I was trying to illustrate that 'being good at one thing doesn't necessarily make you good at another' and the reasons for it can vary. In some cases it may well be method and approach, and in others (like mine) it's just inabilty to grasp the subject no matter how hard you try or what method you use.
You know, ask the average physics professor to go out and do some extreme snow-boarding and he'll probably fall on his ass, why? Shouldn't he be able to understand the physical laws governing his body and the environment, and adapt his movements accordingly to achieve a certain level of skill and control? Take some no-brain, flunky, air-head teenager who's never done it before and he'll probably figure it all out quicker. And could probably teach the professor a thing or two about the effects of air, speed, mass etc. in relation to the objective. Thing is, some physics guys probably can snowboard like pro's, and some air-heads will fall on their ass.
In some cases you've either got it or you haven't and it isn't necessarily related to other abilities you may posess.
Don't take the example too seriously, I'm trying to illustrate what I thought was my very simple point which seems not to have been taken on board. Like I said, I conceded your point and I wasn't rummaging around in a void of arithmetic ignoring it - I got it, I just don't think a philosoper will automatically be capable of another discipline because it shares similar fundamentals. It's down to the individual and the very complex little piece of machinery that's responsible for their ability to take on board certain types of infromation and then run it through all the different processes that lead to a conclusion.
I'm going round in circles here trying to say a simple thing: it's not an absolute, everyone is different and everyone has something they will excel at, just as they will have something they will fail at - related or otherwise.
Al
:)
Yet dawn is ever the hope of men...
|
|
|
OH, boy, someone who thinks like me! I have to work through the process of simple math- can't just leap to the conclusion. I had a terrible struggle with 'new math' in college- there is a point of complexity beyond which my mind would not go with numbers. (It was busy playing with Hegel...). However, a couple of years ago, I was helping a friend's daughter with her arithmetic homework and she also was having some problems with addition of big numbers (she was quite young). All of a sudden something clicked and on the spot I invented for her another 'new math' that was based on principles, and she got it! It always works and she was able to apply it even better than I. We had a ton of fun because looking at numbers in this way allowed us to find special relationships between numbers, and we made up some games and number riddles. I wish I'd written this all down because a lot of it has been lost, but it was fun for both of us to realize that there are several ways to get to the same answer.
Aule, Ali- it's not that I don't like numbers, I like thinking about them. I just don't like all those rules they tried to make us memorize...when it could have been so much fun.
"I sang of leaves, of leaves of gold, and leaves of gold there grew..."
|
|
|
| by -
Aule
(Tue Dec 17 07:32:44)
|
|
All of a sudden something clicked and on the spot I invented for her another 'new math' that was based on principles, and she got it! It always works and she was able to apply it even better than I. We had a ton of fun because looking at numbers in this way allowed us to find special relationships between numbers, and we made up some games and number riddles.
That's mathematical thinking! Part of it, at least.
I just don't like all those rules they tried to make us memorize...when it could have been so much fun.
Exactly!! They do a poor job of making us understand what it's really about. Memorization is not it.
|
|
|
Begging to differ, that's philosophical thinking.
"I sang of leaves, of leaves of gold, and leaves of gold there grew..."
|
|
|
| by -
Aule
(Tue Dec 17 10:46:23)
|
|
LOL!! Once again, exactly!! It's both, depending on how you look at it.
|
|
|
if the nazis had won WW11 and gone on to achieve all their aims and eradicate all enemies this question may be relevant today, but in an arian only world discussing the evil of Churchill and co, the repugnance that was a historical multi racial society, thankfully no no more. The discussions would centre on how much better the world is without hateful jews, blacks catholics etc etc.
The world is filled with nations/peoples who others consider evil but consider themselves wholesome, serbia, south africa, nazi germany, the romans, pol pot, suharto, etc etc. none of these have ever conquered the world and hence we still have freedom to discuss such matters, but if this was still a nazi world after hitlers victory, people would no doubt be happy, history would be retold and the likes of us would not be around to discuss it.
fell deeds await; fire and slaughter!
|
|
|
BUMP (I ain't lettin' this one disappear).
Yet dawn is ever the hope of men...
|
|
|
This message has been deleted by the poster
|
|
|
| UPDATED Fri Dec 20 04:56:48 |
This message has been deleted by the poster
|
|
|
What is evil huh?
Well... I just checked out the word in dictionary.com
What came up first was:
Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant.
Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful: the evil effects of a poor diet.
Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous: evil omens.
Bad or blameworthy by report; infamous: an evil reputation.
Characterized by anger or spite; malicious: an evil temper.
n.
The quality of being morally bad or wrong; wickedness.
That which causes harm, misfortune, or destruction: a leader's power to do both good and evil.
An evil force, power, or personification.
Something that is a cause or source of suffering, injury, or destruction: the social evils of poverty and injustice.
But that just causes a number of other questions, such as is morality uniform, or individual? Is harmful = evil? Is Bad = Evil? Is destruction, suffering, injury = evil?
Does evil reside within man, or does it come from an outer force? etc. etc.
Evil is a strange word. A word that doesn't exist in my native language (Greek) to fully translate, and when translated it usually takes two meanings:
"Kakos" or "Kako" = Bad
"Satanikos" = derivative of Satan, satanic, devilish
So, evil seems to relate to bad, or some other times, has a more, religious meaning.
I won't go into the religious meaning of evil, because I don't quite agree with the average christian viewpoint of what is evil. And I have a number of reasons to do so.
I'll instead try to explain what "kako-" or "kakos" means in ancient greek, because it did have quite a precise meaning and a very clear one at that (similar to latin malus/malis).
The greek vocabulary is rich of words that use "kako-" as "word ingredient" (don't know the english term sorry), a few of which have made it into the international vocabulary, such as : "Cacophony", "Cacography" and others.
Kako has the meaning of bad in most words it is being used. Either to give them a bad "shade" or try to describe that something is being done "badly".
Although, that is quite plain to see, let's get a bit deeper:
Kako, also usually means that which is "in bad standing" or "wrong", the unnatural.
In the ancient greek world, there was a very specific sense of "evil", and that was "hybris"/"hubris". Hubris is direct offense to that which is "in good standing" as, for example, the divine powers/gods/god, the law of nature, or fate/the fates. This is the evil of the ancient greeks. Therefore, evil, seems to be that which is wrong. Unnatural, an offense against nature/fate/the gods.
That sounds quite clear for an ancient greek. But we're not ancient greeks. We've developped (or I want to believe we have) tolerance, individuality, compassion, a wider understanding of the world, and are therefore in a very different state compared to that of the ancients who lacked understanding, and were subjectively examining evil, as much as they tried to do so, objectively.
The modern average person is different, and generally likes being treated as a different part of a whole.
Someone could argue that this is not the case, that people are not treated as individuals in more than one occasions etc. etc. BUT that really proves the above point: That we all like, or want, to be treated as individual entities rather than just as part of a herd. Those who have a different morality, usually end up agreeing more or less with the value of individuality. And there is no sane man/woman in this world that knowingly wishes to dump one's individuality completely. Therefore, with individuality, we have individual points of view, individual desires, individual truths and lies, individual good and evil, individual perception. And even those who do chose to knowingly dump their individuality, do so knowingly, and therefore, in an individual fashion.
Now,if we assume that there is an individual Way, for every individual being, then it is quite easy to identify evil, hubris, or the unnatural: That which leads the individual away from his/her Way. Maybe more specifically: That which turns one "out of tune" with oneself, one's own nature.
And what's that force, or thing, or whatever that can turn one "out of tune" with one's own nature? Well, I guess that's simple, but not simple to say: It's what we do when we feel and know that what we do (or have just done) is wrong (we just "somehow" know it) but still do it. Or: we do not have a clear perception of what we are doing, and feel or half-know we've done the wrong thing.
But that's not clear either. Some people know this to be wrong, others feel that, some think this, and so on and so forth.
But there's this point that may make things a bit clearer at that:
That evil, is, in truth, human egoism growing beyond the confines of personality, nature or humanity. That the actual source and nature of evil, resides within our own weaknesses, our fears, insecurities or anxieties.
And also, maybe seemingly contradictory:
That evil, is what we perceive and feel and know to be evil, nothing more and nothing less.
Do these thoughts lead anywhere?
Does the pursuit of evil (regardless of wether one seeks to destroy or understand it) leads anywhere else than to evil?
Is evil truly anything more than just a word?
|
|
|
Wonderful post, Alkyran! I especially like this part.
That which leads the individual away from his/her Way. Maybe more specifically: That which turns one "out of tune" with oneself, one's own nature.
There is another old concept in Greek philosophy, that of 'eudaimonia' or the state of being completely in tune with one's nature, whether one is a rock or a people. (I may have mis-spelled that word.) If hubris is pulling away from oneself and one's essential nature, then eudaimonia is the ordering of oneself around one's essential nature.
I think of good as being in alignment with Order, and with the natural synthetic progression of Being toward final Enlightenment. Evil is the state of Chaos which fragments Being and impedes that progress.
So for me, it appears that good and evil are states of being which are relative to the individual. I think we are agreeing on this, if I understand you correctly.
That evil, is, in truth, human egoism growing beyond the confines of personality, nature or humanity. That the actual source and nature of evil, resides within our own weaknesses, our fears, insecurities or anxieties.
Alkyran, are you suggesting that evil only has meaning with reference to humans and human acts?
"I sang of leaves, of leaves of gold, and leaves of gold there grew..."
|
|
|
| by -
eidge
(Thu Dec 19 07:36:50)
|
|
IMHO, I always thought that the nature of good and evil is based on how one perceives the truth. "Good" is the upholding of the truth, while "evil" is the exact opposite. Gray areas occur when we people are having difficulty perceiving the absolute truth. In the same light, good can be perceived as evil because of a wrong perception of the absolute truth.
I don't know if I am making a point, it's just what I think.
|
|
|
There are many ways of looking at good and evil and yours is a welcome point. I think that we are becoming sorted into two groups on this thread- those who believe in a universal standard of good and evil, based on the Platonic Ideal of truth; and those who take a more situational or relative stance of good and evil as perception.
This is such an interesting discussion, I'm glad you decided to join us.
"I sang of leaves, of leaves of gold, and leaves of gold there grew..."
|
|
|
| by -
sinaes
(Sat Dec 21 23:23:36)
|
|
nm
|
|
|
This message has been deleted by the poster
|
|
|
| by -
xTrinityx
(Sat Dec 28 08:05:51)
|
|
| UPDATED Sat Dec 28 08:08:41 |
Very interesting thread. I just skimmed it though. Very informative about what some of the regulars here think and believe as well. Litchik and lqte, I enjoyed your posts, but of course I would because I am a believer as well. I may hit this back up, with my thoughts, I don't know. I just stopped frequenting an atheist site where I saw every argument under the sun against the existence of God, much less good as objective. I came here to get away from that for now.
One quick question though for you, Aule. Based on the things that you said would it be accurate to say that you are an agnostic? Or would atheist be more appropriate? Or would you rather not be labeled period?
"With great power comes great responsibility"
|
|
|
Actually in regards to the question in my last post, you don't have to answer it. It's off topic anyway.
"With great power comes great responsibility"
|
|
|
| by -
Aule
(Sat Dec 28 09:30:07)
|
|
Agnostic would be the better term. I don't know. I just know that nobody else knows either. They may think they do, but I don't think it is possible for human beings to understand an entity that presumably created the universe. So, I think that religions are man made devices.
I think that belief in there being a creator is reasonable, but I don't think religions have a clue as to the details, if such an entity exists. Whether Christians are right, or Muslims, or Jews, or Buddhists, or Hindus, or nobody - anyway you look at, most of the world is wrong. It think they're all wrong.
I do have my own beliefs but they don't involve any sort of dogma, and the question of a creator God remains just that to me - a question.
|
|
|
"With great power comes great responsibility"
|
|
|
This message has been deleted by an administrator
|
|
|
| by -
Aule
(Sat Dec 28 09:59:44)
|
|
So God and the Bible are universal truths? Not to Hindus, Buddhists, etc. That doesn't sound universal to me. It may be truth to the person who believes in it, but it is not to those who believe otherwise.
it amazes me when people look for universal truth in movies made by mere men
It amazes me when mere men claim they have found universal truth. The difference between you and me is that I am searching for it, while you get angry with anyone who doesn't blindly follow your religion. You claim that universal truth can be found in a book, so why not Tolkien's?
And I wasn't looking for universal truth in the movie or the book. I was asking how Tolkien portrayed evil - what his concept of it is, and I was asking what constitutes good and evil.
As for the "Stupid atheist" comment: by definition, I can't be an atheist if I'm questioning the concept. I'm an agnostic because I don't know, and I think that it is probably impossible to know. That doesn't mean I'm not spiritual, and it certainly doesn't mean that I'm stupid.
But thanks for taking the time to attempt to insult me in such a Christian way.
|
|
|
| by -
xTrinityx
(Sat Dec 28 10:11:53)
|
|
| UPDATED Sat Dec 28 10:14:29 |
Aule, don't take it personally, womanizer is just yanking your chain. I just refuse to believe anyone would be stupid enough to post that and have the moniker and sig that he has. I could be wrong though.
Let's just call it what it is, another inconsequential post made by a
TROLL.
"With great power comes great responsibility"
|
|
|
| by -
sinaes
(Sat Dec 28 23:38:11)
|
|
God? oh yes, good personal friend ... he's on vacation now.
Bible? ... that's by Guttenberg right?
Stupid? Now, now ... when God gets back we'll ask him. But for the moment, I don't think he'd mind me saying that ... you are no expert in universal truths.
Now go drink and be merry :)
|
|
|
And right then I knew, like you know about a good melon.
|
|
|
| by -
foar2itous-1
(Tue Jan 14 22:03:43)
|
|
| UPDATED Wed Jan 15 09:18:06 |
If this thread truely seeks to solve the issues that plague mankind, maybe you should recenter your strategy? I've noticed that a lot of people have been making the same mistakes that other posters have admittedly made in the past. Unless you frequent this thread and have an intimate knowledge of what has already been said, it is very difficult to move in a positive direction.
May I suggest a second thread- one where the 'regulars' have condensed their views and have aknowledged the problems associated with seeking a universal definition of evil? I would love to make a comment on the subject, but I have no idea where to begin. This would allow for more people to contribute to the conversation.
Here's a deceptively easy exercise: Define 'bread'. Your definition must include all that is bread and exclude all that isn't bread.
When you realize how daunting of a task it is to define something as concrete as 'bread', then you'll get an idea of how difficult it will be to define an abstract concept such as 'evil'.
I'm not saying that this is a fruitless arguement, in fact, one of the conclusions may just end up being that 'evil' is a human construct that is impossible to define. I just thought of something funny- what if someone tried to set up a second thread before and got shot down? I wouldn't have known!!
|
|
|
Hi foar,
I actually did set up a second thread at:
http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0167261/board/thread/497061
I didn't try to define "bread" (I concede that that would be too difficult; almost as hard as "pencil"); but I did try to streamline the conversation. Unfortunately, it too digressed (or progressed, depending on your perspective) to yet another Creation/Evolution debate, which is pretty fruitless. There are some nuggets in the early going though, in my opinion. If nothing else, it has remained fairly civil.
Peace.
|
|
|
Thank you very much.
To: Sinaes- You have broken the first cardinal rule of defining; "Never use the word that you are defining in the definition."
|
|
|
| by -
sinaes
(Wed Jan 15 20:53:36)
|
|
:)
|
|
|
| by -
sinaes
(Wed Jan 15 00:26:16)
|
|
bread .. an editable referred to as "bread"
|
|
|
| by -
sinaes
(Wed Jan 15 23:32:36)
|
|
LOTR is not about Hitler.
:)
(bump)
|
| |
| | |
company.
Advertise on IMDb.
License our content.
