Evil is a networked condition, each many-stranded knot in the net a person acting - and being acted on - in space and time.
when Joe and Mary Sixpack think of this evil person or persons, where do you think they think that the evil is. Inside them or Outside them. Forget about the network for now, and forget about space and time, this method is designed to destroy all of that.
A cautionary description. Because evil is a matter of intention, it is the product of imagination, and thus is metaphysical - as numbers are - and so stands outside time.
This is only because you think it has essence, which is not to say that it doesn’t exist, it does and it’s condition is internal, even Joe and Mary know this.
Saying evil is an internal condition is an inadequate description from which to commence theoretical or logical operation, or even ordinary discourse, on the subject.
How you doing Frank, long time no talk. Radical day at work today so this is a bit of challenge and I need get back to Neocon, probably missed him by now but anyways I need to eat too. Wrt the definitions of evil that were posted here, for the most part it seems to be described either as an internal condition or as a causal power, even in the same dictionary. As Bilo pointed out the problem with language, is the difference between theory and practice. Wrt those descriptions the former is my assertion, the latter is yours. This is what happens with nominal, or if you like, conventional, truth. It is difficult to get a good definition that satisfies everybody as evidenced by the recent conversation here. If what it is, depends on where you look it up, isn’t the most logical conclusion that it has no inherent existence, even though it’s clear as blazes that such a thing exists. What to do what to do.
imho your view of causal relationship is flawed, which implies of necessity that mine must be too, which is a bit of a problem, hence the dictionary and the requirement to speak plainly. Along with the assumption of causal power, comes an essentialist view, the existence of some sort of essence, the magic ingredient that makes things go boom, Of necessity to get the world to work in this way, requires the essence of one thing, to be connected to the essence of another, perhaps via the network you mention. Logically though this is ultimately incoherent because at one and the same time you are forced to first imply the essential existence of something, and then make it’s productive character, a virtue of it’s causal power. This is called going forwards, while looking backwards. Objectively speaking it is why those books you mention are just paper and ink etc, they may contain evil thoughts and scenes, but they themselves are not evil itself. If this is not so, save yourself the cash, just take it out from the book and mail it to me. US Postal Service might have a bit of a problem with this, so you might have to find another way. If you’re looking to determine the present state, there is no way that two positives are going to get you there. It is in this way that there is neutrality in consensus.
This is beginning to sound like an echo, but such dependence and relational character, is incompatible with the coexisting notion of inherent existence which gets us back to that essence you were talking about. Something simply cannot depend on something else which was already there to begin with or else it would have existed before. This is circular logic. This is not a dilemma I want to stick my horns into, because it is impossible to conduct rational discourse, if you can’t solve that paradox. Oops that sounds a bit harsh. This is where all the words with different meanings in different dictionaries come in to the picture. Oy vay...
I prefer a less vexing route. If, for evil to exist, it depends on nothing more than a particular condition, then this is actually an extraordinarily conventional view, as in for a tree or for you, or for me to exist, requires a particular condition or set of conditions, no essence. That’s it. no mas. This is practical metaphysics, this is Joe and Mary Sixpack stuff. Forget about all those other fancy names and ideas you don’t trust, probably for good reason mind you. The problem is getting it in to foreign policy which is very tough.
Thus to regard things as having conventional existence is to regard them as being without an essential nature. Imho this provides a coherent view of phenomenon, compared to the one you choose, which depends heavily on reification which as the dictionary says is To regard or treat (an abstraction) as if it had concrete or material existence. It’s a pretty sure bet that others will come up with different definitions and I take it as self evident that they will, but in the end after a little bit of back and forth, there is a general agreement that the exact definition of evil is uncertain, so how can it be something material. This makes it a little difficult to find, especially when you’re looking in the wrong place, and who among us can claim that they don’t have some of this, and that it’s condition is internal. So we talk, and that’s not to say that such a materialist approach is not useful, if ultimately limited, like this one is by definition, which is why there are other more direct methods.
Will humans evolve to such a degree that imagination and intent will no longer create and communicate evil thus denying it its "immortality"? Perhaps, but it doesn't look like it's going to happen in the near future, does it?
You are asserting a positive metaphysical doctrine, the logical conclusion of which is to prove the existence of god, and people want to talk about being rational. Good luck on that one btw because if you can’t find god, then how are you going to find evil, which is not to say that it doesn’t exist which it does, by virtue of conventional reality because all you have to do is ask Joe and Mary. Do I think that evil is going to disappear tomorrow. Good heavens of course not, I make no secret of my arrogance but Frank I was not born yesterday. I’m doing my level best to determine it’s present state, which must mean that I know it exists. Is this fact that hidden, isn’t it obvious.
I think Joe and Mary are doing pretty good. It's a lot of philosophers that give me the willies.
With that statement you just poignantly illustrated the difference between philosophers and philosophy which is the way that Joe and Mary live. They do so because philosophy is the history of ideas, and we humans like to use what we think are the best ones, or at the least we like to think this of ourselves. This leaves a lot of room for interpretation but the thing is we’re fighting a war right now, supposedly one of Ideas so we’d better get on with it. Of course the devil is in the details. |
