Good/evil
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is always amusing to witness the effect of mans invention upon mans thought.
The entire premise of juxtaposing opposites [a human method of interpreting reality and ordering existence into comprehensibility] has lead to the creation of the ideas: ‘Good’ and ‘Evil’.
Upon this imaginative human creation- where ‘good’ is presented as that which is beneficial to man, in a general way, and that which is ‘evil’ can either be defined as the opposite of ‘good’ and that which is detrimental to man, in a general way, or merely the absence of ‘good’ or indifference to mans interests- entire philosophies have been constructed and humanity has occupied its thoughts, aspirations and hopes for millennia.
This human prejudiced interpretation of phenomena as good/evil, when added to the other human prejudiced perspective of cause/effect is the foundation of all human religious and spiritual thought.
The thought goes like this:
There are two polar opposites in the universe as expressed by human thought through language in light/dark, cold/hot, up/down, life/death, and good/evil.
The ideas deemed ‘evil’ are those where no sacrifice, no effort or consumption need take place but just is. Darkness needs no consumption but just is where as light needs a sacrifice, a burning, a consuming or combining in order for it to come to be.
The phenomena deemed ‘good’ are those which exist only with effort and so are weaker than the ‘evil’ phenomena, which require none, and ephemeral in their existence.
Man being a representative of life, as the only known fully conscious living entity, obviously relates himself to the phenomena that, like him, require effort, sacrifice and consumption to continue being or becoming. As such he sees himself as a kind of defender and protector of all that struggles to exist and glorifies all phenomena that, like him, are rare, ephemeral, and unique and which require consumption and effort such as light, heat, and life in general.
Because of this he associates ‘good’ as a positive force and ‘evil’ as the negative opposition against which he and all life struggles to overcome and overpower and then create deities and powers to pacify his anxieties and insecurities.
Man intuitively recognizes the power of what he perceives as negative and sees in its simple being without effort a threat against all that he is a result of, which requires constant and consistent effort, and so with his imagination he recruits fantastic beings of absolute power to represent the powers of ‘good’, that are omnipotent and indestructible, in order to defend his preferred side against an ‘enemy’ that is persistently present and dominant.
Furthermore because of the dominance of what is ‘negative’ in the environment man finds himself in, such as the dominance of darkness and coldness in comparison to light and heat in our universe, man feels insecure about his position in it and so alleviates his anxieties by making the entire construct a product of the forces he finds affinity with.
He creates a God or gods that are alive, conscious, illuminating, warm and ‘good’ as his defenders and allies or he makes the phenomena themselves deities [light is God, love is God and so on]
But of course it is ridiculous to assume that any of this has any real meaning outside human psychology.
What is real, even if partially perceived, just ‘IS’ and has neither a positive or negative character [Is rust positive or is iron?]. Whether we interpret effects or phenomena as ‘good’ or ‘evil’ is of no importance to what ‘IS’ and is mostly determined by our perspective on it and our own personal interests.
There are no transcending meanings to the human prejudices of ‘negativity’ and ‘positivity’ but only temporal, localized and subjective ones that are influenced by our existential positions of shared consciousness but also defined by social, cultural and historical factors.
What is ‘good’ and ‘evil’ may exhibit a consistency of definition, because what is defining them [mankind] has a common perspective and interest as living conscious beings, but subtly alters in time due to cultural and social needs. Some things that were labelled ‘good’ in the past are considered ‘evil’ in today’s world and may again be redefined as ‘good’ on some future date.
As such I challenge anyone to define ‘evil’ and ‘good’ in a transcending objective manner so as to make any discussion about them a meaningful and worthy endeavour and not the childish, mythological and meaningless practice of primitive mutterings from beings struggling to deal with their own existence and their own fears and hopes.
Original sin
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An added consideration must be given to the notion of original sin.
In my view this expression of doubt as to what is really ‘negative’ and ‘positive’ can be found in the human realization that all that man considers ‘good’ and ‘positive’ requires force, effort and sacrifice. In other words for something ‘positive’ to exist something else must be destroyed whereas ‘negative’ phenomena require no such ‘violence’.
Are our notions of ‘evil’ and ‘good’ reversed?
This is why in Christianity the idea of existence imposing guilt upon the existing is of fundamental importance. To live is to kill and to illuminate is to burn.
The very concept of ‘positivity’ is fraught with contradiction.
For this reason the idea of an omnipotent absolute good God is necessary to redeem mans guilt for existing. An absolute ‘good’ that requires no effort or sacrifice to exist just like ‘evil’ and so can offer salvation to a creature so dependant on doing harm and dominating others. The idea of an omnipotent ‘good’ God is also necessary to exact vengeance on all those that embrace this existence and their own nature completely and that can take advantage of this ‘reality’ to its fullest by limiting the existence of others. The strong, the fortunate the cunning must be made to pay, in the afterlife, for their domination and power over the unfortunate and weak or must be threatened and convinced to limit their own abilities so that the weaker ones can also partake of existence somewhat.
Life, in the Christian tradition, becomes an effort to limit the strong from enjoying it to its fullest by making pleasure sinful, actions restricted and nature shameful.
The Christian God is a way out of a contradiction where what we would like to consider ‘evil’ or ‘negative’ exhibits no purpose or effort but is mostly inert and woven into the very fabric of our universe [Death for instance just is the normal state of most of the universe and needs no violence to continue being such]; what we would like to consider ‘positive’ and ‘good’, on the other hand, is a struggle against what is passive and inert and so must destroy and consume in order to continue being [Life for instance is unique and must destroy other life to persist]. The Christian God therefore becomes a mythical universe of ‘good’ where no such violence and destruction is required, just like ‘evil’ in our universe, and is the source of this reality and so a reward for all that can pass through life and show the needed humility and shame for having existed at all.
Christians, in essence, live to die in order to escape the sin of having lived at all; life, for them, is something to pay for and to endure as a necessary step towards a universe where it is ‘good’ that just ‘IS’ and it is ‘evil’ that requires effort and violence to continue being.
In other words Christians, are so distressed with this reality, that they dream and hope of one that is the opposite of it and are willing to sacrifice this existence and all the possibilities in it, for the hypothetical other one.
The idea of original sin is an effort to impose the feeling of shame for mans own nature and a strategy to curb future advantages offered to the few over the many.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is always amusing to witness the effect of mans invention upon mans thought.
The entire premise of juxtaposing opposites [a human method of interpreting reality and ordering existence into comprehensibility] has lead to the creation of the ideas: ‘Good’ and ‘Evil’.
Upon this imaginative human creation- where ‘good’ is presented as that which is beneficial to man, in a general way, and that which is ‘evil’ can either be defined as the opposite of ‘good’ and that which is detrimental to man, in a general way, or merely the absence of ‘good’ or indifference to mans interests- entire philosophies have been constructed and humanity has occupied its thoughts, aspirations and hopes for millennia.
This human prejudiced interpretation of phenomena as good/evil, when added to the other human prejudiced perspective of cause/effect is the foundation of all human religious and spiritual thought.
The thought goes like this:
There are two polar opposites in the universe as expressed by human thought through language in light/dark, cold/hot, up/down, life/death, and good/evil.
The ideas deemed ‘evil’ are those where no sacrifice, no effort or consumption need take place but just is. Darkness needs no consumption but just is where as light needs a sacrifice, a burning, a consuming or combining in order for it to come to be.
The phenomena deemed ‘good’ are those which exist only with effort and so are weaker than the ‘evil’ phenomena, which require none, and ephemeral in their existence.
Man being a representative of life, as the only known fully conscious living entity, obviously relates himself to the phenomena that, like him, require effort, sacrifice and consumption to continue being or becoming. As such he sees himself as a kind of defender and protector of all that struggles to exist and glorifies all phenomena that, like him, are rare, ephemeral, and unique and which require consumption and effort such as light, heat, and life in general.
Because of this he associates ‘good’ as a positive force and ‘evil’ as the negative opposition against which he and all life struggles to overcome and overpower and then create deities and powers to pacify his anxieties and insecurities.
Man intuitively recognizes the power of what he perceives as negative and sees in its simple being without effort a threat against all that he is a result of, which requires constant and consistent effort, and so with his imagination he recruits fantastic beings of absolute power to represent the powers of ‘good’, that are omnipotent and indestructible, in order to defend his preferred side against an ‘enemy’ that is persistently present and dominant.
Furthermore because of the dominance of what is ‘negative’ in the environment man finds himself in, such as the dominance of darkness and coldness in comparison to light and heat in our universe, man feels insecure about his position in it and so alleviates his anxieties by making the entire construct a product of the forces he finds affinity with.
He creates a God or gods that are alive, conscious, illuminating, warm and ‘good’ as his defenders and allies or he makes the phenomena themselves deities [light is God, love is God and so on]
But of course it is ridiculous to assume that any of this has any real meaning outside human psychology.
What is real, even if partially perceived, just ‘IS’ and has neither a positive or negative character [Is rust positive or is iron?]. Whether we interpret effects or phenomena as ‘good’ or ‘evil’ is of no importance to what ‘IS’ and is mostly determined by our perspective on it and our own personal interests.
There are no transcending meanings to the human prejudices of ‘negativity’ and ‘positivity’ but only temporal, localized and subjective ones that are influenced by our existential positions of shared consciousness but also defined by social, cultural and historical factors.
What is ‘good’ and ‘evil’ may exhibit a consistency of definition, because what is defining them [mankind] has a common perspective and interest as living conscious beings, but subtly alters in time due to cultural and social needs. Some things that were labelled ‘good’ in the past are considered ‘evil’ in today’s world and may again be redefined as ‘good’ on some future date.
As such I challenge anyone to define ‘evil’ and ‘good’ in a transcending objective manner so as to make any discussion about them a meaningful and worthy endeavour and not the childish, mythological and meaningless practice of primitive mutterings from beings struggling to deal with their own existence and their own fears and hopes.
Original sin
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An added consideration must be given to the notion of original sin.
In my view this expression of doubt as to what is really ‘negative’ and ‘positive’ can be found in the human realization that all that man considers ‘good’ and ‘positive’ requires force, effort and sacrifice. In other words for something ‘positive’ to exist something else must be destroyed whereas ‘negative’ phenomena require no such ‘violence’.
Are our notions of ‘evil’ and ‘good’ reversed?
This is why in Christianity the idea of existence imposing guilt upon the existing is of fundamental importance. To live is to kill and to illuminate is to burn.
The very concept of ‘positivity’ is fraught with contradiction.
For this reason the idea of an omnipotent absolute good God is necessary to redeem mans guilt for existing. An absolute ‘good’ that requires no effort or sacrifice to exist just like ‘evil’ and so can offer salvation to a creature so dependant on doing harm and dominating others. The idea of an omnipotent ‘good’ God is also necessary to exact vengeance on all those that embrace this existence and their own nature completely and that can take advantage of this ‘reality’ to its fullest by limiting the existence of others. The strong, the fortunate the cunning must be made to pay, in the afterlife, for their domination and power over the unfortunate and weak or must be threatened and convinced to limit their own abilities so that the weaker ones can also partake of existence somewhat.
Life, in the Christian tradition, becomes an effort to limit the strong from enjoying it to its fullest by making pleasure sinful, actions restricted and nature shameful.
The Christian God is a way out of a contradiction where what we would like to consider ‘evil’ or ‘negative’ exhibits no purpose or effort but is mostly inert and woven into the very fabric of our universe [Death for instance just is the normal state of most of the universe and needs no violence to continue being such]; what we would like to consider ‘positive’ and ‘good’, on the other hand, is a struggle against what is passive and inert and so must destroy and consume in order to continue being [Life for instance is unique and must destroy other life to persist]. The Christian God therefore becomes a mythical universe of ‘good’ where no such violence and destruction is required, just like ‘evil’ in our universe, and is the source of this reality and so a reward for all that can pass through life and show the needed humility and shame for having existed at all.
Christians, in essence, live to die in order to escape the sin of having lived at all; life, for them, is something to pay for and to endure as a necessary step towards a universe where it is ‘good’ that just ‘IS’ and it is ‘evil’ that requires effort and violence to continue being.
In other words Christians, are so distressed with this reality, that they dream and hope of one that is the opposite of it and are willing to sacrifice this existence and all the possibilities in it, for the hypothetical other one.
The idea of original sin is an effort to impose the feeling of shame for mans own nature and a strategy to curb future advantages offered to the few over the many.