What is the best defintion of evil?

[Jamesh]

Good: Anything one's ego determines to be or have a positive affect.
Evil: Anything one's ego determines to be or have a negative affect.

Beyond Good and Evil: Alteration of the ego so that it does not instinctively think in relation to, or is bound by, positive or negative emotional affects. This allows the brain to think of what is True, rather than what an ego based on emotional affects, may feel is right. Good and evil become an observation of the thoughts of others, not a feeling within oneself.


Modernist and Feminine Good: It's All-Good!
Modernist and Feminine Evil: Whatever the media says is evil.

Traditionalist and Religious Good: Ascetic practices, denial of self
Traditionalist and Religious Evil: Freedom, Change

Nihilists Good: Fun
Nihilists Evil: Fun

Politicians Good: Falsity and virtuous actions they can assume to own
Politicians Evil: Truth and appearances of virtuous actions of other politicians

[Diebert van Rhijn]

If you decide not to fight the influences of past events and environment, this is also a goal. If you decide to have no attachment to the idea of goal, this is itself a goal, and a hypocritical one.

Agreed. When I said "no inherent goal" it was meant inherent to wisdom. Later I said that remaining behavior would still appear as being full of purpose. Like the sun going up with the intention to cross the sky. Even if the sun would have no mind, so no attachment to any outcome - still she moves! So what I meant to say is that life itself is full of purpose, movement, force and will. Even to the level of reflexes, drives and deep instincts so indeed: "goal happens".

many times I have read an enlightened individual condemning certain pursuits as unacceptable on the basis of lack of enlightenment.

It would be easier to have an example. Many weird things are written here, it's a bit of a soup. And what made you think the individual counted as enlightened? :)

It must be that some pursuits are enlightened and some are not. How does one decide, if not by logic with its necessary axioms?

I wouldn't know about any 'enlightened pursuits' but quite obviously in a given situation a given course of action appears as more reasonable, making more sense given all one knows about the circumstances. Sometimes patterns of behavior might occur, perhaps for example hermitage. For many spiritual people this has become, at least for a certain period, a refuge for several practical (persecution in older times) as psychological (pervasiveness of stupidity) reasons.

If I were to strip away all motivation, and lie motionless on the floor until my autonomic processes finally gave out, where would I have gone wrong? Should I have fed myself, that is, do the enlightened have the goal of staying alive? Why? Any logical justification will ultimately rely on axioms.

To me this seems way simpler. Just try to lie motionless on the floor, starting with a few hours, and you'll see what I mean. The body starts to move, demands to move and forces ultimately you to move. Keeping it still for a long time demands a firm goal and dedication. Some actually train for that. Then of course all other processes like hunger, thirst, toilet breaks will not only increase discomfort but also influence thought patterns, questioning our resolve, tempting us to give in, trying to offer justifications on why giving up seems like a good idea. They might even be quite reasonable and having a valid point.

Second, while I do not think it is possible to eliminate all one's goal and ambitions, I do think it is possible to minimize them. However, I do not see any reason to think I should do so, or why such behavior should be considered "enlightened". Do you? If so, why?

As I wrote before, it's more about removing any illusions about them. What happens next, if done with the utmost sincerity and some good self-knowledge, is that lots of former goals and ambitions, including desires that fed them, indeed start falling away even if they had been instrumental in getting one this far. Some call it the 'unbinding'. So there's certainly a minimization taking place at least in my experience and from what I gather but it cannot be called elimination for the reasons you mentioned.

There are many basic drives left inherent to a human being that can still take up most of your time. Basic survival, health and curiosity come to mind. A certain minimum of independence from whatever insanity is imposed on you. And in some way wisdom behaves the same as ignorance: it works towards its own self-sustainability and when the opportunity is there: towards procreation.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

For example, I can conclude I should eat, because starving is painful, and I do not want to feel that pain. But why should I not want to feel that pain? There is no explanation at this level of abstraction - aversion to pain is an alogical axiom. However, aversion to pain does have biological causes which can be explained in terms of the functions of my nervous system.

Perhaps it's not a strong example. Pain could be described as the very sensation of extremely strong aversion, and the memory of this creates the 'lesser' aversions on a more abstract, associative level. The most basic aversions happen at the level of reflexes, a simple flight-fight response to threats. Seen this way the question "why should I not want to feel pain?" is incoherent: pain is in itself an extreme expression of "I don't want" . So asking the why here doesn't seem to make sense.

when followed back to its roots, philosophy inevitably reaches a place where logic operating at the level of philosophy can reveal no deeper reasons for a given belief - it is a philosophical axiom. Two people with different, contradictory axioms cannot be reconciled by communication. All that is left is to attempt to understand the causes of the axioms operating at lower levels of abstraction, such as biological and physical.

There might be other levels to this. Underlying all communication lies a vast array of symbolic and ritual, perhaps even "sacred" signs that have been used since the dawn of time and can reach pretty far into our nervous system. But indeed this is not the level of philosophy; a very individual, conscious undertaking.

So the question remains, why minimize goals?

Goals arise out of the valuing. The moment something is suspected that appears to be more valuable and complete than anything else one has encountered so far, the orientation will naturally shift to something more exclusive, more focused and single-minded. It's just what happens all the time in life.

Still, minimizing cannot be said to be a goal in itself, even within spirituality. There should be no reason, no incapacity that would prevent one to take on any array of goals or challenges. And why maximize goals? Why having some sort of medium size? It's only on a larger scale, averaged out, that it seems like there's wisdom in gravitating over time to what's simple, modest and sufficient.

[Rhett]

My main point is that the scale of good vs evil is orthogonal to the scale of intelligence vs stupidity; these 2 variables are independent. You can be smart and evil, or smart and good, or dumb and evil, or dumb and good. If you conflate intelligence with goodness, and conflate stupidity with evil, then you end up condemning dumb people as evil for their honest mistakes. More importantly, you end up underestimating evil people because you assume they're stupid or delusional. The most dangerous person, a smart psychopath, will listen to your ideas about wisdom and fully understand them, nodding and smiling, and still cut your throat as soon as you look away.

I agree with you technically and in many areas practically as well, and your points ought to be dwelled upon, but there is also the point that the intellect is valuable for reasoning beyond normative behaviours towards good behaviours, and forecasting the future. So all other things being equal, more intellect equals more goodness.

This is one of my problems with the conception of "wisdom" popular on this site, as I understand it. Some seem to think that if people are intelligent enough and honest enough with themselves, they'll all arrive at the same normative "truths", that is, they'll all agree about what they should do - about which life pursuits are worthwhile and which are not. Some goals are a priori more logical than others. This is simply not the case.

Logical conclusions always hinge on alogical axioms. While our senses provide everyone with fairly consistent descriptive axioms (concerning what is, facts, evidence, data...), they provide no normative axioms (concerning what should be, goals, ethics...) Goals are much more arbitrary and variable between individuals, and as axioms, there is no way to argue logically for or against them.

And unfortunately, some people have no compunctions about inflicting suffering on others if this furthers their own goals. Preventing suffering is simply not a high-priority goal for them, or a goal at all, and some even enjoy inflicting suffering and make this a goal in and of itself. No amount of wisdom will cause them to see the error of their ways, because logically speaking, there is no error - they simply start with different axioms.

You can explain in great detail (and they can understand with perfect clarity) why one shouldn't lie and manipulate others, but it will always come down to the fact you think inflicting suffering is wrong, axiomatically, and they do not think this, also axiomatically. They may think dumb people deserve whatever suffering they "allow" to be inflicted on them, or that the world is inherently dog-eat-dog, or something else along those lines. They will understand your wisdom, and continue to inflict suffering, and continue to enjoy it. Wisdom is not an antidote for evil.

Of course, few people ever want to be seen as evil, so they will likely never admit their true axioms. You'll go around in circles with "wisdom" and sophisticated counter-"wisdom", but this is really all a smokescreen for their true intentions. Some may even encourage you to go on thinking evil is delusional, because this also works as a smokescreen.

What you say is logical, and again well worth dwelling upon, and yet in the real world people are invariably acting towards what they believe will reduce their suffering. Even a psychopath suffers, and acts towards what they think will reduce their suffering. In their case, they might believe holding power over people, maybe holding power over their suffering, or using them for personal material gain, or whatever, will reduce their own suffering. These acts ultimately make little or no difference in the long run, the psychopath, or whoever, keeps on suffering.

The fact is that the pursuit of wisdom typically does reduce suffering in the long run, as well as bringing numerous other benefits, such as improved consciousness. So that is why people here consider there to be wise behaviours and unwise behaviours. And talking in this way infiltrates this into evil minds, causing opportunity for improvement.

Other points to consider are logic and consistency versus contradiction and erraticism. A good person will of course act logically and consistently, otherwise sometimes they would be good and sometimes they would be bad. Therefore someone that is contradictory and erratic in their beliefs and actions is evil, axiomatically.

Willful ignorance, the purposeful substitution of comfort and familiarity for truth, is also high on my list of harmful things.

I figure that's a typo?

[Rhett]

If I were to strip away all motivation, and lie motionless on the floor until my autonomic processes finally gave out, where would I have gone wrong? Should I have fed myself, that is, do the enlightened have the goal of staying alive? Why? Any logical justification will ultimately rely on axioms.

The enlightened value enlightenment, they act towards enlightenment. Enlightenment is their consciously chosen "axiom". Eating seems to be an act important for enlightenment to exist, so eating is done.

[|read|]

There might be other levels to this. Underlying all communication lies a vast array of symbolic and ritual, perhaps even "sacred" signs that have been used since the dawn of time and can reach pretty far into our nervous system.

Indeed. I'm fascinated by the idea that some of the alogical roots of our behavior can nonetheless be influenced and molded by conscious actions. For example, this NLP self-help video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJyOqQ8S ... re=related

Of course I'm skeptical, but I did feel some of the desired results described in the video. I wonder whether the results are based on "sacred" symbolism (do we really associate mental voices of particular dispositions with specific spatial locations?), or whether it's a placebo effect. I'm not sure it ultimately matters; even if David Shephard knows he's tricking his audience, he's using his powers of suggestion for good rather than evil. That is, he's tricking them into thinking they can control their mood, and thereby allowing them to actually control their mood.

The more you describe "unbinding", the more it sounds like a psychological or emotional process, rather than a process of reasoning or understanding. My basic question remains, why minimize goals? My method thus far has been to take on whatever goals and pursuits seem interesting (or necessary), while trying not to take on more than I have the time or energy to do justice; better to do a few things well than many things poorly. I don't see goals like survival and health as any more valuable, except in the sense that they are necessary. In fact, survival and health seem boring when compared to such intellectually stimulating goals as science or programming or writing.

However, I'm willing to try out and evaluate this whole enlightenment thing. What sacred symbols would you use to point me in that direction? I've dabbled in zen meditation, but it's not a very attractive goal for me right now - it's efficacy is uncertain, and it involves spending a lot of time sitting around doing nothing.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

However, I'm willing to try out and evaluate this whole enlightenment thing. What sacred symbols would you use to point me in that direction?

Perhaps this whole idea of an enlightened being or a state one maintains could be seen as such symbol that can burn in our mind a pathway. While it still would remain to be seen how actual or literal such beings or states really are. Sacred symbols do their work subconsciously and while they have their underground current type of influence, for a conscious, aware functioning one has to go beyond the symbol, beyond the sacred and ritual. Naturally this lies ultimately beyond all communication or concept. And therefore, as many would say, it cannot exist in a world consisting of information and idea only.

[|read|]

Then how can one know it exists at all? Perhaps one knows one is experiencing something, but with no way to characterize it, how can one know what it is, or whether it is "enlightenment"?

[Rhett]

Enlightenment is the absence of delusion. When delusion is absent, the mind can accurately assess that delusion is absent.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Ryan has a good point about evil ultimately being a form of ignorance. Evil seeks to increase its pleasure and/or well-being by decreasing that of another, and in the long run, that is impossible.We know that we can not harm another without harming ourselves, but evil only pays attention to the short term surface result, and can not understand how they get more miserable.

A difference between evil and ignorance is that for pure ignorance, if the truth is told and shown to the individual, they are no longer ignorant. With evil, you can tell them and show them, and at best they might pretend to get it so that they can manipulate you further. Evil, therefore, would be closer to a form of mental retardation than simple ignorance.

...and then there is the theory form the television show Most Evil.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

A difference between evil and ignorance is that for pure ignorance, if the truth is told and shown to the individual, they are no longer ignorant. With evil, you can tell them and show them, and at best they might pretend to get it so that they can manipulate you further. Evil, therefore, would be closer to a form of mental retardation than simple ignorance.

It's something I've thought about as well. Perhaps the difference between 'plain' ignorance and evil lies therefore in the amount of pretense. It's: "father, forgive them; for they know not what they do" instead of forgiving sins or evil deeds, after all.

[dysfunctionalgenius]

To minus anything from life/earth is evil and the bigger the minus the greater the evil. like everything there are degrees of evil, eg;Eating meat vs Hitler!

[Rhett]

To minus anything from life/earth is evil and the bigger the minus the greater the evil. like everything there are degrees of evil, eg;Eating meat vs Hitler!

It is unfortunately the common case that the eradication of evil is seen as evil, indeed a greater evil that most other evils. People get really insecure and malicious when their behaviours are chopped off. The conflict jolts them into consciousness, and they don't like that. They imagine a self being attacked, and a fight mode erupts. If only they could open to enlightenment.