Evil is not the Opposite of Good, it's the Opposite of Truth

[andy06shake]

Which came first ... the imbalance or the evil?
"good" is perfectly balanced.
So imbalance is an evil in of itself.
Evil doesn't arise from imbalance ... it IS imbalance.
Evil is the opposite of the truth of balance.
Right?

 
The thing is imbalance is not inherently evil.

It's the natural state in most dynamic systems.

With the kicker being most systems, like ecosystems, our societies, and even personal growth, all rely on imbalances to evolve.

Good and evil are human constructs we created to help make sense of morality and our behavior. 

Nature entertains no such delusions that's for sure.

[FlyersFan]

 
The thing is imbalance is not inherently evil.

If balance is good.
Then imbalance is evil.
If balance is truth.
Then imbalance is the opposite ... which according to this article is evil.

[IgnorantGod]

 
The thing is imbalance is not inherently evil.

It's the natural state in most dynamic systems.

[...]

At the end of the day, isn't it context dependant?

One can single out any system from its environment and state it is an imbalanced system. However, it might not be so when such system is put in perspective within the 'larger' system of which it is part of (probably, at least).

And then, what is a 'truth' without a 'falsehood'? If there's an absolute 'Truth' (with the big T, mother of all truths and stuff), wouldn't there also be an absolute 'Falsehood'? or that such 'Truth' is both true and false at the same time? And well, it's not like there weren't countless intellectuals that have dedicated their life at 'searching' for one during human's history. As far as I can see, we aren't closer to any now than then.

If anything, Godel might have put the final nail on the coffin.

[FlyersFan]

And then, what is a 'truth' without a 'falsehood'? If there's an absolute 'Truth' (with the big T, mother of all truths and stuff), wouldn't there also be an absolute 'Falsehood'?

Truth can exist without falsehood.
But falsehood can not exist without truth.
The article says evil is parasitic to good.

[andy06shake]

If balance is good.
Then imbalance is evil.
If balance is truth.
Then imbalance is the opposite ... which according to this article is evil.

I don't think it's quite as boolean as that. 

I mean, life seldom is, so....

[andy06shake]

At the end of the day, isn't it context dependant?

One can single out any system from its environment and state it is an imbalanced system. However, it might not be so when such system is put in perspective within the 'larger' system of which it is part of (probably, at least).

And then, what is a 'truth' without a 'falsehood'? If there's an absolute 'Truth' (with the big T, mother of all truths and stuff), wouldn't there also be an absolute 'Falsehood'? or that such 'Truth' is both true and false at the same time? And well, it's not like there weren't countless intellectuals that have dedicated their life at 'searching' for one during human's history. As far as I can see, we aren't closer to any now than then.

If anything, Godel might have put the final nail on the coffin.

Yep, context and perspective dependent. 

And two things can be true at the same time.

[IgnorantGod]

[...]
The article says evil is parasitic to good.

Doesn't that just infer that being 'good' is being a victim? The part of the 'good' that'll start to retaliate against the parasitism would itself become parasitism.

And then, one can argue that human as a species is kinda parasitic in regards to the planet ecosystem (at least, one that can sustain biological lifeform as we know it).

Should we deem the whole species as 'evil'? Or any parasitism (ontological or metaphorical) that actually exist as I'm writing this?

As for evil being the opposite of 'Truth', then it's equating evil to falsehood. Might be whataboutism, however if the body's senses aren't 'showing' all the data available, and thus only output a processed form of an already incomplete dataset, wouldn't it be considered falsehood in a sens?

[imitator]

I have a little saying... To the wolf, the hunter is evil. To the hunter, the wolf is.

[Maxmars]

All life is parasitic in some perspective.

Humans have a distinction that we presume control is something we can
achieve with the act of assertions....

well.. to be honest, I recognize that's presumptive in and of itself.

Edit to add more pertinent to the topic (sorry... I just had to hit "post." :) 

Evil is a category of manifestation... we choose to include things which are sometimes... not.

Inexplicable tragedy?  Evil has befallen you... (but you know, maybe not really.)

People doing stupid and incomprehensible things?... They are evil.

One of the most prominent features of Evil is the perversion and decimation of truth...  

But if that's all it were, it would not be insidious and persistent beyond reason... evil persists
even with the knowledge that it serves no purpose other than to bring pain.

Evil is a thing.  It exists...

But some might argue that it has to... it resolves moral 'definition' we seem built to refine... as humans.

[Bootless]

Here's a good theological/philosophical discussion.

A little 'Saint Augustine' for you all to ponder ... 

The article says - "evil has no true essence of its own. Rather, it is purely parasitic, existing only as the distortion of truth."

At first I said ... 'nah' ... but I'm thinking about it . 

I think parasitic is a good description of evil.

Such begins the path to deism, agnosticism, and even atheism.

What is a parasite? Is it one who only takes to live and reproduce? A mosquito, a leech, a bedbug, a screw worm fly, a single-celled eukaryotes of the genus Plasmodium which causes malaria?

Where did they come from? Who created them? Was their creation an act of love?

Or did a lie creep into some genetic code of otherwise wonderful and useful creatures to form a monstrosity? Is that evolution? Is evolution evil?