good reading on 'evil'

[Billy]

Dear @Billy,
I do not care whether or not you think evil exists. In fact, I do not care what you think at all. I was looking for reading recommendations, not a debate on semantics.

But since you were wondering who is the ultimate judge on good and evil, that person is MYSELF. ME.

You will all burn in hell for your sins.

Calling this a debate is laughable, it was like shooting fish in a barrel.

 

[Brodskizzle]

I really liked In the Garden of Beasts by Erik Larson. It's about the American ambassador to Germany during Hitler's first years in power. It's very well-written and does a good job of showing good people become bad by interacting with evil, which I've always found more compelling than bad people simply becoming more intensely bad.

 

[Paladin-X]

What? Dude do you even know what subjective vs objective means?

Yes he does. As do you. Subjectivity and objectivity have many definitions.

I believe Kmal is essentially questioning the objective nature of objectivity when it is derived from the collectivity of subjective sources. IE Is a thing a thing because we all believe it to be a thing; or is a thing a thing regardless of what we believe. But then how do we know? Because for us to believe that a thing is a thing, we must have consensus from the subjectivity of the many to prove that the thing is a thing and thus objective. This logic ties back in to your conversation of the existence of evil.

Although this same argument can be debated in its most elementary form of "If a tree falls in the forest, but no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

 

[Paladin-X]

Can't we label someone/thing/institution as evil and go as far as to make them our enemy, but not hate them or try to destroy them? Can we love our enemies?

I agree, letting evil infect our hearts turns us into what we hate. Nightmarish situation imo.

Actions are evil but not the person? I'm not sure I understand how an action can be evil. Lying isn't always evil and not all liars are evil, but some liars are evil. Stealing isn't always evil and not all thieves are evil, but some thieves are evil. Wouldn't it always be people that are evil and not the action itself? Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean.

“In actual life it requires the greatest art to be simple, and so acceptance of oneself is the essence of the moral problem and the acid test of one's whole outlook on life. That I feed the beggar, that I forgive an insult, that I love my enemy in the name of Christ - all these are undoubtedly great virtues. What I do unto the least of my brethren, that I do unto Christ. But what if I should discover that the least among them all, the poorest of all beggars, the most impudent of all offenders, yea the very fiend himself - that these are within me, and that I myself stand in need of my own kindness, that I myself am the enemy who must be loved - what then? Then, as a rule, the whole truth of Christianity is reversed: there is no more talk of love and long-suffering; we say to the brother within us, ‘Raca,’ and condemn and rage against ourselves. We hide him from the world; we deny ever having met this least among the lowly in ourselves, and had it been God himself who drew near to us in this despicable form, we should have denied him a thousand times before a single cock had crowed.” - Carl Jung

To no one in particular:
If Christianity talks about standing in judgement before God... who are you to judge an individual's purity?

Point #3 again at no one in particular...
Judge not a man by his actions. Judge a man's actions instead. For a man is neither good or evil, right nor wrong; he is simply a man. Though a man may do a bad thing, he himself is not a bad man, but merely a man who has done a bad thing. Punish the man's physical being for his actions, but his soul and self may only stand in judgement of a metaphysical force that can truly see, and not the force of physical man. When we demonize a man, we leave ourselves open to be demonized.

In freeing the man's self, one may find some peace in the freedom of judgement in their own self.

NOTE: You can replace man with woman to mean the same thing. I only use the word man because it has fewer letters and faster to type.

 

[Billy]

Yes he does. As do you. Subjectivity and objectivity have many definitions.

I believe Kmal is essentially questioning the objective nature of objectivity when it is derived from the collectivity of subjective sources. IE Is a thing a thing because we all believe it to be a thing; or is a thing a thing regardless of what we believe. But then how do we know? Because for us to believe that a thing is a thing, we must have consensus from the subjectivity of the many to prove that the thing is a thing and thus objective. This logic ties back in to your conversation of the existence of evil.

Although this same argument can be debated in its most elementary form of "If a tree falls in the forest, but no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

A tree falling in the woods does create a sound if no human is there to hear it. Its called using a tape recorder.

 

[Auron]

A tree falling in the woods does create a sound if no human is there to hear it. Its called using a tape recorder.

This.

But I don't really need a tape recorder, as I know a tree falling is going to make a sound.

 

[Billy]

Yes he does. As do you. Subjectivity and objectivity have many definitions.

I believe Kmal is essentially questioning the objective nature of objectivity when it is derived from the collectivity of subjective sources. IE Is a thing a thing because we all believe it to be a thing; or is a thing a thing regardless of what we believe. But then how do we know? Because for us to believe that a thing is a thing, we must have consensus from the subjectivity of the many to prove that the thing is a thing and thus objective. This logic ties back in to your conversation of the existence of evil.

Although this same argument can be debated in its most elementary form of "If a tree falls in the forest, but no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

A tree falling in the woods does create a sound if no human is there to hear it. Its called using a tape recorder.

or even better

Noise is a mechanical energy, its physically real. A source of sound makes its sounds whether something is there to hear it or not. Does the center of the earth exist? We can see it... is the earth round? We cannot see it. But these are things we can still prove through calculation and technology absent humans being able to perceive it. Do cells and bacteria exist? Yes, we know they do, even though we cannot perceive them without instruments.

The basic definition of sound is the periodic compression and rarefaction of air.

If we can prove a tree has fallen, we can prove that it compressed the air as it fell and made vibrations, scientifically this question is very answerable.

 

[Paladin-X]

A tree falling in the woods does create a sound if no human is there to hear it. Its called using a tape recorder.

Haha I will leave this topic alone. It is a far more involved discussion than surface level thinking and probably deserves a thread on its own.

 

[Auron]

Yes he does. As do you. Subjectivity and objectivity have many definitions.

I believe Kmal is essentially questioning the objective nature of objectivity when it is derived from the collectivity of subjective sources. IE Is a thing a thing because we all believe it to be a thing; or is a thing a thing regardless of what we believe. But then how do we know? Because for us to believe that a thing is a thing, we must have consensus from the subjectivity of the many to prove that the thing is a thing and thus objective. This logic ties back in to your conversation of the existence of evil.

Although this same argument can be debated in its most elementary form of "If a tree falls in the forest, but no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

As long as there is air on Earth for sound waves to travel through into our eardrums, then yes, it does make a sound.

 

[Kmal]

Noise is a mechanical energy, its physically real. A source of sound makes its sounds whether something is there to hear it or not. Does the center of the earth exist? We can see it... is the earth round? We cannot see it. But these are things we can still prove through calculation and technology absent humans being able to perceive it. Do cells and bacteria exist? Yes, we know they do, even though we cannot perceive them without instruments.

One has suggested the Word spoken about in John is that objective vibration, the frequency of life that is always here and never dies, so good reply billy.

Can't we label someone/thing/institution as evil and go as far as to make them our enemy, but not hate them or try to destroy them? Can we love our enemies?

I agree, letting evil infect our hearts turns us into what we hate. Nightmarish situation imo.

Actions are evil but not the person? I'm not sure I understand how an action can be evil. Lying isn't always evil and not all liars are evil, but some liars are evil. Stealing isn't always evil and not all thieves are evil, but some thieves are evil. Wouldn't it always be people that are evil and not the action itself? Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean.

If I love someone they are not my enemy because they are now helping me. Even the man who attacks me just makes me stronger. Is he just a human with flaws too? Who am I to hold against him what I do also? I may see your disconnect, that the man makes the actions, so how can he not be evil too? Some people are inescapable inefficient for their own pleasure and their own gain, which is others loss, but if they saw as though they were just born they would live efficiently. [MENTION=5437]Paladin-X[/MENTION] had a great point, a human simply being is not evil, but what they do can be good or evil. If one sees the truth, which paradoxically is different for all yet the same, will they not live by it? So if one is evil, he hasnt seen the truth but you can show it to him. Some wont change for whatever reason, but they can be seen as a test for those who love unconditionally, for one doesnt know the future and one who wont change just may not have yet.

 

[ImpureHedonism]

Dear [MENTION=1451]Billy[/MENTION],
But since you were wondering who is the ultimate judge on good and evil, that person is MYSELF. ME.

I like this line. The only possible measure of what is good or evil is in comparison to how some action or person affects your own life. On top of that, we're all human here, so some actions are objectively bad for all people to the extent that they are human. Billy would be right, if it weren't for the fact he was talking about morality dictated by god or society - the wrong kind of morality that he (and I) rejects. That moral concepts don't exist as tangible objects doesn't mean there is no such thing as objective morality. Is math subjective because you can't perceive addition? Is reality subjective because your understanding of reality is in the sphere of human intellect?

 

[Paladin-X]

I like this line. The only possible measure of what is good or evil is in comparison to how some action or person affects your own life. On top of that, we're all human here, so some actions are objectively bad for all people to the extent that they are human. Billy would be right, if it weren't for the fact he was talking about morality dictated by god or society - the wrong kind of morality that he (and I) rejects. That moral concepts don't exist as tangible objects doesn't mean there is no such thing as objective morality. Is math subjective because you can't perceive addition? Is reality subjective because your understanding of reality is in the sphere of human intellect?

Reality exists only in the mind. Even all that is tangible, what you see, hear, smell, taste, and touch, is nothing more than the interpretations of signals in your brain. How do you know what is real? By consensus of self and others? If reality is subject to the interpretation of your mind, does that not then make reality subjective?

 

[ImpureHedonism]

Reality exists only in the mind. Even all that is tangible, what you see, hear, smell, taste, and touch, is nothing more than the interpretations of signals in your brain. How do you know what is real? By consensus of self and others? If reality is subject to the interpretation of your mind, does that not then make reality subjective?

Your senses work because they reflect reality. That your brain enables perception doesn't mean you're only getting a "second-handed" reality. You know what is real because your senses work. There isn't some kind of perception "wall" behind which is the "real" reality.

 

[Paladin-X]

Your senses work because they reflect reality. That your brain enables perception doesn't mean you're only getting a "second-handed" reality. You know what is real because your senses work. There isn't some kind of perception "wall" behind which is the "real" reality.

That is not entirely true. However, I do not wish to further trainwreck this thread anymore with a discussion of the essence of existence and reality.

Alice originally wanted resource recommendations for studying Evil. I will do my utmost to leave it alone as that... (No promises!)

 

[Quiet]

A tree falling in the woods does create a sound if no human is there to hear it. Its called using a tape recorder.

have a look at the double slit experiment

We see what we want. We see things as we are, not as they are. Conciousness creates reality. Perceptions shape reality.