I do not think one can recognize evil quite independent of anger, at least not an attributed evil, for which you hold someone responsible.
Neo, I just said that one could. I said that one could because I do. If I do, then one could, unless, of course, I'm nuts, which I'm not. A bit idiosyncratic, a tad neurotic, as are we all, but not nuts. You denied Marie's assertion of lack of anger, as well. This is similar to your insistance that non-belief in God is inevitably nihilistic even though I and others have repeatedly assured you that we find plenty of meaning in life. Perhaps you could allow a little wiggle room in your statements about what "one" can think or feel.
The reason I used the word, blasphemy, is that I've been pondering and trying to explain the phenomenon of the extraordinary outrage expressed against those who talk these days about root causes, civil liberties, and the like. Those that do are so few and so effete it seems to me hardly worth making an issue of. But issues are being made, and with great energy. My working theory is that not following the party line is being treated as blasphemy now rather than differences of opinion. I had my own little experience with blasphemy here recently and I found it interesting and educational. I thought blasphemy went out with the Inquisition and the Salem witch trials. Apparently not.
Karen |
