How to deal with evil?

[jacks]

Prayer, Almsgiving, and fasting

Yes, no need to overgeneralize or dwell on it. Turn your attention toward God.

 

[quatona]

How would call the intention of murder?

"Intention of murder" sounds right to me.

And how would you call the intention of torture?

I´d go with "intention of torture".

And if there is a word which can represent the nature of the above two names?

"Intended violence"?

There is a word called evil, could you give an example of using this word?

The bolded part in the etymological definition that I gave to you: As an expression of the speaker´s disapproval or dislike.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Greedy is a nature of human.

Not precisely. We are both greedy and generous in our first natures. We have many opposing motivations possible to us.

I'd like to introduce two terms to the discussion -- first nature and second nature. When I was a little child, I learned how to ride a bicycle. Before I learned how, I kept falling off of my bike. As I practiced, I managed to go forward without falling down.

My "first nature" is what I was born with, and it contains the capacity to learn motor skills. I had a sense of balance, could move my legs, could adjust my balance, etc.

My "second nature" is what I could achieve through learning and habituation. The skill of riding my bike is something that I had made second nature in myself.

Our second nature is an additional nature added onto our first natures. However, it might not completely take hold in all situations.

But you know that you can not completely get rid of the nature of greedy in you. However, you can accept this imperfection and live well with the imperfection.

Actually, I don't know for certain that I can't completely override the greedy aspect of my first nature by developing my second nature. That is an empirical issue. Perhaps some people are incorruptable.

However, I suspect that it may be more difficult than it sounds.

What I do know is that no one is born with any moral character or wisdom whatsoever. Everyone starts only with their first nature, and no second nature. So, with all of the many motivations open to us, we need to learn how to use those motivations wisely and craft a good moral character.

For the reason that every human life starts from scratch, it is exceptionally unlikely that human society will ever be devoid of evil. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't at least try to raise children well and give them a good moral education. We should do that, and it should help. We should also work on our own character, and that should help too.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[juvenissun]

"Intention of murder" sounds right to me.

I´d go with "intention of torture".

"Intended violence"?




The bolded part in the etymological definition that I gave to you: As an expression of the speaker´s disapproval or dislike.

This does not answer my question. I like to see an example in which the word evil is actually used to express some meaning.

Since the word does exist and you deny that this word represents anything, so my conclusion is that your way of dealing with evil is simply deny it. In other words, whatever people do, it has nothing to do with evil.

That is convenient.

 

[quatona]

This does not answer my question. I like to see an example in which the word evil is actually used to express some meaning.

"This is evil" would be such an example expressing the meaning "I (strongly) disapprove of this."

Since the word does exist and you deny that this word represents anything,

That´s not what I said.

so my conclusion is that your way of dealing with evil is simply deny it.

If it doesn´t exist there´s nothing to deny.

In other words, whatever people do, it has nothing to do with evil.

Yes, you´ve got it right this time.

That is convenient.

Personally, I find it way more convenient to externalize your value judgements.

 

[juvenissun]

Not precisely. We are both greedy and generous in our first natures. We have many opposing motivations possible to us.

I'd like to introduce two terms to the discussion -- first nature and second nature. When I was a little child, I learned how to ride a bicycle. Before I learned how, I kept falling off of my bike. As I practiced, I managed to go forward without falling down.

My "first nature" is what I was born with, and it contains the capacity to learn motor skills. I had a sense of balance, could move my legs, could adjust my balance, etc.

My "second nature" is what I could achieve through learning and habituation. The skill of riding my bike is something that I had made second nature in myself.

Our second nature is an additional nature added onto our first natures. However, it might not completely take hold in all situations.



Actually, I don't know for certain that I can't completely override the greedy aspect of my first nature by developing my second nature. That is an empirical issue. Perhaps some people are incorruptable.

However, I suspect that it may be more difficult than it sounds.

What I do know is that no one is born with any moral character or wisdom whatsoever. Everyone starts only with their first nature, and no second nature. So, with all of the many motivations open to us, we need to learn how to use those motivations wisely and craft a good moral character.

For the reason that every human life starts from scratch, it is exceptionally unlikely that human society will ever be devoid of evil. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't at least try to raise children well and give them a good moral education. We should do that, and it should help. We should also work on our own character, and that should help too.


eudaimonia,

Mark

All religions have a systematic way to actively deal with evil. But humanity does not. I think your view is a typical one in that category.

However, there is another view in humanity which is exactly opposite to yours. It recognizes that the first nature of human is evil. Then this first nature is suppressed more and more as the person grew, learned and educated.

In either case, when we see some serious cases of evil doing happened in society, all we can do is to accept it and sigh. To me, that is not acceptable.

 

[Eudaimonist]

However, there is another view in humanity which is exactly opposite to yours. It recognizes that the first nature of human is evil. Then this first nature is suppressed more and more as the person grew, learned and educated.

Actually, there is another view that is neither yours nor mine, which is perhaps a better "exact opposite" to the religious view you mention above. That one is Jean Jacques Rousseau's view that people are born good and it is society that corrupts them. From this, we get stories (such as Tarzan) of the "noble savage".

My view is actually a synthesis or third way between Jean Jacques Rousseau's view and the religious view that rejects the idea that we are born either good or evil in character.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[juvenissun]

"This is evil" would be such an example expressing the meaning "I (strongly) disapprove of this."


That´s not what I said.

If it doesn´t exist there´s nothing to deny.

Yes, you´ve got it right this time.


Personally, I find it way more convenient to externalize your value judgements.

What would you say if I suggested that evil is only an opposite force, and it does not have to mean good or bad? For example, if you do something this way, then I will find a way to do it just opposite to you. More explicitly, if you love a person, then I will try to hate him. If you hate a person, then I will try to love him.

If evil is defined that way, would you accept that many ideas/behaviors are evil?

 

[quatona]

What would you say if I suggested that evil is only an opposite force, and it does not have to mean good or bad? For example, if you do something this way, then I will find a way to do it just opposite to you. More explicitly, if you love a person, then I will try to hate him. If you hate a person, then I will try to love him.

If evil is defined that way, would you accept that many ideas/behaviors are evil?

I would conclude that ALL ideas and behaviours are evil (since they all have opposte ideas/behaviours).

And if you´d define evil as a banana I would even accept that evil is yellow.

 

[juvenissun]

I would conclude that ALL ideas and behaviours are evil (since they all have opposte ideas/behaviours).

And if you´d define evil as a banana I would even accept that evil is yellow.

Good argument. I'll think again.

 

[juvenissun]

I would conclude that ALL ideas and behaviours are evil (since they all have opposte ideas/behaviours).

And if you´d define evil as a banana I would even accept that evil is yellow.

So, evil to you is an illusive, relative idea. Put me into your shoes, I tend to agree with you.

Yet, Eudaimonist, who is the only one other than you to give replies to the thread, has a quite different idea about evil. I would say both of you are humanist. It seems to me that humanism could easily give a dozen different views in dealing with the problem of evil. To me, that signifies a bad philosophy due to the lack of understanding.

 

[quatona]

So, evil to you is an illusive, relative idea.

You came up with a definition (a definition that rendered evil relative) and asked me what I´d conclude from it. The answer to such a question does not necessarily reprensent what "evil" means to me.

That much would be a correct representation of my position: "Evil" describes our ideas about something. It is not something out there.
I don´t know where you saw me implying that this idea is "illusive" and/or "relative".

Yet, Eudaimonist, who is the only one other than you to give replies to the thread, has a quite different idea about evil.

Yes.

I would say both of you are humanist.

I am not.

It seems to me that humanism could easily give a dozen different views in dealing with the problem of evil.

Mark is an individual speaking for himself, so are you, so am I.

To me, that signifies a bad philosophy due to the lack of understanding.

To me, you are employing very bad logic here.

 

[juvenissun]

This is my conclusion:

The word evil has nothing to do with religion. But without a religion, evil becomes a very difficult concept and is impossible to deal with.

 

[Tornero]

All evil comes from ignorance, ignorance of your true self.

With ignorance comes egotism, desire, lust, hatred, pride and greed.

All evil can be traced back to ignorance of the heart.


The only way to get rid of hatred is to forgive people who hate.

 

[juvenissun]

All evil comes from ignorance, ignorance of your true self.

With ignorance comes egotism, desire, lust, hatred, pride and greed.

All evil can be traced back to ignorance of the heart.


The only way to get rid of hatred is to forgive people who hate.

Are you saying more education will reduce the degree of evilness?

And are you suggesting that older people know more, and thus less evil?

 

[Tornero]

Are you saying more education will reduce the degree of evilness?

And are you suggesting that older people know more, and thus less evil?

No, I said ignorance of your heart, not ignorance of knowledge, friend.

Your true self is love,

"A man’s true wealth hereafter is the good he does in this world to his fellowmen" - Muhammed (pbuh).

You are a creation of God, so naturally you are perfect, but it is the earthly life that makes one impure and evil, ignorance of what you where to begin with; your true self.

A seal is put upon ones heart, a barrier, so it is ignorance that stops people from seeing the "straight path".

Peace

 

[juvenissun]

No, I said ignorance of your heart, not ignorance of knowledge, friend.

Your true self is love,

"A man’s true wealth hereafter is the good he does in this world to his fellowmen" - Muhammed (pbuh).

You are a creation of God, so naturally you are perfect, but it is the earthly life that makes one impure and evil, ignorance of what you where to begin with; your true self.

A seal is put upon ones heart, a barrier, so it is ignorance that stops people from seeing the "straight path".

Peace

If so, how do I see my heart and lift off that ignorance?

 

[Eudaimonist]

I would say both of you are humanist.

Why would you say that I am a humanist? What are you basing that evaluation on? What do you mean by the word "humanist"?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Tornero]

If so, how do I see my heart and lift off that ignorance?

Well, there are a few ways. Mostly getting rid of earth like emotions, such as hatred, anger, attachment, ego. And turns to god. Because as people of god, yours and my place isn't this earth.

In Islam, we have something called "Tasawwuf", people who learns Tasawwuf are sometimes called "Sufis", which is the "inner" dimension of Islam. The root word for Sufi, means Pure, or Wool (referring to the simplicity of clothes) and lots of other. Tasawwuf is the science whose objective is the reparation of the heart and turning it away from all else but God.

To be a good person of god, you have to have a good balance between Shari'a (physical), and Tasawwuf (spiritual, inner). As Imam Malik said "He who learns jurisprudence and neglects Tasawwuf becomes a reprobate; and he who learns Tasawwuf and neglects jurisprudence becomes an apostate. But he who combines both will reach the Truth"

Sufis turn away from all else but god, so they have no earthly desires, no anger, no greed, no hatred, no egotism and no lust. They are patient, kind, humble, and devote their time helping other people. - they try and act like how Muhammed (pbuh) acted, and best of all they act like how God wants people to act like.

However, there are lots of way to get rid of the seal (ignoraance) as Sufism is just one of many paths. But mainly to be aware of your true self. If any of that makes sense as I don't think I did a good job explaining as I am typing from a phone ._.

But getting rid of this ignorance takes time, even some Sufis practice for 20 years with their sheik! - you could even try asking God to take away the seal?

Peace

 

[quatona]

This is my conclusion:

The word evil has nothing to do with religion. But without a religion, evil becomes a very difficult concept and is impossible to deal with.

I have problems seeing how you concluded that. Rather, it seems to be your premise.