Coming Soon to a Store Near You!

posted on June 12th, 2011, 4:18 am

Well, I hope.

Recently I've decided to write a book. It will be arguing that evil can't exist. I will effectively prove this through several simplish ideas (probably a huge understatement if I've ever made one). It does get somewhat involved. I have the majority of it worked out though. But, in all honesty, it is built on fair premises that are rather basic.

Hopefully I can write it in a decent amount of time.

Maybe in a year or two, if I get published and such, you'll be able to pick it up!

I'm a little cautious... hopefully this doesn't cross any chat rules. I'm not advertising any information or selling anything. I didn't spam the ideas of the book or anything... so no real intrusion on personal stuff.

A small favour I might ask, as hopefully this forum covers a fair population over a good demographic and is probably multicultural. If you do currently have a belief system that involves evil, and are willing to share with me why you think it might exist, please do.

I really do not intend on crossing any lines if there are some as far as personal freedoms, religious beliefs etc. Even if you would like to message me or something in private.

I've thought it all through, but I was raised a certain way. And I'm sure the world has ideas from other cultures which play out differently than my own life experiences, so I am more than willing to listen to different interpretations. It would only enhance my writing if I can explain more from different viewpoints. I suppose in some sense this might be research... but not really. I'm just wondering in general what people think. For all I know, no one cares anymore. 

Nothing will be used in the book. I'm not looking for material. I wish I had less to write already. I would just make sure that in general, I have a response to anything that comes up. Everything is already set up, but I feel it might help the book reach a larger audience if I can address more than a Western, church, philosophical etc approach.

I am well aware that some belief structures exist that already do not necessarily include evil to the extent of others (ie. Buddhism). Technically, beliefs structures that do not involve evil have existed longer than ideas that include it. I'm wanting to shift it back. More or less. People who are devout I have no interest in converting or what not. If certain people truly believe in evil, probably wouldn't even give me the time of day with this proposition anyways.

More for those who simply have beliefs as a byproduct of long held conceptions based on a world with evil within society. But would want a better way, if it were presented to them. Which I'm fairly certain I can provide.

Conversely, this will not turn into a debate. Not my intention. Again, this thread is not for slander in any way. I have no interest in arguing this out with people. Merely looking for outside opinions of things I may not have considered.

posted on June 12th, 2011, 8:14 am

I don't believe in evil as in, a force of it's own. I do believe that certain actions and motives can be evil, however, but I don't believe anything is innately evil.

Also, side-note but I think it's a logical impossibility to prove that something doesn't exist....

posted on June 12th, 2011, 9:10 am

There are no married bachelors.

posted on June 12th, 2011, 9:31 am

Also, side-note but I think it's a logical impossibility to prove that something doesn't exist....

logically u can prove nonexistance, but you need to know some stuff for certain, which usually means making an assumption. so if u argue only from observable evidence, its very hard to prove something else that is observable doesnt exist.

so its not logically impossible, it just requires making assumptions you will have a lot of difficulty proving.

so if u want to prove there are no diabetics in a town, by arguing that insulin R us has zero insulin sales, you would need assumptions such as: all diabetics would buy insulin from insulin R us. which is a bad assumption as they could buy from insulin 2 go, or steal it from a hospital.

[DocPhlox]

posted on June 12th, 2011, 11:39 am

Last edited by DocPhlox on June 12th, 2011, 11:44 am, edited 1 time in total.

Good. I have some free time. Wall of text incoming.

Have you written books before? Because I think it's hard to write a good book on such a topic without training, practice and experience. Before I expand on my beliefs, I'll say that "evil" certainly exists, but not as a natural phenomenon but rather as another invention by mankind. It also isn't a clear cut concept, but varies among cultures. So I basically disagree with the punch line of your book. I still wish you good luck with it, though.

To start off, I was born and raised in an occidental culture and despite having Christian people in my close family I am a firm agnostic. Also English is not my native tongue, so please ask me to clarify if needed.

I certainly don't believe in evil as a being, for example I don't believe in demons or an entity in a hell-like realm waiting to torture sinners for all eternity. But as others stated in their replies, I think that persons and their actions and thoughts can be evil, although "defining" evil is already quite a feat and worth a book alone.

Intentionally making another person suffer great injustice, pain or bodily injury for no or only one's own benefit for example is something that is considered evil by the majority of individuals in any culture because it affects and disrupts society as a whole - thus stealing, assault and homocide are punishable almost universally around the world.

I think our perception of evil is a reflection of our innermost fears and partly linked to our natural instincts. Nobody wants his or her property stolen from them or be hurt. This is natural for all concious beings on this planet and we Homo sapiens are no exception. Our progenitors relied on their instincts for survival like any other animal and we stole, killed and raped each other to survive and facilitate evolution.

But with the archievement of free will also came the ability to surpress our instincts and work together for mutual benefit. We formed tribes and clans and over time our fertility and the scarcecity of resources demanded for rules to not fall back into anarchy. The rest is history.

Marking off certain actions as evil and facilitate appropriate punishment is the basic foundation of any society.

How this is done varies among cultures and was influenced by predominant religions. But all humans that live in social groups know good and evil.

So "evil" does exist - even if only in our minds.

[godsvoice]

posted on June 12th, 2011, 3:47 pm

Last edited by godsvoice on December 3rd, 2011, 6:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Blazing: "I don't believe in evil as in, a force of it's own." This is a very important point and I am glad to see it come up. I would agree. As for the logical impossibility, I understand your meaning. All swans are white. - all swans we have ever seen are white. To prove that all swans are white when we might turn the corner and see a black one, appears quite difficult. There was a black swan in a city near me that made the news, for instance.

I do have points to address the use of logic. Essentially, in my view, logic will only take you so far. It is good for instances where there is only one correct conclusion, ie, physically. But if I gave you the choice of doing something on your spare time, with the only condition that you would enjoy yourself, and gave you options of a) playing fleetops b) going out for dinner with friends or c) doing another favourite activity X - what is your most logical choice? In short, there wouldn't be one, for one the conditions are that it be something you enjoy (of which, ideally, you enjoy them all moderately equally), and second you have free choice as to which. You might consider what would be the most enjoyable one, but if I gave you these options over several weeks it might not always work. The first week, you choose dinner because you are hungry. The second week fleetops because of a new patch. The third activity X because of reason Y. But in week four, there is no reason h for doing one or the other, and in essence, no logical reasoning is used. It is simply free choice. In essence, this transfers itself onto metaphysics.

Myles: This is where your point comes in handy. You have to make assumptions. I've made a few. In the end, logic can only be used to a certain extent, eventually, it will be argued, there are better standards. But with some assumptions, I'm more basing things on certain premises and matters of practicality. Evil is not a practical concept to use. The problems in proving things physically, is that you do require evidence. Science likes to reduce things to the physical, beings. But entertaining ideas of evil already takes you past that (metaphysics). Where new ideas are required.

DocPhlox: Walls of text are not a problem. I think I've written my fair share that went way beyond what I intended. Prepare for another wall of text.

I'm familiar with the problems of evil, and other concerns. Although, this book is not necessarily an academic one alone. I think academics could possibly have been part of the problem. You are said to be doing well so long as you have an opinion and are able to justify it with reasoning, generally one prefers good or sound reasoning. But of course, that isn't always the case. In the end, I think academia gets a lot of people saying different things with no clear direction. But who am I to judge. Besides, my context in approaching this is more spiritually/philosophically based. I'm not doing a philosophical extremist view with S knows that P only if bla bla bla. And I'm not going spiritual extreme where we need lots of faith and so on. Balance.

Well, the advantages of being the writer of the book, is I choose context. Definition of evil in short (although this will be elaborated on): a force that opposes, works against, or seeks to eradicate any force that is good. By which, the existence of such a force is impossible. Of course, I intend on making it easier for myself with defining evil in a way that I can definitely show to be wrong (proof... well, I know the problems with this word and the slim percentage of achieving proof, beyond a shadow of a doubt works better).

But if you look at other sources, things are defined differently. For instance, in the truest sense, sin, is not evil, it is a turning away from good. For instance, Good is present at location Y, if I move in a direction away from Y distancing myself I have sinned. But evil would never come into play as I have defined it. There is no force that works against the existence of good. People are just choosing either not to recognize, acknowledge, move towards, defend etc said good. Free will is a major factor.

You have raised more points here, obviously, fears, pain, suffering, rape, survival, socially acceptable societies where living is made beneficial (no stealing etc). It will just require more writing. And some of these gave me more problems than others, but none prove evil to exist. A paradigm where they are no longer even bad though, is the main thing I faced for years trying to come up with. They are never worth condoning, and it would be better without them, but resorting to labeling them as evil (other) solves nothing. You've just moved them further away from good in your own eyes, which if we agree that nothing is innately evil is a big problem.

I would submit a different idea. Instead of saying societies know good and evil. They know good, and they know that which is less than good, or moves away from good. I can't remove the concept of sin, just the stigma that you are evil for having sinned. This does not condone immoral action. If one were to incorrectly think they could do whatever as no devil or hell awaits them for punishment, no punishment is needed, I would say they are delusional. It's simple responsibility. You are responsible for your actions, and whether you choose to work for the better or worse.

Book will be split into parts. The first part simply demonstrates that a viewpoint where evil does not exist through several ideas is of benefit. Then move into some tougher ground of how to apply it with a couple of those ideas in mind to modern life. Then end with part devoted to encouraging free will and choice. Ultimately though, you will have to want what I'm saying to be true. Seeing is believing is not always the case. Some times you need to believe in order to see.

Thanks for the good luck. On your last point though, evil exists if only in our minds. I'm not sure how problematic this statement is. People might for a long time live with a misconception that is fundamentally flawed, but this doesn't have to be.

Whether a person lives their whole life believing in Santa Claus, because in their minds he exist ... says what? Besides, in the meantime, can we ever prove logically that they are wrong?

I appreciate your responses.

posted on June 12th, 2011, 6:28 pm

Evil prevails when good men do nothing.

posted on June 12th, 2011, 6:57 pm

Yes, there are some rather famous quotes. Such as these.

Briefly, again, if good men do nothing, there is no force such as evil that exists to prevail. Instead, good is merely not achieved or maintained.

Also, money is the route of evil... so evil didn't exist for the first billion years of creation, then humans come about, invent currency and BAM!! evil exists. Unless money merely represents greed and oppression. Again, though...

But its a fair sentiment, if good men do not actively pursue good, then nothing is being done to promote good and consequently we drift away from it.

[silence]

posted on June 12th, 2011, 7:25 pm

Last edited by silence on June 12th, 2011, 7:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Well dont you have to diffine good? I beleve that good and evil are opposites and one can not be the other. So if its not good its evil and if its evil its not good. Good would have to be explaned too I think. (need to go now I may talk more later)

posted on June 12th, 2011, 7:50 pm

Silence: Very true. Not sure the quickest way to do this.

Both good and evil will be defined. And your right, this does transition right into opposites.

Part of my book will focus on the nature of opposition. No real opposition is possible (opposites either don't exist, are the same thing, or are some other form of relation). No force in the universe (I mean everything, don't top me with another universe, or galaxy or something bigger, just everything everything in all of existence) is attempting to destroy the universe (ie itself)... If we think of it as a system, there is no outside system that is working against the current system. What ever forms there are of opposition, are inherent to the current system itself, and are functioning in some way for a purpose. (I don't think the cosmos is trying to kill itself regardless of intent or it being alive, nothing is in the system that could kill the system)

The opposites of good evil would more or less be man made. I'll also go into multiple forms of opposition that exist, none that are really opposites, but just distanced. Recently, although I originally intended to illustrate them as forms of opposition, I've decided to term them as relations.

For example, you have relations that operate on a scale of extremes. Pretty much anything you can measure. For instance, I can measure things in degrees celsius, cms, pounds, but the scale requires an individual unit of measure. We deem either side of the scale as being a particular extreme, short / long, light / heavy, cold / hot, but it is all one thing. 

There are at least 5 relations I think are important. Good doesn't belong in the above category, but fair to say, it is a relation that does not require an alternate extreme, or opposing force. (but you can slightly imagine even if it were in the above category, there would be absolute good on one end, and on the other end very very little good, almost evil... but not).

But yeah, definitions of terms is going to be heavy. I realize now, that when a glossary is made, they probably do that first just to keep track of all the ideas and terms they are using. For some reason as kid, I had this idea that some person would read a book, see words that would be considered "difficult" to an average reader (like me at the time, I liked using glossaries) and recommend to the author to put them with definitions at the end of the book. I think it works just as well as a tool for the author to keep things straightforward for his own use (even though they'd be aware of them).

At some point in the Bible, isn't their a line where it's like on day seven or six god finished creation and saw that it was good? It just was, in existence, and existed in the form of pure goodness. Then he took a rest. Very relatable to what I will be putting forth.

posted on June 12th, 2011, 9:37 pm

I personally believe, as others have stated, that nothing is inherently evil.  In fact, I believe that everything is inherently good.  As a catholic, I believe God created it that way (by using the natural laws we know as science of course)  Evil is a result of free will.  God gave us human beings free will, and if we chose to do that which goes against our own good or the good of Humanity, then our choices create Evil.  Theologically, evil is defined as a privation of form.  Therefore, when something does not work the way it is supposed to, then that is evil.

[godsvoice]

posted on June 13th, 2011, 4:56 am

Last edited by godsvoice on June 13th, 2011, 1:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Sounds like Thomas Aquinas. Privation of Form, evil has no cause, (only as accident of good) does not exist as form or substance, and is a result of lack of order. etc. At its most basic, more or less.

Thanks for the comment. I will refrain from repeating myself in every comment. Although I will try to acknowledge all points that come up in the thread to some extent.

Essentially, I won't be responding to this point to any great extent with my own ideas, instead I will stick to the source himself. But as you state, I understand the Catholic view, and I won't critique the view myself Any response would only result in a difference of opinion. But I would suggest taking a more in depth look at the works of Thomas Aquinas, and why privation of form was most likely chosen.

God created everything.
Evil is something.
God created evil.

God created everything.
Evil is not a thing (privation of form).
God is not the creator of evil.

Aquinas avoids metaphysical contradiction. But then where does evil come from? Evil is the accidental result of some cause that is good... but gone awry. Placing it on humans and free will, makes the problem seem to be the fault of human free will. But this is not the case by any means.

It also works as:

God created everything.
Evil is not a thing.
Therefore evil does not exist.

But to articulate this at the time, and remain loyal to the church would be impossible. (What were all the things that at the time were commonly held or portrayed as evil)

A very interesting line of thought regardless.

In any case, the view certainly holds better than most. There is no supreme evil according to Thomas Aquinas, this would be impossible. Good remained the cause of all things. Although, before I get ahead of myself and my somewhat limited knowledge of the entire works of Thomas Aquinas, I will stop before I misrepresent his views. Hopefully thus far, I have not done so.

If no thing is inherently evil, I will simply pose the question, then where does it come from?

If you can think of an answer, I would ask, are you sure?

This line of thought, in abstract form, would not define evil as being an opposing force to good per se. In fact, just what evil would be in essence according to this I am unsure. But if all evil is, under his thinking, is the accidental result of good things gone wrong... what does that mean?

Nothing in his view creates the more commonly held conceptions of what evil is, or has come to be within society, or even the actual religions doctrine. That is, as far as my interpretation of his works goes. I would encourage you to examine his works, as the catholic religion surely uses his rational to great extent. 

I came across something yesterday, and it was nothing (no thing). In what way, then, did I come across it?

Independent of Aquinas, I believe I have ideas that can be more easily and practically applied.

posted on June 13th, 2011, 7:35 pm

Evil only exists if you say it dose.

Good only exists if you say it dose.

Romance only exist if you say it dose.

I cant see a benefit to having Evil, Romance, and Good.

Every thing we do in life is given value by words.

Question: How dose some one describe what we know as a tree with out ever seen one before?

Answer: We give it a name, and that intern creates a awareness of a thing called tree.

-- Evil---

People experience regret at doing some thing that infix pain, Instead of saying "actions that inflict pain" some one called them Evil.

After the world evil was created then some one said hmm well lets define Evil some one... One thing let to a other and he we are to day.

---

Evil is real as as water is wet to some and to other no. Hows got the right answer, nether. Its all worlds made up to describe things. Knowing this you can chose to make up the worlds that makes up your world. Make up words that let you do what you wont in life, Dont get stuck with others worlds.

posted on June 13th, 2011, 9:03 pm

I think this ties in with different kinds of truth, being: absolute, relative, and universal. This being relativism most likely. Also, I think we're getting into semantics and pragmatics / = semiotics.

Definitely a flexible approach with certain benefits. Deciding what will create your experience certainly has a huge effect on the way one would live.

We seem to agree so far to the effect that evil is of no benefit as a concept.

I think I might be going for a more concrete/absolute approach.

Even if a person says that evil does exist, will not make it the case. Although for them, their experience will be defined by their beliefs on the matter and how they perceive the world.

"Everything we do in life is given value by words" Do things have value in themselves, or only when meaning is associated through words?

Hopefully our words accurately represent our experience in these cases. Sometimes it can be the case that our awareness of an event does not allow for us to articulate what we experience truthfully. The idea of hindsight is twenty twenty comes into play. At the time, what we thought to be the case was later revealed to be incorrect (sometimes with the thought of, how didn't I see that), although we learned to reinterpret it perfectly upon reflection.

Overall, the approach is good or at least I would think pointing in a good direction. But what happens when two people's approaches of this kind disagree? I say something exists, you say it does not exist. If we can just agree to disagree and go our separate ways and live in peace, ideally this works. What about cases where one person believes something is say, bad for the environment, and another person believes it is not bar or good for the environment, and another even believes its good for the environment. Something has to transfer beyond our words to the things they are representing and the reality of what is occurring.

posted on June 13th, 2011, 9:32 pm

Evil is very simply a word used for describing actions or thoughts that are considered wrong. Now what is considered wrong is determined by many factors, and those factors change along with culture and technology.