Badness, Evil, and Hello

[Received]

Firstly, Hello.

Moreover: badness, evil? Difference, synonyms? Opinions? Mad dances?

Nietzsche, for example, considered evil to be the resentful conclusion of individuals who didn't have the gall to actually change things -- for him, appropriately, the historical ideal is the priest, who upholds religious conceptions that say such things as "you disagree with me and my conception and you'll eternally burn for it!". From the Nietzschean watchtower, there is no evil; there is only badness in contradistinction to goodness -- this badness, for his power-centered psychological interpretation, is whatever that results from weakness; goodness, then, is related to power.

Is evil just an extreme degree of badness? Or is, as I would have it, badness a polar opposite to goodness, both terms understood in a pragmatic sense, whatever values are entailed in such a sense?

Well, if this works -- if badness is not-goodness, and goodness is not-badness, both ideas related to one's values -- what is evil?

Ok, ok, apparently I'll never learn to make easily understood threads, so:

Define, if you will:

1) Goodness

2) Badness

3) Evil

4) Demonism as it relates to Martha Stewart (she just ain't nice, folks, she just ain't nice).

Good to see you all.

 

[elman]

Firstly, Hello.

Moreover: badness, evil? Difference, synonyms? Opinions? Mad dances?

Nietzsche, for example, considered evil to be the resentful conclusion of individuals who didn't have the gall to actually change things -- for him, appropriately, the historical ideal is the priest, who upholds religious conceptions that say such things as "you disagree with me and my conception and you'll eternally burn for it!". From the Nietzschean watchtower, there is no evil; there is only badness in contradistinction to goodness -- this badness, for his power-centered psychological interpretation, is whatever that results from weakness; goodness, then, is related to power.

Is evil just an extreme degree of badness? Or is, as I would have it, badness a polar opposite to goodness, both terms understood in a pragmatic sense, whatever values are entailed in such a sense?

Well, if this works -- if badness is not-goodness, and goodness is not-badness, both ideas related to one's values -- what is evil?

Ok, ok, apparently I'll never learn to make easily understood threads, so:

Define, if you will:

1) Goodness

2) Badness

3) Evil

4) Demonism as it relates to Martha Stewart (she just ain't nice, folks, she just ain't nice).

Good to see you all.

Goodness is being loving. Badness and Evil is being unloving. The only demonism we need to be concerned about is the anit Christ inside us.

 

[Received]

Hey elman,

(For the record, the demonism and Martha Stewart thing is a joke)

So you consider evil and badness to be synonymous?

 

[vajradhara]

Namaste received,

thank you for the post.

Is evil just an extreme degree of badness?

i am not functionally aware of any difference between these two terms.. though i understand they are used in different contexts.

from my point of view, the term "evil" is nonesensical and "badness" is so subjective as to make it difficult to really understand what is being objected to, in my view.

Or is, as I would have it, badness a polar opposite to goodness, both terms understood in a pragmatic sense, whatever values are entailed in such a sense?

the terms are interrelated, in my estimation. to speak of a degree of goodness without something to compare it to would be fairly fruitless i expect.

Well, if this works -- if badness is not-goodness, and goodness is not-badness, both ideas related to one's values -- what is evil?

eh... people have a variety of views about what is "evil". personally, it seems to simply convey a stronger sense of dislike regarding the object.

Define, if you will:

1) Goodness

benevolence towards sentient beings.

2) Badness

ill will towards sentient beings.

3) Evil

a concept used to denote a more personal sense of revulsion and dislike for a concept or object.

metta,

~v

 

[Soul_Searcher]

Hi Received,

"1) Goodness"

Love--actions and thoughts that are motivated and moved by love

"2) Badness"

Fear--actions and thoughts that are motivated and moved by fear

"3) Evil"

Same as badness, but a judgment we place on actions (or people).

"4) Demonism as it relates to Martha Stewart (she just ain't nice, folks, she just ain't nice)."

When one believes her/himself to be special and deserving of material riches with little or no concern for others--and never grasp that material riches don't make one wealthy.

Nice to see you too Received.

 

[Eudaimonist]

1) Goodness

Rationality. Alignment with flourishing.

2) Badness

3) Evil

Irrationality. A lack of alignment with flourishing.

 

[Lilandra]

Firstly, Hello.

hello

Nietzsche, for example, considered evil to be the resentful conclusion of individuals who didn't have the gall to actually change things -- for him, appropriately, the historical ideal is the priest, who upholds religious conceptions that say such things as "you disagree with me and my conception and you'll eternally burn for it!". From the Nietzschean watchtower, there is no evil; there is only badness in contradistinction to goodness -- this badness, for his power-centered psychological interpretation, is whatever that results from weakness; goodness, then, is related to power.

I believe that evil is related to weakness, though maybe not in the same context Nietzche did. Not so much that might makes right because people in power are often wrong and plain evil as well.

But in the context of of Hitler and Saddam. Both were born obscure and poor nobodies. Hitler's hatred of Jews was the result of the envy he felt of the power their wealth had over poor people like him.

The impulse to grab and hold onto power result from a vacuum of powerlessness in an individual. Lesser examples are rapists and control freaks like Stewart.

So I say yes, evil does exist iin this world as a tangible thing not just an abstraction.

 

[Kathleen111]

Hey (((((((Received))))))) Long time no see, and so happy to see you again.

Evil has many forms. What it does in any form is kill off any and all opposition and enslave the rest. How it does that is using fear. There are all kinds of fears, failure, death, violence, being wrong, embarrassment, being alone, intimacy, unpopular, etc...No end to fear.

People can do a bad thing and not be evil. It's when people do a bad thing to other people and don't feel bad about it. The distinct lack of conscience and empathy.

Goodness, well, do the right thing even if you might die, you might wish you were dead, and even though you'll suffer for it. Evil does the very thing you hate the most. You'll die if you want to live and live if you want to die. "He who loves his life, loses it, and he who hates his life, lives forever." We are our brother's keeper.

Most people are blind with denial and blame. Easily enslaved or killed off that way too using fear. We call to us what we fear. The worst part is you just might live as a warning that there are worse things than death.

Living in fear is not living. It is waiting to die. Getting beyond the fear, I dunno. The part where you crap your pants trying to put an end to it is interesting and I don't blame anyone who don't want this stink job. I don't know how God decides who gets the blinders taken off but He does and there isn't much choice about doing something about it, or it will get you, too. And if it can't get you, you will lose everyone you love. With all that incentive there to be a good person, no wonder why it is so unpopular.

Just my thoughts. Missed ya a lot.

 

[Cat59]

Define, if you will:

1) Goodness

2) Badness

3) Evil

4) Demonism as it relates to Martha Stewart (she just ain't nice, folks, she just ain't nice).

Good to see you all.

I went with this to chrisbot sometime back, who helpfully told me good was the opposite of evil and evil the opposite of good. Badness didn't figure.
These are things that I have more of an intuitive sense about and which I think are value judgements. I have faced people who are outstandly loving and gentle and kind, all the positive things that make me feel happy and cared for, who deliberately put themselves out for me, not for want of any gain for themselves, but because they wish to make me happy and content. I would say they are good and the characteristics they are showing are those that I would define as goodness.
So what of badness? You might call a child bad for disobeying his parents, it carries with it an element of lack of following rules but not necessarily setting out to hurt, whereas evil comes with an sense of deliberateness, with wanting to harm or hurt or destroy.
So, for me at least, there is a qualitative difference between the two and I do not see good and bad as polar opposites.

 

[elman]

Hey elman,

(For the record, the demonism and Martha Stewart thing is a joke)

So you consider evil and badness to be synonymous?

Yes. I don't consider bad weather to be evil.

 

[brightlights]

1) Goodness

That which is beneficial on a spiritual, physical, and emotional level.

2) Badness

Perhaps suffering, yet Christians are told to rejoice in the face of suffering, so then suffering cannot be, in itself, considered evil, can it? I would consider a natural disaster bad, but I would not consider it evil. Badness is, perhaps, what Voltaire called "natural evil". Bad is harder to define that evil.

3) Evil

Evil is bad, but bad is not necessarily evil. Evil is that which is not beneficial on a spiritual, physical, and emotional level.

4) Demonism as it relates to Martha Stewart (she just ain't nice, folks, she just ain't nice).

 

[nadroj1985]

The difference between badness and evil.... well, for me personally, I tend to call "bad" merely what doesn't please me as an individual. This soda I'm drinking is bad, for example (freaking energy drinks... bleccchhh).

"Evil," on the other hand has a larger range. Evil is not merely displeasing -- it is raised up as a human problematic, as a reason not to believe in God, even as a reason to kill oneself, etc. A human being can be evil, for example, but not for individually displeasing reasons. Take the racist viewpoint, for example: it often arises merely because of reasons of individual displeasure i.e. a person's skin color being different than one's own. However, the racist position is not justified by this; rather, the discriminated race is portrayed as anti-social, or violent, or sexually perverted -- in short, it is portrayed as evil, in an "objective" way, a way that affects us all and that we can all understand... and it is precisely this that the racist feels justifies his position. So, it seems to me that evil has a more universal quality. No matter how much I personally hate the TV show Roseanne, it makes no sense in common usage to call it "evil" (more's the pity).

That actually syncs up pretty well with Nietzsche's account, since he's quite the individualist. Of course, he would probably say that our concept of "evil" is just a lofty term for what displeases us personally, and our desire to have it apply to everyone is merely a fear of individuality, and a flight back into the herd. What Nietzsche really would want is that we own up to our own individual preferences, and set about living and dying for them. In other words, we need to retain the individual aspect of the concept of "badness," without losing the importance to our lives that we place on the concept of "evil," if that makes any sense.

 

[Lilandra]

It is a daily struggle for me.

I see Christians everyday using Christianity to manipulate people and still avoid the label of bad or evil.

Then there is the rampant antiintellectualism down here in the South among evangelicals. The constant attacks on science education and tendency to censorship. It is baffling.

On some level the worst I have met are not inhuman but they use Christian authority to gratify themselves or others abuse Christian charity.

I try to preserve Christianity within myself and instill what is good about it to my children.

But I worry that this makes them gullible to be manipulated.

There are more reasons like the nonsensical stuff in the Old Testament like Job.

It is hard to sort it all.

 

[Moros]

Define, if you will:
1) Goodness
2) Badness
3) Evil
4) Demonism as it relates to Martha Stewart (she just ain't nice, folks, she just ain't nice).

1) What pleases us
2) What displeases us
3) What hurts us
4) Seasonal floral patterns

 

[Danhalen]

1) What pleases us
2) What displeases us
3) What hurts us
4) Seasonal floral patterns

I like these distinctions. I'm going with Lvythn for however long the name lasts this time.

 

[Achichem]

1) Goodness

Has three forms
1) a psychological state where by the perception of "needs" disappears and all one knows is "abundance"
2) Fields in the universe that help principles,peoples, or systems reach "goodness" in their own psychology(self identifications), even if just temporarily.
3) a general act of acceptance

2) Badness

1) the part of human perception that places things in terms of "needs"
2) fields in the universe that promote perception of a needs based reality
3) an small act of evil

3) Evil

1) fields that limit perception to unhealthy or neurotic levels
2) influences that limit function
3) forces which impose(the perception of) artificial polarity
4) an illusionary motivator or "boggy man" formed in limited perception of the absolute.

4) Demonism as it relates to Martha Stewart (she just ain't nice, folks, she just ain't nice).

Call it what you will, she is not from a psychology perspective at a "healthy" (function, integrated, ect.) level

 

[Received]

Ah, Cat59 brought up something I should have added:

Most people consider evil to be the polar opposite to goodness. If this is so, how does badness relate to this? Is badness just a lighter form of evil?

So far the overwhelming conception seems to be that evil is, in fact, a darker, heavier form of badness. I can understand where this standing, but I can't say I entirely agree with it.

We at least have the minor problem of dividing what is bad from what is evil; but this remains a minor problem given that both badness and evil, regardless of how one appropriately defines them, are both entirely related to subjectivity -- they are things that bubble up from our relation to the world, and are not things that exist in objectivity.

For instance, rationality is the good if one has values that line in with rationality. These values can -- most of the time are -- infused by cultural upbringing, but they can easily be stumbled upon. But in my view, badness would be stupidity -- stupidity is related to brute factuality: one is stupid and you can't condemn him for it; it is just the way he is. But evil here would be voluntary stupidity -- a student, for example, who is consciously convicted of the necessity of studying and thereby bettering his life but voluntarily chooses not to -- this would be evil, both to him (though he would be slow in admitting it), and those who stand outside him.

Evil, then, is a sort of badness that can be helped; badness itself can be limited solely to facticity, though all evil entails a sense of badness -- and thus isn't limited solely to this.

Special hello to all have who have helloed me.

 

[Received]

The difference between badness and evil.... well, for me personally, I tend to call "bad" merely what doesn't please me as an individual. This soda I'm drinking is bad, for example (freaking energy drinks... bleccchhh).

The soda can be bad and good depending on different correlating standpoints. From the perspective of sheer immediate pleasure, for example, it's freakin' nasty ('cept Monster; they freakin' rule); but from the long-term consideration of how this will aid you in staying awake, it is very much a good. But ultimately it is "more good" than "more bad" because this long-term perspective is more important than immediate pleasure.

Oh, and a wonderful statement on Nietzsche. I tried to rep you -- but apparently three month's wait isn't sufficient for the evil (har har) folks at the rep center.

 

[Zoot]

Goodness is the nominalisation of the adjective "good", a word we use to describe those actions that are preferable to us for no reason. Badness is the opposite. Evil is a strong word for bad.

 

[Received]

Hey Zoot.

Could you hit up on what exactly you mean by "no reason"? Is this related to the idea of goodness/badness being inherently related to one's values? -- That there is no reason outside of our own values why something is good, bad, evil?