Paper Help !!! Anything is helpful

@Jay phil,

Jay wrote:

QUOTE:
"Logically, there is no good without evil..."

Is it possible that the "Good" is a principle, and that evil is a condition?
Just a thought.

Each are forms, and forms of relationship... Life as a condition is what gives good and evil as forms their meaning... And as a condition, life is both Good and Evil, and as we can conceive of Good and Evil we have the power to move closer to the one and further from the other...

@Fido,

Jay wrote:

QUOTE:
"Logically, there is no good without evil..."

Is it possible that the "Good" is a principle, and that evil is a condition?
Just a thought.

Fido wrote:

Each are forms, and forms of relationship... Life as a condition is what gives good and evil as forms their meaning... And as a condition, life is both Good and Evil, and as we can conceive of Good and Evil we have the power to move closer to the one and further from the other...

Greetings Fido, thanks for your response.
Interesting reply, I'm not sure that I really understand it though.
But, I can be a little slow with these things.

When you talk about forms (or principles) are you talking about Platonic Forms?
If you are talking about Platonic Forms, I can find numerous mentions in the works of Plato of "Truth", "Goodness" and "Beauty" as transcendental Forms (or principles) but I find no mention of evil as being a form (or a principle).

This is an important distinction to me (evil as a principle' or a condition?) and I want to make sure that I have considered this thoroughly since so many other structural paths of thought may rest on it. I would be very grateful if you could point me to a philosopher or thinker that has structurally dealt with what you have written in your response, i.e. "forms of relationships" relating to Good and Evil. Does your trend of thought have a philosophical history of any kind that I can look up? I think it would help me understand your statement better.

Thanks

@Jay phil,

Jay wrote:

Greetings Fido, thanks for your response.
Interesting reply, I'm not sure that I really understand it though.
But, I can be a little slow with these things.

When you talk about forms (or principles) are you talking about Platonic Forms?
If you are talking about Platonic Forms, I can find numerous mentions in the works of Plato of "Truth", "Goodness" and "Beauty" as transcendental Forms (or principles) but I find no mention of evil as being a form (or a principle).

This is an important distinction to me (evil as a principle' or a condition?) and I want to make sure that I have considered this thoroughly since so many other structural paths of thought may rest on it. I would be very grateful if you could point me to a philosopher or thinker that has structurally dealt with what you have written in your response, i.e. "forms of relationships" relating to Good and Evil. Does your trend of thought have a philosophical history of any kind that I can look up? I think it would help me understand your statement better.

Thanks

Ya platonic forms, aristotlean forms, heggalian ideas.. They are all the same really, except Plato got it wrong... We are not, and our world is not created out of some idea of perfection. Rather, we arrive at a perfect form out of many imperfect examples... We are not created equal... There is no perfect equality, and we are not created; but we are equal...And, as kant may have said: knowledge is judgement, and every form is a judgement... But what are they other than the lens trough which we see the world??? We don't see the world, but only the bits and pieces we can recognize and judge with our forms... But natural forms, form we see in nature we can reproduce nature, and recreate nature; and so outdo nature... Every house is a form of cave, or more properly, a form of dwelliing like a cave...And through our forms we survive... But having no absolute proof of our existence we also use forms to recognize each other as with uniforms.. And that is evidence of what cannot be certain... So, we use forms to hold and transmit knowledge, but then we relate through them, as in forms of government, religion, and economy; which are really conceptual manifolds or manifold forms..And if you want to look at people through their relationships, this can be done through their forms, and see that they are more or less formal or informal. On the other hand, if you want to look at people through their forms, you can study the form by the Moral quality of the relationship, whether it is healthy, equal, rewarding, or vital...And human history is the history of forms because just as we discarded tents as forms of dwelling, and moved into mobil homes which are not really mobile until a ternader moves in, so we have always progressed as human beings, by keeping our nature, and changing our forms, and our forms of relationship... Not so complex really; but a theory that seems to fit with observable reality...Thanks

Oh; and good and evil are moral forms, both conditions that people must suffer or enjoy, and characteristics of humans that result in the condition... If a child dies suddenly, and not from violence, or a treatable disease, but from some accident of sorts... The condition is not evil, even if no one would seek it out.. It is an unhappy condition, to be sure; but natural death is natural, and so is grief; but if we only knew happiness we could not bear any unhappiness, and if we did not see death we could not be prepared for our own...So fate is life, and life is fate; and only those conditions we can cure or avoid can be thought evil... It is a form only because we conceive of evil, or good to talk of them, and we also relate with each other to avoid unnecessary unhappiness...Knowledge is virtue primarily because thought, conception, knowledge allows all people to avoid the evil that people do, and to avoid doing evil...It is not that you can teach any person to be good... Good is what children are taught at their mothers knees... Rather, people can be taught to avoid doing what is destructive to society, and society, as mother and child might be conceived, are good... Good is an unconscious choice, and evil is a conscious choice.... We know what and who we are when we have made outcasts and outlaws of ourselves...But alone we all find we are missing something essential to all our characters; the relationships which make us a part of some community... We are not naturally alone.. We must act unnaturally to be evil. Its late, and I did not proof read...Excuse the typos

@Fido,

Fido,

Thanks for the reply, I will give it some thought.

@Jay phil,

Jay wrote:

Fido,

Thanks for the reply, I will give it some thought.

Keep it light... You don't want a hernia...

@mattman33,

Quote:

I am writing a paper about the Fall of man and how this created the Moral and Natural evils in the world today
well while learning about the Existence of God we talked about how God could exist as being
1) All Good
2) All powerful
3) All Knowing

And still allow evil- It is broken down into

1) Moral Evil - Choices by people that cause evil - Due to free will
2) Natural Evil - Things that occur not by products of choice ex - Tornados, Volcanos, Tsunami etc...

The argument is to prove that God still exists even though these evils occur.... the argument that I face is that if God is

1) all good .. he would make no evil not test anyone
2) All powerful - could stop evil from occuring or atleast less than is ..
3) All knowing - Knows that this evil exists

My teacher said that one of the holes in my argument is that natural evil existed prior to the fall of man ex - Dinosaurs and the meteor that made them extinct .. etc

"Natural disasters" created the world we live in, if your teaqcher is saying there is evil in nature and that is their argument...Yer teacher sucks.

This is what I would tell your teacher.

In the book of genisis and the rest of the torah, there is no talk of satan. Moses says that when Adam disobeyed God, that curses would befall him by his own action and the charecteristics of his woes would be transmitted from generation to generation.

What adam did was eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. You could argue very convincingly that you don't fall for the dependant religions account of this event, and that you believe the authors original intent was an illustration depicting a course where in a man was persuaded by his lovers reasoning and general influence to try something that he always felt he shouldn't. He felt that she was right, the fruit was extremely sweet, he felt the health benifits in his body and mind, stronger and sharper; by the time he ate the last fruit of the season he had indoctrinated himself with the concept of duality in his pursuit of what he prefered, and flight of his distaste. Unknowingly abandoning the simple pleasures resulting from the natural quality of life. Being the father of all cultures his life could be looked back on as the innoculation point of humanities "evil" and that evil itself is not a creation of God, but a perceptual sickness. So the hurricanes, land slides, earth quakes, and catacalismic events partially responsible for our existance and a huge factor on the greates cultural and technological advancments in history are not evil like your teacher said but it is that your teacher is just very sick...perceptualy.

So by summerising the fall of man you could also point out to your teacher that thre is no such thing as natural evil and even the perception of a hurricane as being "evil" is a huge stretch of the imagination.

@mattman33,

This probably won't help, but...

In Jewish thought, what we perceive as "evil" and "suffering" is actually God's test of our faith in Him. More or less. Both Genesis 3 and the book of Job are excellent examples of this. Thus, moral evil, in Jewish thought, is merely a man failing God's test.

Natural evil is harder to quantify, I don't think it's necessarily evil; rather, it's merely the side effects of maintaining a condition necessary to support life. Earthquakes, volcanoes, mass wasting, tsunamis, etc., are the products of a dynamic Earth: an Earth still molten hot in the center and trying to cool itself off. The Earth needs to be molten because if it weren't there would be no electromagnetic field protecting us from cosmic rays, which, in turn, would make life on the surface impossible. What we see as "natural evil" is thus itself a subset of a failure of choice, the decision to inhabit a particularly seismically active area, with these consequences being the certain long-term consequences of living in an area where Earth vents heat: that is, in the very act of making a world livable, one must make portions of that world unlivable.

The idea that if God were omnibeneficent (all-good) he would not test us is absurd. Do we not punish children when they do something wrong? Does that make us bad parents?

Although the idea that if God were indeed omnipotent He would prevent us from doing evil seems to have more credence, remember that we as humans learn the most from our greatest mistakes. God must allow the ability to make mistakes, else destroy free will, which would defeat the notion of His testing us. Thus, omnipotence and malfeasance are not mutually exclusive.

At this point in time, God's omniscience seems to be a nullity. God knows evil exists but will not stop it because evil is God's test of humanity, and only by learning from our mistakes can we be closer to the greater good. That is, by allowing smaller evils (including some pretty big ones) God creates greater goodness.

I have looked long and hard at Genesis and have come to the conclusion that the Original Sin was not Eve's eating of the forbidden fruit, but rather the serpent's deception tricking Eve into eating the fruit: this sin was so great God visited the greater punishment onto the serpent and cursed it and its descendants forever.

As for the hole you mentioned, it seems the "natural evil" can only be experienced by creatures able to ascertain between good and evil, i.e., us. The asteroid was not a natural evil because it did not impact any critters (insofar as we know) able to understand the difference between good and evil and therefore none at the time could call it evil.

@hammersklavier,

Quote:

but rather the serpent's deception tricking Eve into eating the fruit:

interesting observation

@NeOH,

NeOH wrote:

interesting observation

It also kinda invalidates some pretty serious Catholic dogma, no?

@hammersklavier,

hammersklavier wrote:

As for the hole you mentioned, it seems the "natural evil" can only be experienced by creatures able to ascertain between good and evil, i.e., us. The asteroid was not a natural evil because it did not impact any critters (insofar as we know) able to understand the difference between good and evil and therefore none at the time could call it evil.

Don't you think that animal suffering is an evil even if they cannot understand the difference between good and evil?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

Don't you think that animal suffering is an evil even if they cannot understand the difference between good and evil?

The inherent source of morality is the mind; its essential extension is our actions. What animals do they do by instinct: eat, sleep, drink, mate. They are inherently amoral (in the sense that they lack any moral authority).

The premise that the more irregular actions of the Earth itself is shot because what we see as disasters tend to be the Earth regulating itself, and humanity's living in a volcanically active area, e.g., Seattle, Naples, is the result of humanity's choice to live in a volcanic area. Yes, the tragedy of an eruption is just that--a tragedy--but which would you rather see: a relatively small area affected by temperature regulation or the Earth blowing itself up because it was unable to vent excess heat and pressure? (And remember, there must be enough heat and pressure for the core to stay molten, else the magnetic field surrounding us would collapse and then we'd be cooked alive by all the solar and cosmic radiation that's currently disposed of up there).

I am in two minds about tornadoes. Perhaps they are yes indeed elements of natural evil, but what is more likely is that they are instead tragic anomalies in a system we need to stay alive. The same could be said about asteroid impacts: as the system intended to keep us alive is that they would smash in Jupiter, but if that were true, why were the asteroids created in the first place? It is suggested that they are remnants of planetary formation: if that is so, then our existence, on a planetary body, would be predicated on their existence, as remnants of other planetary bodies--we could not be around without them too being around. If that is true, then maybe Jupiter ought to be regarded as a kind of stopgap (perhaps it is the only possible one?) measure keeping asteroid impacts from decimating life on terrestial planets, e.g., Earth, before it even begins.

In this sense, the loss of life, both human and animal, due to purely natural causes, while tragic, because these tragedies are natural irregularities inherent in any sustainable system, is not evil (because the system is required to support us); what would be natural evil would to not allow the ability of the system to develop in the first place.

@hammersklavier,

I did not say that animals think it is evil. It is, of course human beings who think it is evil. Evil is, in part, a notion that concern a response to events by human beings.

@mattman33,

Animals have the will to survive, but I don't think they have the same attatchments as humans that would cause what one would call a "suffering" experience just because they die.

People causing pain in animals or torturing them, making them fight etc for pleasure or money is a person being what we call evil, but animals don't live in the world of good and evil, they don't judge their killers and torturers evil.

All their reactions are, are the will to survive.

I dont really think it is a matter of us being of a clearer perception being able to ascertain the differences, its just purely a human experience, we create it with our perception. We dont have to eat of the fruit which causes us to "know" good from evil, but we do at the moment.

@NeOH,

Just because an animal has no conception of "good" and "evil" does not mean that the animal cannot suffer.

If you do not think animals can suffer, I recommend you go work at an animal shelter for a few days.

@mattman33,

The animal cannot put suffering in a larger context...It cannot conceptualize as we can...It does not mean they suffer less; and it does not mean they suffer more... They cannot accept suffering to get through to a desired end of not suffering...

@mattman33,

Some reasons we people suffer is that we create an idea of what suffering is, and we have not comes to grips with the fact that we will die even young, maybe anytime, and most importantly which is directly connected to the last one is our attatchments, and what we project onto life.

If you think I need to go see an animal suffering to understand what you call suffering then we are talking about differnt things. What I see at an animal shelter is what I would categorize as "people squandoring and waisting the earth irresposnsibley" I dont really think that pets are a thing that people should have. We call that imprisoment if it were a person regaurdless of how well cared for they are. And in this day in age that waiste is a product of people pursuing what they like, a product of knowing good from evil if you will rather then doing what is favorable for humanity and thus the earth and every creature on it. It is "good" that has those animals "suffering" as much as "evil". Part of their suffering in the shelter is not having their "master" say "good" doggie.

edit- I realize that I'll risk coming across as sick or morbid, but what I think would be favorable for the earth and everything on it if pets were all put to sleep and disposed of and people came to an understanding that it is not favorable. Maybe as primates if we became a little closer and less "every man " for himself we wouldn't need pets to fill those gaps that as primates we are lacking in the global industrialized complex that we all live in.:whistling:

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

The animal cannot put suffering in a larger context...It cannot conceptualize as we can...It does not mean they suffer less; and it does not mean they suffer more... They cannot accept suffering to get through to a desired end of not suffering...

... so when a primate in a lab experiment on altruism in the "lower animals" sees one of it species going hungry and decides to share its food, what is that? ... it seems to me that the primate both has a concept of hunger and the ability to project that concept to another of its kind ...

@mattman33,

If it is truly an idea, it is not created...But an idea of pain, or danger can cause fear... Have you ever heard the story about Richard the Lion Hearted coming with some companions upon a grave marker saying that the man beneath had never known fear...And Richard commented that he must never have snuffed out a candle with his fingers...-You know the pain, you know the fear... Animals deal with only one situation at a time, so far as we know...

@paulhanke,

paulhanke wrote:

... so when a primate in a lab experiment on altruism in the "lower animals" sees one of it species going hungry and decides to share its food, what is that? ... it seems to me that the primate both has a concept of hunger and the ability to project that concept to another of its kind ...

Some people think some people are not human...In fact, with primates in some cases having a greater than 99% equality of genetic make up, it should put the burden of proof on those who say they know nothing abstactly...I do not say that, and I would not say that of dophins or wales...In the sense that any animal can get a three demensional sense of their environment, they might be capable of conception...Can they conceive of events out of time...It is one thing to think of a place for example for which there is a direct path, a seamless sort of transition from here to there, and it is another thing to conceive of an ideal place based upon many built up experiences of good... To me it is sort of immaterial...If an animal cannot communicate its anxiety over some future event does not mean they do not live with constant anxiety, as most of our victims were always victims, and perhaps have better life with us than without.. And that is again immaterial... Since everything pays for life with death, death is not the issue; but anyone who goes out of their way to abuse animals is sick... We use them, and we should respect them and thank them for their lives, just as savages did... And also use them economicaly from snort to fart... It is only being decent as we can conceive of it...

@paulhanke,

paulhanke;44610 wrote:

... so when a primate in a lab experiment on altruism in the "lower animals" sees one of it species going hungry and decides to share its food, what is that? ... it seems to me that the primate both has a concept of hunger and the ability to project that concept to another of its kind ...

Thats what primates instinctively do, they take care of eachother, some extend that to other species of primates as when the gorilla swooped into the ditch to pick up the human baby when all the humans were scared and freaking out.

Primates are group animals and instinctively do that they have evolved to. People are primates who live in a global economic system that actually divides and severs those social bonds that helped us evolve to our state.

Dogs are pack animals most cats except for certain solitary big cats live in prides-house cats are not the exception here- they will form prides when in enough numbers.

Humans of industrialized cultures, being primates, have formed comparatively weak social bonds and exploit other group animals to fill those voids ie cats and dogs; other beings that we can share a physical unsexual affectionete relationship; just simply having some being to touch or to sit on your lap lean on you. These are interactions that primates require with eachother, humans are no exception. In the same way that we are mammals and need milk during the stage of infant dependancy we are also primates and require closeness. But like I said our societyt pulls and pushes us apart from the time of infancy thru adulthood to death, yet we can exploit group animals like cats and dogs by forcing them to form those chemical bonds with us. Its pretty good for the economy too.

Philosophy Forum

Paper Help !!! Anything is helpful

Quick Links

My Account

able2know