I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things — Isaiah 45:7
If we do that, then we end up in the conundrum of whether evil exists. If evil is non-being, then evil doesn't exist. So all your experience of evil must be illusory. Furthermore, hell must not exist, since hell is full of evil, and evil is just non-being.But hasn't many Christians tried to define it thus: Good=being, evil=non-being? — Beebert
You do know that Spinoza denied the reality of evil? — Beebert
As far as good and evil are concerned, they also indicate nothing positive in things, considered in themselves, nor are they anything other than modes of thinking, or notions we form because we compare things to one another. For one and the same thing can be good, and [evil], and also indifferent. For example, Music is good for one who is melancholy, [evil to] one who is mourning, and neither good nor [evil] to one who is deaf. — Preface Part IV Ethica
Yes, exactly! And that fits perfectly with my conception of evil and good being defined in-themselves, and ultimately in relation to the Law (thus, as Spinoza says, having no ultimate reality in and of themselves).Well, werent you the one who claimed that hell is just a different perception of God, where one suffers instead of feeling bliss? Despite the fact that the damned and the saved encounters the same thing? That ls, they encounter the same thing buy experiences it differently because of their inner condition? — Beebert
No, he didn't say that, he just said they have no independent existence, not that they have no existence whatsoever. Christians know that good and evil are defined in relationship to God's Law, and thus also have no independent existence apart from the Law.Yes exactly, so according to Spinoza Good and evil are not intrinsically real. — Beebert
The fact that the damned and the saved encounter the same thing is a necessity, for God is omnipresent isn't He? How could the damned escape God?! Is God not stronger than any attempt to escape Him? Isn't that what his omnipresence means?Well then you and I possibly agree here I think. If I have understood you correctly that is... — Beebert
That's basically saying that they can't be defined in-themselves. They need to be defined in relation to, for example, the Law - or at any rate, something other than themselves. His point is that a thing is not evil in-itself, but rather in its relationship with other things. So it really is an existential fact that:What it seems to me like Spinoza says, is that neither good nor evil are real, intrinsic properties. Instead, goodness or evil are concepts we employ when we compare things. — Beebert
But that goodness isn't an in-itself of music but comes from the interrelationship of melancholy and music.Music is good for one who is melancholy — Preface Part IV Ethica
Nietzsche was a failed Spinozist, since he takes the fact that evil and good have no independent existence as meaning that they have no existence whatsoever, which Spinoza would vehemently deny.And to be honest with you, dont you think that this definition of evil(Spinoza's) is a bit similar to Nietzsche's, just that Nietzsche took it even further? That is my understanding from especially Works like Daybreak and Beyond Good and Evil. — Beebert
Nietzsche felt Spinoza was a kindred spirit at times, but I think that's merely an impression. If you look at their characters and what they wrote, it becomes clear. Spinoza was a virtue ethicist, Nietzsche an immoralist :POkay I see, Perhaps you are right here about Spinoza. I only know that Nietzsche found Spinoza to have basicslly understood what "evil" is... And I have not read his Ethics so I shouldnt comment too much on this — Beebert
Can we see red and white in the same place at the same time?Can we have light and dark at the same time in the same place? — Lone Wolf
Not really, because good and evil are opposites, just not in a logical sense where one is the absence of the other (and just that). They're opposites like red and white are opposites (as colors, when one is present the other must be absent but the other is not JUST the absence of the former).If evil was a completely separate substance, then it should be possible for a deed to be evil, and full of goodness too. — Lone Wolf
No. Red has it's own distinct light wave length. While we might think we are seeing them combined, they are in fact only what we think we see, and they are not truly combined at all. It is merely our lack of ability to discern between them.Can we see red and white in the same place at the same time? — Agustino
Not really, because good and evil are opposites, just not in a logical sense where one is the absence of the other (and just that). They're opposites like red and white are opposites (as colors, when one is present the other must be absent but the other is not JUST the absence of the former). — Agustino
Not only must it not be loving, kind, etc. but it must be the opposite of those. There's a subtle difference there. I can be unloving for example, without being hateful and resentful. That's precisely why evil (injustice, malice, etc.) isn't merely the absence of good, but rather its opposite.In order for something to be evil, it must not be loving, kind, patient, or joyful. I agree here. :P — Lone Wolf
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.