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

[UltraBudgie]

I'm not convinced. I see many instances where I think folks use "reasoned philosophical understanding" to be all sneaky-like and twist things and sometimes justify doing the most horrible things imaginable.

[andy06shake]

I'm not convinced. I see many instances where I think folks use "reasoned philosophical understanding" to be all sneaky-like and twist things and sometimes justify doing the most horrible things imaginable.

I suppose philosophy can be twisted to fit almost any agenda if someone's determined enough.

After all, people are great at building elegant arguments to defend what they already want to believe, or do.

If in doubt, see the greater part of recorded history.

[UltraBudgie]

And wherein, then, is truth? Reason is a tool, not an ends.

In debating on here, I've had to find the intersection of several things: 1) Truth of objective fact, 2) Truth of the viewpoint I'm representing, and 3) Truth of my heart. If I compromise any of those, I just don't feel I'm being "good", and that compromise shows in weakness of rhetoric.

My point is that "truth" is a more complex and multi-faceted thing than "good", which as an abstract concept is unequivocal in its principle, as muddy as the expression of those principles may become when projected upon this Earth. They're not opposites.

[andy06shake]

And wherein, then, is truth? Reason is a tool, not an ends.

In debating on here, I've had to find the intersection of several things: 1) Truth of objective fact, 2) Truth of the viewpoint I'm representing, and 3) Truth of my heart. If I compromise any of those, I just don't feel I'm being "good", and that compromise shows in weakness of rhetoric.

My point is that "truth" is a more complex and multi-faceted thing than "good", which as an abstract concept is unequivocal in its principle, as muddy as the expression of those principles may become when projected upon this Earth. They're not opposites.

I tend to agree.

Things are generally more complex than they appear, the truth is no different in that respect.

I would also point out that the truth can burn.

And it does not always set people free.

At the end of the day even objective truths are interpreted through subjective minds.

[sahgwa]

I'm not convinced. I see many instances where I think folks use "reasoned philosophical understanding" to be all sneaky-like and twist things and sometimes justify doing the most horrible things imaginable.

U-BER-MENSCH! U-BER-MENSCH! woo woo wooo

[UltraBudgie]

U-BER-MENSCH! U-BER-MENSCH! woo woo wooo

Been staring into the abyss?


More thoughts on "what is truth". It's my belief that humanity has changed, in the timespan measured in thousands or tens of thousands of years. I believe, at one point in the "pre-history" era, the mind of man existed much closer to nature, being "in the moment" almost constantly. Reaction to environment was mostly instinctive, without deliberation, even as the consciousness was sentient. The line between the rational "true/false" and the moral "good/evil" was near non-existent, the two were virtually equivalent in a near total "state of nature". The mind, as a dialectic of internal dialog, was used as a muscle, exerted when needed, relaxed and quiescent when not. At some point, this changed, to where the mind and thought became almost constant, yet attention still remained focused, but a distance was drawn between man and nature. This coincided with the beginning of history, and the age of mysticism. An effort was required to return to a mental state of direct communion with nature, quieting the thoughts and acting without effort, but it was still possible. At that point, the line between the rational and the natural grew wider. This continued to evolve, when the mind began to differentiate itself more, into the "left/right" of the rational left-brain and the intuitive right-brain, and the conversation became more chaotic, a bicameral house as janes put it, seeking truth and its own contradiction in the utile proving ground of the natural environment. This was the beginning of the age of reason, and science. Achieving the "no-mind" state of early history without extensive work became near impossible, and even the single-pointed focus of the previous era moved further out of reach. The idea of a unification of truth/falsity with good/evil became an eternal struggle. In the more modern era, we are seeing the beginnings of something more, even, as much of the population becomes incapable of even sustained rational dialectic and complex thought, without extreme effort. This new era is the age of sensory infatuation, where once again the world's perception leads us, but in a chaotic way that doesn't cut through to any persistent truth but rather stirs the waters of the irresolvable in the realm of rationality. "Too confused to think", where the postmodern idea that there may not even be anything such as truth/false or good/evil in an objective sense has taken hold.

Anyway this is somewhat basic doctrine in some eastern philosophical views, not my own unique ideas, but I thought I'd share it to perhaps give better perspective on the very western ideas of good/evil and true/false as eternal dichotomies existing outside of ourselves. What do y'all think?

[Maxmars]

Truth as a 'reflexive' concept is an inadequate candidate to put on a scaled metric... thus no pure opposite manifests as a thing... perhaps "ignorance(?)" but there is such a thing as "innocent" ignorance, so no.

Is the absence of a thing "it's opposite?"

The OT's keep creeping up on me....

But I still struggle to accept that a moral object, such as "evil"... has been so distinctly place-able inside the discussion.

Perhaps a focus whether evil is as reflexively conceptual as truth. 
Thus no opposite.... a 'judgment' pervasively existing in opposition to the equally real 'truth.'

[OK... I'll go back to my room now. ]

[sahgwa]

. Achieving the "no-mind" state of early history without extensive work became near impossible, and even the single-pointed focus of the previous era moved further out of reach. The idea of a unification of truth/falsity with good/evil became an eternal struggle. In the more modern era, we are seeing the beginnings of something more, even, as much of the population becomes incapable of even sustained rational dialectic and complex thought, without extreme effort. 

This is true, but its still POSSIBLE and some of us work on it daily.  To transcend the false polarity and realise the unity behind all things.  
To reconcile and unite the opposites. 
For all thing has it's opposite inside itself. 
It all starts with quiet.

Some say 'evil' was introduced into music starting with dissonance in the modern era on purpose. To fragment and further remove Man from God and the Cosmos and farther away from the harmonic vibrations of the AUM

[Unknownparadox]

Maybe try learning some manners next.

You first pal. You might wanna go back and reread your first reply to me. Or your second. Although I am not sure that will do any good. 
 

So who put us here if i may ask?

You did. 
 

And are you suggesting sex education is evil?

I didn't say that. If you actually read my crazy "Crazy diatribe". Then you might have noticed this.

That doesn't mean we need to use the government to force everyone's child to be (educated on it a decade before they are ready for reproduction.) 

Sex education is probably a good idea, but it shouldn't be forced. And it should not be around a decade before they need it.
 

I don't think they predominantly teach children that age about sex per se. 

No not per se. They put the ideas in there head with mandatory classes, about gender, gay's, non binary, and heterosexuals, I am not even sure heterosexual was even in there. So when you tell this kind of stuff to a kid, they are going to start asking a bunch of hard to answer questions. Technically a child doesn't know what they are until after puberty, since that is the time the cycle of life chose for them to reproduce. 

You might want to read up on the supreme court ruling on that.

It's more about where their private areas are, and what's not appropriate.

Ummm no, and to top that off, you want a complete stranger, or may as well be a complete stranger, to teach your kid about the areas that complete strangers shouldn't be touching. Now that is a great idea. I guess you haven't noticed how teachers kinda sleep with their students.
 

Or at least that's how i seem to recall the experience where my own kids and primary school was concerned.

Well times they be a changing my good man.

I tell you what. We do not agree and we are never going to agree. And there is nothing wrong with that. I am going to give you the final word. I will not respond to your next reply. So make it a good one. But I will read it.

Oh and Evil is always the opposite of truth. Not to say all lies are evil. Or that Evil is only the opposite of truth. And when I say evil, I mean what humans have determined to be evil.

[cherokeetroy]

I think this is a good way of thinking about it.
In the realm of spiritual 'power' we often say that you are weakening yourself the more you lie.
And not only in realms of 'power' but also in realms of harmony, the more you do what you say, and say what you do, and not lying, or twisting, the more harmonious your inside and outside will be.
This even includes 'white lies' or procrastinations, like 'I will do the laundry tomorrow' 
Everything counts.

know thyself 

To thine own self be true