The Nature of Evil

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
User avatar
Alex T. Jacob
Posts: 413
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:04 am

Re: The Nature of Evil

Post by Alex T. Jacob »

I don't even slightly feel captured or oppressed by an 'evil'. I don't see 'evil'. I think that what I see is partial information. I certainly do not see either tyrants or Tyrants ;-) And I don't feel I need to be 'freed'. But thank you. I suppose those are noble sentiments! Also, I have very much made my activity and presence here a creative endeavor. And I have had a great deal of fun. And still do. Really, I think you might like my Othello interpretation!

Usually, when someone goes down the path you have stepped on, they have to take it 'to the end of the line'. Can we go rigjt to the end? We'll save time and it may make it more interesting.
I can't go on. I'll go on.
User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: The Nature of Evil

Post by Cory Duchesne »

I probably would like your Othello interpretation, as it's a hobby of mine to take old stories and reframe them in a post-fundamentalist context. Let me know when it's ready for viewings.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: The Nature of Evil

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Alex T. Jacob wrote: If there is a purpose in sharing literature ('book learning'), it is because in the branch of Gnosticism I am drawn to, and perhaps practice, I am interested in forging a link to our traditions of literature. I have become especially eager in this area because it is the area that some voices around here reject, and quite adamantly.
You aspire to be an author Alex. You've showed me and the forum as well some attempts in that direction. So I don't think any suspicion is justified if I encourage you to do that: to write positively, independently and philosophically. I think the first PM I ever sent you was a question about any output you might have elsewhere, articles, books, anything. That was because your writing stood out like that for me. And that question still stands. Now instead of turning this all around and "target" someone else again, why not just think about it a bit more seriously? If I had a bit more fluency in English, a bit better memory for references, a bit wider exposure to literature, I might have given this advice to myself just as well. But I might stick with Dutch poetry or commenting on news articles. I'm often more of a sniper, I admit, in that sense. But the goal is to help the energy to go were it really wants, in the little things.
User avatar
Alex T. Jacob
Posts: 413
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:04 am

Re: The Nature of Evil

Post by Alex T. Jacob »

I much preferred the tone and energy of that post. Quite different. Not only do I aspire to write (produce a publishable work), but I am doing just that. But you can't write, at least not about the stuff I want to write about, until you 'know yourself'. So, there is this utterly bizarre self-exploration process that has had and still has me in its grip (so to speak). I don't think I.have undertaken anything quite as difficult.

Still, Diebert, I have to say that I.am not sure if I quite 'believe' you. I don't think you really understand or relate to my concerns---the stuff I write about. Through various interactions with you I learned it is best to be a little cautious. Frankly, I think at.various times.you'd have wished that I just stop writing, it isn't really that you'd like to direct me to subjects you feel are better for me.

But really, Diebert, I am always much more interested in you. Always desirous to hear more from you about you. Instead of making me your subject, why not make you your subject?
I can't go on. I'll go on.
User avatar
Alex T. Jacob
Posts: 413
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:04 am

Re: The Nature of Evil

Post by Alex T. Jacob »

I was really mostly joking about the Othello interpretation. It would, naturally, be the kind of writing and the ideas that interest me. I don't think they are of much interest to the Forum, or perhaps only interesting to a few.

In the past, when I get these 'signs' about my writing or.my presence, I have taken it as a 'sign' for the need to leave this forum in peace for awhile. I am going to take these---3 if you include Tomas---'objections' to my writing.as just such a sign. I think I am going to butt-out for a month. Who knows, maybe something interesting will occur in the meantime. I thought the last week or 10 days was pretty good though. Pretty dynamic.

Toot-a-loo my darlings!
I can't go on. I'll go on.
Liberty Sea
Posts: 116
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 6:28 pm

Re: The Nature of Evil

Post by Liberty Sea »

jupiviv wrote:
Liberty Sea wrote:The perfectly logical man is therefore the perfectly good man, who is likely to be considered as evil by the world. If so: Be evil, as your heavenly father is evil.
But given your definition of "good" being that which is perfect, isn't the perfectly illogical man also the perfectly good man? :-)
Are you trying to be clever on this wordplay? Being illogical is by no mean perfect. Perfection, as I implied it, is complete, absolute orderliness, and goodness is total order, not only outwardly, but most importantly inwardly. Logic, like math, is complete order. When there is order in your mind, in your heart, in your bodily activities, there is harmony. That inward harmony is goodness.
And even if I let you play on that, there is no such thing as 'perfectly illogical'. There is absolute good, but no absolute evil. There is absolute order, but no absolute chaos. Some are more chaotic than some other, but 'absolute chaos' is a ridiculous phrase. Being illogical is disorder, which inevitably leads to chaos, inner violence, inner conflict. And this chaos, this inner conflict is always because of your delusional ego, your selfishness, your egocentric activities, which separate your self from the rest of the Universe, instead of becoming one with Nature, with That which is. To be one with everything, to live in accordance with Nature, is perfect order, absolute goodness. If you are not perfect, then no matter what you do, you will contribute to that chaos, that disorder... in some way or another, which is to contribute to evil, to be violent toward either yourself or others.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: The Nature of Evil

Post by jupiviv »

Liberty Sea wrote:Are you trying to be clever on this wordplay?
What wordplay? I was just pointing out the error of your statement.
To be one with everything, to live in accordance with Nature, is perfect order, absolute goodness.
All things are one with nature, so all things are in perfect order according to your definition of "perfect order", and hence absolutely good. However, the storks still fly away as the wind rustles the paddy.
Liberty Sea
Posts: 116
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 6:28 pm

Re: The Nature of Evil

Post by Liberty Sea »

jupiviv wrote:
To be one with everything, to live in accordance with Nature, is perfect order, absolute goodness.
All things are one with nature, so all things are in perfect order according to your definition of "perfect order", and hence absolutely good.
To truly live in accordance with Nature -which is what Taoists call nonaction- requires the absence of delusion about the self. When you accomplish this, then you are one with everything and know you are one with everything. Otherwise, the delusion remain, your consciousness makes you feel you are still separated with everything else, and the inner disorders remain. Have you not feel that I am you, the keyboard you are striking on is you, the screen you are staring at is you?
If you can see that an earthquake that kills million is good, then it is good. The goodness I am talking about is inner goodness. Words can hardly convey, but instead of trying to find contradictions created by deficiency of words, you should focus on thinking about the nature of enlightenment; on why the enlightened sage is one with everything and the enlightened fool is not, inwardly.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The Nature of Evil

Post by David Quinn »

Talk about waving a red rag at a bull.....

-
Liberty Sea
Posts: 116
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 6:28 pm

Re: The Nature of Evil

Post by Liberty Sea »

David Quinn wrote:Talk about waving a red rag at a bull.....

-
Bulls are colorblind. They are just irritated by the action of waving. Red or not is unimportant.
Talk about crocodile...
User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: The Nature of Evil

Post by Cory Duchesne »

I think you might have been blinded to DQ's true colours, attacking his movement and not his playful meaning. :)

Then again, the beautify of metaphor is the multiple meaning, it's up to you to laugh or frown at it.
Liberty Sea
Posts: 116
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 6:28 pm

Re: The Nature of Evil

Post by Liberty Sea »

Cory Duchesne wrote:I think you might have been blinded to DQ's true colours, attacking his movement and not his playful meaning. :)

Then again, the beautify of metaphor is the multiple meaning, it's up to you to laugh or frown at it.
I was not attacking him, but playing along.
BTW, 'beauty', not 'beautify'.
User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: The Nature of Evil

Post by Cory Duchesne »

Good grammar I think beautifies wisdom too much. Botched sentences are manly. :) joking.

My grammar issues are a mundane (or potentially interesting) issue I'm coming to grips with. I'm actually horrible at writing the words physically the way I hear them in my head. I'm also terrible at proof reading. I read it over and because my meaning is so internalized, the appearance of my sentence looks fine when it's not.

What I do know for sure is that the frequent mistakes in my writing are not caused by a misunderstanding of grammar. Rather, the problem lies in the coordination between my thinking and typing. I tend to type one thing, but in my head, my thoughts are another.

Kelly Jones brought it up once, going so far as to say that it was a sign of a weak mind, and that I was not focused on the concepts when I write. Naturally, not without some self interest, I think her theory is opposite to how it really is. The concepts I think with (primarily) are not verbal.

From what I can tell, there are parallel processes, where I have a non-verbal spatial reasoning that I type out into words.

So that's my excuse for some of the garbled sentences that come out. It's not as simple as just focusing on the words, in fact, the words are a necessary evil, and I might even resent them a bit.

The Truth may lie somewhere in the middle, though. :) I have always had discipline issues when it comes to details, settling for work that could have done better because I thought it was superficial, when really, ideally, anything I do should be done properly, including writing.
ForbidenRea

Re: The Nature of Evil

Post by ForbidenRea »

Cory Duchesne wrote:Some thoughts on the nature of Evil;

Wilful destructive acts, both to consciousness, human welfare and deliberate malice generally stem from an offended state of mind.

Some of the best psychologists, including Elliot Leyton (who offers some of the most insightful perspectives on sociopaths and serial killers) noted that the "criminal character" holds a deep seated grudge - a resentment. The difference between a profoundly evil person or merely an angry person like George Carlin, is that GC will go up on stage in the wide open and launch his assault in public. He let's you know how it is.

The thing about evil people is that they unleash all of their resentments secretly, passively. Months or years will go by before you realize the damage that a sociopath has done to you. His vengeance is private and obscure, partly due to a lack of courage, but also due to a lack of intelligence and human feeling.

The virtuous man has a grudge that is transparent, it's there for all to see. However, the supremely virtuous man has no pain, no offence.

A man who is offended is a corrupted human being - and his task is to convert his wound through mindful productivity.
Acts 2:38
" Repent, and be baptized for the forgivness; of sins, and, ye shall receive the gift of the holy ghost."
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: The Nature of Evil

Post by jupiviv »

Liberty Sea wrote:To truly live in accordance with Nature -which is what Taoists call nonaction- requires the absence of delusion about the self.
Even deluded people are living in accordance with Nature. What is there to stop them from doing so?
When you accomplish this, then you are one with everything
This 'you' is a finite thing, right? If so, then how can it be one with everything? A finite thing cannot be everything.
Otherwise, the delusion remain, your consciousness makes you feel you are still separated with everything else
But I am separate from everything else - this separation is itself union.
Liberty Sea
Posts: 116
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 6:28 pm

Re: The Nature of Evil

Post by Liberty Sea »

Cory Duchesne wrote: Kelly Jones brought it up once, going so far as to say that it was a sign of a weak mind, and that I was not focused on the concepts when I write.
I don't know who Kelly Jones is, but this just means you have no talent for words, especially if you were brought up in an English environment. What you should be concerned about is whether you have genius, which is not necessarily related with linguistic ability.

However it seems to me that if a genius wants, he can master a language easily. I have not spent much effort learning English. I just read a lot of comics books, and once upon a while a novel, and think in English, all of which I have done rather effortlessly. I believe it is not a stretch to say that I do try I can write like Shakespeare. But, not to dodge reality, I don't write like Shakespeare, and no excuse is needed.
Anyhow, basic mastery of language are needed still, Cory, to read and comprehend a classic book, a book of wisdom that is. A firm grasp of the terminology and vocabulary, logic, rhetoric and grammar, are certainly not superfluous when it comes to reading books, albeit one need not to know how to read to be enlightened.
jupiviv wrote:This 'you' is a finite thing, right? If so, then how can it be one with everything? A finite thing cannot be everything.
When you become one with everything, of course there is no 'you' any more, my dear. From the beginning this 'you' is an illusion, and becoming one with everything is just a waking up.
jupiviv wrote:But I am separate from everything else.
You are not.
Not in the ultimate sense.
If you have not comprehended Non-selfhood, one of the three characteristics of things, then this conversation has hitherto remained deaf.
this separation is itself union.
Where is the logic in this?
jupiviv wrote:
Liberty Sea wrote:To truly live in accordance with Nature -which is what Taoists call nonaction- requires the absence of delusion about the self.
Even deluded people are living in accordance with Nature. What is there to stop them from doing so?
Because Truth, my dear, is valuable.
I am not taking this argument seriously, but I will use this as a chance to express my view. All arguments within the circle of humanism are bound to be circular and even lead to paradoxical conclusions. People are not free, because they do not know a simple Truth: To be free is to be in complete acceptance of the fact that there is no free will. Yet even their unfreedom is also the will of Nature, so why struggle to wake them up, you ask? Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn whether the majority of Earthlings will be happy or unhappy, free or unfree, turn good or turn evil. I am concerned with one thing: the preservation of wisdom, the survival of the knowledge of Truth. There will always be only a few who have the courage to take it, and the majority will always prefer to remain in their delusions. Many fail to comprehend why an indifference of attitude toward anything happening is even desirable. Thus my words are only spoken out to those who have the ears to hear truth, and remain deaf to the ignorant crowd. This too is the will of Nature. This too is my karma.

--------

Excerpt from The gospel of Liberty Sea:
I have preached non-sympathy, I have preached inhuman virtues, yet nihilism I preach not. Unto thee saith the pessimists: "All hath been determined! Every struggle is vain! Man is doomed to exist, for existence is void of purpose! There is no significance in the suffering of man, no merit in enlightenment! Give it up! Give it up!" But verily, verily I say unto thee, Truth is the pinnacle of value, is value itself and beareth value by the very merit of being Truth! Beyond humanism is Truth, yet amongst the struggles of man, no struggle is more meaningful than the struggle for Truth. Ye noble soul, be in Truth everlasting, transcend worldly conflicts. Set your quest to be the house of all truths and master of all wisdom! Settle not with anything less than the highest, and listen not to the pleasurable, lest ye be dragged down to mediocrity! Choose not delusion over truth, be it endless satisfaction! Choose not ignorance over illumination, be it immeasurable joy!

Blessed is he who hath forsaken all earthly possessions to seek Truth! Blessed is he who comprehendeth and liveth the Truth! Blessed is he whose love for Truth is so profound as to be untouched by the voice of the ignorant crowd!

Woe to him who hath shut his ears and closed his eyes against Truth in order to remain in his wishful dream! Woe to him who suffereth in ignorance and enjoyeth in ignorance! Woe to him who refuseth to enter the kingdom of Truth and rejecteth the rule of Reason!"

('To quote oneself is a sign of supreme humility' - a wise man)
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: The Nature of Evil

Post by jupiviv »

Liberty Sea wrote:When you become one with everything, of course there is no 'you' any more, my dear. From the beginning this 'you' is an illusion, and becoming one with everything is just a waking up.
If the "you" is an illusion then who is waking up? It is all illusion, even the so-called waking up.
If you have not comprehended Non-selfhood, one of the three characteristics of things, then this conversation has hitherto remained deaf.
There is no selfhood and no non-selfhood. Things are without selfhood because they are caused by other things, and they are without non-selfhood because other things are caused by them.
jupiviv wrote:this separation is itself union.
Where is the logic in this?
Both you and everything else except you have the quality of being separate, and therefore are united in this quality(separation).
Liberty Sea
Posts: 116
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 6:28 pm

Re: The Nature of Evil

Post by Liberty Sea »

This turned out to be an interesting discussion on the nature of the self, even thought it started from a joke. The good-evil/perfect-imperfect topic that originated this discussion has been finished in my last post, and now it drives to a total different direction.
If the "you" is an illusion then who is waking up?
A breath of Nature. A process of the All. A movement of the Universe.
It is all illusion, even the so-called waking up.
Waking up means realizing the form and appearance of everything we perceive are mere constructions in the brain and there is no form and appearance beyond that.
I am using the word 'illusion' in relative term.
jupiviv wrote: There is no selfhood and no non-selfhood. Things are without selfhood because they are caused by other things, and they are without non-selfhood because other things are caused by them.
I have used non-selfhood in relative term. It is true that we don't have inherent selfhood, and altogether lack inherent non-selfhood. The only thing that possesses inherent selfhood is the All, is Nature, the uncaused. Thus, I repeat, to become one with the All by renouncing the illusional ego is to gain inherent selfhood. This is a matter of awareness.
"Nothing whatever arises. Not from itself, not from another, not from both itself and another, and not without a cause."-Nagarjuna.

Code: Select all

Both you and everything else except you have the quality of being separate, and therefore are united in this quality(separation).
Ultimately there is no definite boundary that separates you from everything else, right?
The separation is not inherent, and the non-separation is also not inherent. This separation is no more than the separation between a wind and the air around it.
ForbidenRea

Re: The Nature of Evil

Post by ForbidenRea »

Dosh,

The worldly matters, do, I qoute do not affect the karma. The kosmos alighted last night.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: The Nature of Evil

Post by jupiviv »

Liberty Sea wrote:
jupiviv wrote:If the "you" is an illusion then who is waking up?
A breath of Nature. A process of the All. A movement of the Universe.
So then the "you" is not an illusion at all, since it never appears as anything but a "breath of nature" etc. And the waking up is not real, because there is nothing else that is not a "breath of nature".
Waking up means realizing the form and appearance of everything we perceive are mere constructions in the brain and there is no form and appearance beyond that.
But what about this brain? It is clearly a form, and if it is a form then there are other forms that are not it, and hence beyond it. So clearly this view is mistaken.
The only thing that possesses inherent selfhood is the All, is Nature, the uncaused.

If it possesses inherent selfhood then it must also possess inherent non-selfhood for that precise reason. There is no other thing apart from the All, hence its selfhood is caused entirely by itself. But since there is no other thing except the All, its selfhood doesn't really exist, for there is nothing to contrast it with.
Ultimately there is no definite boundary that separates you from everything else, right?

I myself am the boundary of everything else, and everything else except me is the boundary of me.

Me + everything else = everything.

Or, duality = non-duality.
The separation is not inherent, and the non-separation is also not inherent.
They are also not non-inherent, for that which is said to lack inherent separation and non-separation is itself lacking inherent existence. Since it is not inherently existent, there is no inherent quality that it inherently lacks.
cousinbasil
Posts: 1395
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:26 am
Location: Garment District

Re: The Nature of Evil

Post by cousinbasil »

Liberty Sea wrote:Evil is not the opposite of good, as imperfection is not the opposite of perfection. The end of all imperfections is perfection.
"Be perfect, as your heavenly father is perfect!" - Jesus Christ. What is done by Nature that is not perfect? An earthquake? A great flood? They are perfectly perfect.
Reminds me of the preacher whose sermon was about God's perfection. He bellowed from the pulpit: "Everything God made is perfect!" Way in the rear of the congregation, a man with a hunched back interrupted loudly, "What about me?" Not missing a beat, the preacher thundered, "Why, you're the most perfect hunchback I've ever seen!"
Last edited by cousinbasil on Fri Feb 24, 2012 9:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
cousinbasil
Posts: 1395
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:26 am
Location: Garment District

Re: The Nature of Evil

Post by cousinbasil »

David, stop with your nonsense about logic being evil and therefore a man who embraces, and lives by, logic is an evil man. This is patronizing - the same way the common pronouncement by GF sages that love is the true source of man's suffering is patronizing.

If I get Cory right, there is a measure of duplicity in evil, and I must agree with that. Duplicity itself is not logical, but it requires a logical mind to succeed. In other words, a truly evil man is rational enough to identify the delusions of others; he is likely careful to have few himself, since it is his practice to exploit those he sees in other people.

A moron, on the other hand, might not be a good person, despite the popular I Am Sam misconceptions. But he cannot be evil.

So David, please try to refrain from such pithy pronouncements. You are not about to be tarred and feathered by the peasants or hung upside down on a cross. One is not evil because one makes every attempt to be rid of delusions and live by what the truth reveals to him. Not everyone else will understand such a person, but really - so what??
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The Nature of Evil

Post by David Quinn »

cousinbasil wrote:David, stop with your nonsense about logic being evil and therefore a man who embraces, and lives by, logic is an evil man. This is patronizing - the same way the common pronouncement by GF sages that love is the true source of man's suffering is patronizing.

I assume by patronizing you mean "treating others in a condescending manner". Are you saying, then, that you think these two truths - that logic is evil and that love is the source of suffering - are so obvious that I am only treating everyone here as idiots by even mentioning them?

If I get Cory right, there is a measure of duplicity in evil, and I must agree with that.

From the ego's point of view, there is indeed a degree of duplicity in logic. A person is initially attracted to logic because it empowers him. He feels stronger and more powerful when his logic overturns society's myths and the falsehoods of his own upbringing. But a point is soon reached when it all turns back on him and suddenly he finds himself being disempowered by the beast he has unleashed. He becomes devoured by his own logic.

Kierkegaard writes:
  • "Anyone who has the remotest idea of what it actually is to die to the world also knows that this does not take place without frightful agonies. No wonder, then, that he cries out, sometimes also rebels against God, because it seems to him as if God has deceived him, he who from the beginning became involved with God on the understanding that God would love him according to man's idea of love and now sees that it is God who wants to be loved, and according to God's idea of what love is."
So David, please try to refrain from such pithy pronouncements. You are not about to be tarred and feathered by the peasants or hung upside down on a cross.
Anyone who takes logic and truth seriously immediately becomes aware of how much at odds it places him with respect to the human race, and he is fully aware that he could be tarred and feathered at a moment's notice. Other people's hostility is his constant companion.

We're just "lucky" nowadays that most people (in the big cities in the West, at least) are too disinterested in religion, too distracted by consumerism, too brainwashed by postmodernist uncertainty, too unconscious of what is at stake, etc, to take on the truthful individual. Instead of murdering the truthful individual in order to make him go away, they can just switch off and move onto something else.

-
cousinbasil
Posts: 1395
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:26 am
Location: Garment District

Re: The Nature of Evil

Post by cousinbasil »

I assume by patronizing you mean "treating others in a condescending manner". Are you saying, then, that you think these two truths - that logic is evil and that love is the source of suffering - are so obvious that I am only treating everyone here as idiots by even mentioning them?
Patronizing was the word that came to mind - perhaps if I elaborate a bit you can help me think of a better one. Because I meant just the opposite of what you are saying here. Logic is clearly not evil - in and of itself. It simply cannot be. And love is not the source of suffering. Life is, being wound up into the mortal coil. To make such assertions seems to be talking down to your reader, as in, these sound good, they are a bit counter-intuitive and will rattle the nest and get attention; it'll give the riff-raff something to chew on. In other words, I don't think you actually believe such pronouncements but you make them anyway.
From the ego's point of view, there is indeed a degree of duplicity in logic. A person is initially attracted to logic because it empowers him. He feels stronger and more powerful when his logic overturns society's myths and the falsehoods of his own upbringing. But a point is soon reached when it all turns back on him and suddenly he finds himself being disempowered by the beast he has unleashed. He becomes devoured by his own logic.
Perhaps, but I said a duplicity in evil, not logic. You seem to to be treating logic and the person who embraces it as one and the same - they are not. There is no duplicity in logic, as I said - but there may very well be in the person "initially attracted" to it. But there may not be---to assume there must be, Kierkegaard notwithstanding, does come across as bit patronizing. As if you hold a generally low view of your fellow humans.
Anyone who takes logic and truth seriously immediately becomes aware of how much at odds it places him with respect to the human race, and he is fully aware that he could be tarred and feathered at a moment's notice. Other people's hostility is his constant companion.

We're just "lucky" nowadays that most people (in the big cities in the West, at least) are too disinterested in religion, too distracted by consumerism, too brainwashed by postmodernist uncertainty, too unconscious of what is at stake, etc, to take on the truthful individual. Instead of murdering the truthful individual in order to make him go away, they can just switch off and move onto something else.
As I see you do.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The Nature of Evil

Post by David Quinn »

cousinbasil wrote: Logic is clearly not evil - in and of itself. It simply cannot be.

We can say that reigned-in logic - i.e. logic kept on a short leash, confined to tightly sealed compartments within the mind, reduced to the harmless and the academic - is neither good nor evil. It becomes evil, to our good selves, when it is unleashed and allowed to roam free.

cousinbasil wrote: And love is not the source of suffering. Life is, being wound up into the mortal coil.

Ah, so you're taking on the Buddha now? That takes some balls. :)

If life really was the source of suffering, then we would be constantly suffering in every moment in our lives and there would be nothing we could do to alleviate it, short of killing ourselves.

No, when people suffer, it is because they deeply desire things to be other than what they are. That is to say, they are in love with what is not there.

cousinbasil wrote:
Anyone who takes logic and truth seriously immediately becomes aware of how much at odds it places him with respect to the human race, and he is fully aware that he could be tarred and feathered at a moment's notice. Other people's hostility is his constant companion.

We're just "lucky" nowadays that most people (in the big cities in the West, at least) are too disinterested in religion, too distracted by consumerism, too brainwashed by postmodernist uncertainty, too unconscious of what is at stake, etc, to take on the truthful individual. Instead of murdering the truthful individual in order to make him go away, they can just switch off and move onto something else.
As I see you do [hold a generally low view of your fellow humans].
It all depends on your standards, doesn't it......

-
Locked