9-18-1
Active Member
Isaiah 45:7
יוצראורובוראחשךעשהשלוםובורארעאנייהוהעשהכלאלה
I form the light and create darkness
I make peace and create evil
I the LORD do all these things
The nature of 'good and evil' has occupied virtually every school of thought - both theistic and non-theistic - since time immemorial. Surely if there ever were a definitive answer(s) and/or solution(s) to such a problem, it would seem that a sufficiently evolved humanity will come to eventually discover it.יוצראורובוראחשךעשהשלוםובורארעאנייהוהעשהכלאלה
I form the light and create darkness
I make peace and create evil
I the LORD do all these things
This thread is open to discussion/debates relating to the nature of 'good and evil' and all are welcome to participate.
I personally propose that it would first and foremost be wholly inappropriate to approach the nature of 'good and evil' in the frame work of an opposition: 'good versus evil'. I would even suggest that such a construct is detrimental to the same tune of [YHVH Elohim]'s warning to Adam: not to "eat" of the "tree of knowledge of 'good and evil'". In order to properly understand this, is essential to know what the original Hebrew words are which are rendered in English 'good' and 'evil':
טוב 'tov': pure/non-polluted (good)
רע 'ra': impure/polluted (evil)
which are found in the body of the Hebrew expression:
ועץהדעתטובורע 'tree of the knowledge of 'good and evil'.
I propose the reason as follows: by imbuing anything in 'nature' as objectively (intrinsically; in and of itself) 'good' and/or 'evil', one is effectively polarizing (internally polarized) such that his/her experience of creation will always be based on this principle (of) division/polarization which, in turn, will produce a unique 'experience' of creation directly related to that particular principle division/polarization. In other words, however (if) one individual polarizes 'good and/from evil' is precisely what will yield their own unique experience of creation which will be in direct relation to that individual polarization which, ultimately, ends in death. This brings us around full circle to the Biblical warning: eating from the tree results in death.
To use a real-world example as a debate platform, I chose two conflicted ideological factions (world religions) which lend themselves to this very dilemma: Christianity and (vs) Islam.
From the perspective of a "good" Christian, the religion of Islam may appear "evil".
From the perspective of a "good" Muslim, the religion of Christianity may appear "evil".
The ways in which this happens are many - occupying endless hours of countless discussions and debates - and well outside the scope of this post (the rest of the forums serve this purpose well over).
Undoubtedly, there exists a latent hostility between these rival factions which has lead to the deaths of hundreds of millions of worshipers/believers in various manners: wars, persecutions, martyrdoms etc. regardless of from which angle one looks with any associated prejudice(s). The point I wish to emphasize here is focusing on the fact that the multitudes of peoples involved have met the same fate (death) warned of in the aforementioned Biblical account which is of immense significance.
To crudely generalize the overarching dilemma, wars are essentially a collapse into the state wherein one faction believes he/she to be on the side of "good" while their adversaries believe themselves to also be on the side of "good": resulting in both sides believing to be on the "side of good" while simultaneously believing the other to be on the "side of evil".
I thus propose that the fundamental dilemma above is but one (among many) manifestation(s) directly related to the problem of 'good vs. evil'.
Based on this, I re-iterate the one aforementioned possible construction (solution) of this dilemma and suggest an (equally viable) second:
S1: 'GOOD and EVIL' as a COOPERATION (union)
S2: 'GOOD vs EVIL' as an OPPOSITION (division)
with the former necessarily leading to conflict/death and the latter leading to the eradication of the principle dilemma (of duality/suffering/death) in the first place. In essence, designating any single aspect of creation as objectively/inherently/intrinsically 'good' and/or 'evil' without fully comprehending and/or understanding i. its counterpart and ii. how the two negate one another to produce unity, will inevitably lead to suffering/death.
S2 is already handled in the above example of Christianity and (vs) Islam: it necessarily manifests as death. However, S1 has yet to be observed, which I now address.
If one were to temporarily grant (if even for the sake of argument) that 'things' of evil nature ("bad") exist, there are many such 'things' which could immediately come to the mind(s) of a general populace: abuse, murder, rape, sexual exploitation of vulnerable people (including minors) etc. and can be generalized as knowingly (and possibly unknowingly) performing an action(s) which necessarily results in the harm of other(s). There are certainly arguments to be made that such things are examples of how evil does find expression, but we must also take precaution to not ignore the other side: good. After all, the principle position of S1 is that 'good and evil' are unified and exist as 'one thing'. How does one reconcile this?
I propose that, if not for evil, it would be impossible to derive good from/with which to contrast with. I very simply make reference to one of the most well-known symbols known to man: the yin and yang symbol commonly understand as 'peace' and/or 'harmony':
This brings us back to S1 and S2: the former being the knowledge that both must exist in order to to use one to know the other (unity) and the latter being the ignorance of S1 which necessarily leads to a definite/extreme polarization (referring once again to the example of the global problem of Christianity and (vs) Islam) unique to the individual(s) generating the polarization within themselves.
TBC...
Last edited: