/lit/ - Literature

>>18812236
Sure the problem of evil is a contradiction. But only if we are thinking in human terms, God's knowledge is on another level from us humans so who's to say its not a contradiction for him? There is no logical answer to the problem but religion isn't logical, it's faith

>>18812272
gods are clearly the problem, not the solution

>>18812272
Is God the ultimate good? If he is then he does whatever is in his power to prevent suffering, yes? If he is all-powerful then no matter what his plan is, he should be able to make it come to fruition without implementing evil and pain in the world. It's not a matter of knowledge.

>>18812288
>if God could prevent evil but doesn't, then he can't be all loving/good

But we can't possibly begin to understand how God's mind works, what may seem a contradiction to us might not be one to him, because our minds have limitations and his does not. To be clear I'm not a theist and I don't support my own argument

>>18812312
>But we can't possibly begin to understand how God's mind works
it’s actually perfectly comprehensible, and your god is the ultimate evil, or as close to such a thing as there can be

>>18812312
Handwaving everything as "muh mysterious ways" is the least convincing argument I've seen. Also if God allows evil then he's not good, there's no way around this. An omnipotent being would be able to do whatever it is he wants to do without suffering, pain and evil being part of the equation.

>>18812323
>muh mysterious ways
It’s actually called a Holy Mystery

>>18812323
Already answered this

>>18812330
I don't care what it's called, it's retarded all the same.
>>18812331
You haven't.

i think William Lane Craig addressed the problem of evil in a great way
also i heard Trent Horn or whatever his name was wrote a good book about it but I haven't read it

Bro, I’m taking God’s dick in the ass. He’s not a rapist it’s a Holy Mystery

>>18812320
If you're going to be a dumbass then please do it somewhere else do

>>18812348
Just like marriage

>>18812334
I did. What is a contradiction for us (that God could eradicate evil but chooses not to) might not be a contradiction for him, because his mind is far greater than ours.

>>18812357
wtf I’m feminist now

>>18812355
Philosophically refute me
Oh wait you can’t, because all you have are insults when someone speaks a truth you don’t like

>>18812359
Makes absolutely no sense and is pure cope. Is this the best you can do?

>>18812374
This. Plantinga is great.

>>18812370
>it's actually perfectly comprehensible

No, we simply cannot understand things in the way that God does. It's like trying to imagine the 5th dimension, we can't but God could.

Also you would I refute an assertion that God is the ultimate evil? You provided no evidence

>>18812359
Bullshit.
Accepting evil is mere bitchery.
Evil is perfectly comprehensible as is god, a human personification of nature.
You’re going to take it in the ass and praise me for it.

>>18812382
Explain why it makes no sense

>>18812385
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KuQoQgL63Xo&feature=youtu.be

>>18812236
Evil doesn't exist in the same way as darkness doesn't exist or silence doesn't exist. You will understand one day.

>>18812396
But how can I believe in a God without the Evil it needs to save me from :((((

>>18812385
>bro god is all-loving and all-powerful and children getting raped and tortured are part of his incomprehensible plan
lmao

>>18812388
See >>18812407
>>18812396
Absolute cope. Suffering is an illusion? How about I take a hammer to your balls and we see what you have to say about that then you limp-wristed sheltered pseud?

>>18812288
>>/reddit/

>>18812410
>How about I take a hammer to your balls
Not him, but please yes. I’m so tired of cooming

>>18812374
Bro why
Plantinga is analytic philosopher

>>18812396
>i-it's just the absence of good
The mental gymnastics are starting. And it doesn't change anything, if god is good and omnipotent then there is no reason for such an absence.

>>18812412
>NOOOOO YOU CAN'T POINT OUT THE OBVIOUS FLAWS IN MY WORLDVIEW
Not an argument, NPC.

>>18812410
>wat if I just poke your eyes out and pop your ear drums
>now tell me silence and darkness don't exist
Stop skipping ontology day. Rationalism isnt going to save your life, zoomer.
>captcha Y2K2D
Fitting.

>>18812425
Brother, the world is blind, and you come from the world. You living ones continue to assign to heaven every cause, as if it were the necessary source of every motion. If this were so, then your free will would be destroyed, and there would be no equity in joy for doing good, in grief for evil. The heavens set your appetites in motion; not all your appetites, but even if that were the case, you have received both light on good and evil, and free will, which though it struggle in its first wars with the heavens, then conquers all, if it has been well nurtured. On greater power and a better nature, you, who are free, depend; that Force engenders the mind in you, outside the heavens' sway. Thus, if the present world has gone astray, in you is the cause, in you it's to be sought; and now I'll serve as your true exegete.

Issuing from His hands, the soul, on which He thought with love before creating it, is like a child who weeps and laughs in sport; that soul is simple, unaware; but since a joyful Maker gave it motion, it turns willingly to things that bring delight. At first it savors trivial goods; these would beguile the soul, and it runs after them, unless there's a guide or rein to rule its love. Therefore, one needed law to serve as curb; a ruler, too, was needed, one who could discern at least the tower of the true city.

The laws exist, but who applies them now? No one, the shepherd who precedes his flock can chew the cud but does not have cleft hooves; and thus the people, who can see their guide, snatch only at that good for which they feel some greed, would feed on that and seek no further. Misrule, you see, has caused the world to be malevolent; your nature is not corrupt, not prey to any fatal astral force. For Rome, which made the world good, used to have two suns; and they made visible two paths: the world's path and the pathway that is God's. One has eclipsed the other; now the sword has joined the shepherd's crook; the two together must of necessity result in evil, because so joined, one need not fear the other: and if you doubt me, watch the fruit and flower, for every plant is known by what it seeds.

>>18812410
When did I say suffering was an illusion?

>>18812439
Your sophistry is fucking obvious and unconvincing you retarded faggot. No amount of word games will change the fact that omnipotence and omnibenevolence are incompatible with the experience of suffering. Cope harder

>>18812407
Not the argument I'm making. I thought I explained that I'm not even a theist, so why are you acting like a child?

>>18812444
Cool, but why do I experience suffering?

>>18812463
Because you are a naughty boy. Stop sinning.

>>18812454
>>Stop skipping ontology day

>>18812469
>>18812470
kek
Christians are fucking pathetic.

>>18812460
>Not the argument I'm making
Yes it is. God being ineffable doesn't preclude him from ensuring his creation doesn't suffer assuming he truly is good. Because we suffer, he cannot be good. Unhinged Stockholm syndrome garbage like this >>18812469 that implies an all-loving god would ever allow sin to exist in the first place is pure retardation.
Abrahamism makes no sense though and I knew that from the start, at this point I'm looking for takes from eastern philosophy

>>18812475
They’re trying to convince themselves that they’re still straight for taking nature’s dick and calling it “holy” and “god” instead of becoming power bottoms

>>18812483
> God's plan

No where did I mention God's plan. My argument is not that suffering is part of his plan but that the problem of evil might not be an actual problem.

>>18812491
Putting aside the plan, my argument still applies.

>>18812493
I've been arguing this same point for the entire thread. Our understanding of the laws of logic shows that the problem of evil has no logical solution. But God is outside of logic and human understanding so why should we assume that a problem we've created should apply to him? I'm not saying that god is good or that allowing suffering is right, merely that its not in contradiction with a omnibenevolent god

>>18812504
>But God is outside of logic and human understanding
Why are christcucks like this?
It’s perfectly comprehensible to me...
And what ecstasy therein

>>18812504
>the problem of evil has no logical solution
It does in acosmic dualism.
>its not in contradiction with a omnibenevolent god
It is for the reasons I stated. God being outside of the realm of logic is not related to him preventing suffering if he truly is good. If he is morally incomprehensible, then that doesn't make him good. And the christian argument that consists in saying "god is more morally righteous than you, so you cannot complain about the suffering he inflicts on you" is morbid, pathetic and should be instinctively repulsive to anyone with a shred of dignity.

>>18812236
Just go and listen to Skeptiko interviews in the subject. Alex Tsakiris did a book Why Evil Matters. Hope it helps..

>>18812516
Not a Christian

>>18812521
No, I Am not, why?

>>18812483
>Unhinged Stockholm syndrome garbage like this >>18812469 (You) # that implies an all-loving god would ever allow sin to exist in the first place is pure retardation.
It says in genesis he fucked up, which is why he flooded the earth to kill off everyone but the good guys.

Second order effects in a chaotic system are brutal. Even if you created the system (omnipotence) and know the state of the system (omniscience) you still can’t predict the future.

>>18812517
I don't see how I can explain it more clearly than I have but I'll try again. The problem of evil is a HUMAN problem, one that we have created and one that has no logical solution. But religion is not logical so why should the poe apply to it? The fact that God is outside logic is exactly why the problem of evil doesn't apply to him, he literally creates the rules.

>>18812524
Incompetent god you’ve got there.
Would have been better if it hadn’t fucked with things it doesn’t understand.

>>18812523
No I meant that I'm not a Christian. I'm not even religious

>>18812529
All you have done here is illustrated why your god is decidedly human.

>>18812524
>he fucked up, which is why he flooded the earth to kill off everyone
This is so ridiculous that it sounds like an argument for Gnosticism.

>>18812530
You can fix his mistakes (for yourself) ;).

>>18812534
How? All you've been doing is repeating the same point that an all loving God cannot allow suffering, which I've shown not to be a contradiction for him.

>>18812532
Hush, child. The Gods are talking.

>>18812538
I Am God.

>>18812487
That would be paynims actually

>>18812545
Common misconception

>>18812543
I am God, and being all loving I have created BDSM sex dungeons for the freaks.

>>18812556
;3

>>18812529
You're just dodging the point over and over. God operating outside of logic has nothing to do with his benevolence, which is directly perceivable by us.

>>18812555
It explains perfectly the problem of Evil.

>>18812564
What

>>18812564
How?
Is it one of those new age "you are a god and the earth is a school and you choose to inflict suffering on yourself because reasons" things?

>>18812548
Anyone abrahamic. Can’t take a dick I swear...

>>18812571
>>18812569
I Am God, and this explains the problem of Evil.
It’s so simple.

>>18812562
This conversation is making me go insane. Yes his benevolence is directly perceiveable by us, but we don't fully understand anything. Only God does. That's why when we try and capture God in a logical contradiction it fails, because our understanding of what logic and contradiction is pales in comparison to how God(a higher being) perceives it. I haven't dodged the point, I've made it as a clear as possible

>>18812581
What

>>18812585
I'm not saying it's unclear; I'm saying it's wrong. We might not fully understand why suffering exists, but the fact that it exists shows that God cannot be benevolent if he is also omnipotent.

>>18812585
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jjQa5-FD72g#dialog

>>18812597
> we don't fully understand something but our limited understanding of it shows a contradiction

Do you get how absurd that sounds? You are asserting that suffering is incompatible with a benevolent god while also saying that we don't fully understand suffering. Why should we base an argument off of limited understanding of a concept?

>>18812594
The I Am is Evil and trying to convince you I Am not.
Have I succeeded?

After reading this thread I don’t know why Jesus bothered trying to save us.

>>18812597
Or to put it more simply, why say that the poe is a contradiction when we don't understand evil or suffering?

>>18812619
We understand suffering just fine, just not why it came into being, but that doesn't matter because a benevolent action cannot yield suffering if it is not performed by an incompetent individual.

>>18812622
What

>>18812633
I give up. You obviously aren't listening to me so it's not worth trying to change your mind

>>18812619
You fuckers are so insufferable. God and the problem of Evil is perfectly comprehensible when you realize God is running a sex dungeon, and you signed up to get roofied and wear the electric chastity cage while God torments you with his hot poker.
Debating theology is so boring when you people refuse to acknowledge the horribly pleasurable aspects of it.

>>18812236
Here's what I came up with.
By creating, God engendered negation. The creation is the not-God.
Negation is ontologically prior to everything else except for God.
If one says that being good is in the essence of God, then the not-God is evil.
If one doesn't say anything about the essence of God but says that good is a category created by God then because negation is already there, evil is also created.
However I look at it I can't see a reason for saying that evil is not from God either directly or indirectly.

>>18812661
>However I look at it I can't see a reason for saying that evil is not from God either directly or indirectly.
Precisely. If God wanted evil to not exist, he would've made it so. The "negation of good" thing is a copout.

>>18812336
https://www.bethinking.org/suffering/the-problem-of-evil

>>18812661

Oh and I forgot the Dharmic religious/Spinozan aspect of it.
If God is the World and Us then evil is an illusion (as in not reasonable for us but reasonable in the big picture) and just another form of God.
>>18812669
Thank you! It's scary to post on /lit/ and it's a great relief when one's not called a brainlet.

>>18812661
A monad cleaved itself into two, and started fucking itself.
Which part is evil, and which part is good?
As I Am not God, whether God is fundamentally good or evil depends on how pleasurable or painful I perceive the sex to be at any given moment.

>>18812687
>It's scary to post on /lit/
What did he mean by this

>>18812693
Fair enough. What I said about the Dharmic/Spinozan view can be extended to all Monism, I believe.
>>18812697
So much demoralization. Especially from women.

>>18812687
>evil is an illusion
The issue with this is that it means God cannot be good

>>18812571
Could it be though that this realm is simply one of the "lower" ones and that our incarnation here was intentional for one reason or another?

>>18812732
True. I meant it in the sense of maya, or how the Indians call it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_(illusion)

I myself am more favourable to the creator God view as the causeless first cause. I just wanted to point out that the evil is also a problem in Hinduism, Buddhism, Neoplatonism and Monism in general, not just in the Revealed or Abrahamic religions.

>>18812771
Yes, I understand maya but it doesn't make sense to me that Krishna, who loves all, would make maya contain suffering, as illusory as it may be. Even if pain is an illusion, the experience of it is real.

>>18812771
How tf is Evil a problem in Buddhism? You just meditate.

Fact is, our very nature is pure evil. We are large parasites. All of our nutritional needs are stolen from animals and plant life. Pretty much every mammal is a parasite.

>>18812786
Why is there a karmic law? Why do certain thoughts, words and actions get you close to Budhahood and others away from it?

>>18812813
>Why do certain thoughts, words and actions get you close to Budhahood and others away from it?

Because certain thoughts, words and actions increase suffering, while other thoughts, words and actions decrease suffering.

>>18812813
Meditate and evil is no longer a problem.

>>18812836
Which haven't answered the why for the existence of Samsara.
>>18812839
Mediation won't make the Observer not observe pain. If there's only a single observer it's even worse since the self is causing pain to itself.

>>18812905
>Why does samsara exist
Irrelevant question. You merely wish to satiate your endless hunger for the next mystery. You come questioning not for knowledge but for gluttony of the ego.

>>18812918
>don't ask questions, just attain jhana and then get excited for next jhana
Thanks Siddhartha

>>18812924
Why do you want to know why Samsara exists?

>>18812936
Because insight into the nature of reality leads to liberation from the illusion.

>>18812236
Your problem is that you're basing rational argument on an appeal to emotion.

>>18812946
Yes, Job's lamentations were an appeal to emotion. Retard

>>18812955
Emotional argument is the most misleading thing you can ever use to try to understand the world, because it presents to you an entirely one-sided and momentary picture of reality. Children can never understand why they're punished for doing things improperly, nor that things they do in the past lead to certain necessary consequences in the future (or at least more complicated chains of this phenomenon). You are not so different from a child in the grand scheme of things, nor am I.

>>18812905
>Mediation won't make the Observer not observe pain.
Mediate and evil is no longer a problem.

>>18812962
Your paternalist and slavish mentality is absolutely repulsive. Your god is an incomprehensible tyrant who requires we lay down and take whatever cruel "punishments" he wants to dish out, for reasons we are unaware of, and if we ask to be made aware of his reasons for inflicting suffering upon the children he allegedly loves, we are met with cold dismissal. People who think like you disgust me.
To be concerned with suffering is not "emotional argument", it is a natural interrogation when you possess a shred of humanity and integrity and don't wish to pathetically take it in the ass from some cosmic torturer who by some warped Stockholm syndrome shit you've started assuming is a benevolent creator

>>18812941
No.

Every "problem" in this thread is solved by non-dualism or Neoplatonic "monism" (a misapplied term).
>>18812661
>By creating, God engendered negation. The creation is the not-God.
There is no "not-God" except specifically of the creator God which you referred to, which by being limited by creation is no longer really "God." God, in the true sense, is the non-dual reality which transcends both being and non-being (what you called God and not-God) and unites both of these principles in one.

>>18812996
Whatever you say. Enjoy getting recycled.

>>18812984
This is a hissy fit, try to say something intelligent next time.
>and don't wish to pathetically take it in the ass from some cosmic torturer who by some warped Stockholm syndrome shit you've started assuming is a benevolent creator
I don't. I'm not harassed or hurt by anyone, especially not the "creator." You're imagining things and pretending they're real.

>>18813014
>Neoplatonic "monism"
Is the One good?

>>18813016
>Enjoy getting recycled.
Yes.

>>18813027
No, fuck off. Your kind disgusts me, I don't need nor want to engage in proper discussion with someone who seriously believes suffering is a necessary byproduct of the creation of a loving all-powerful god.
>I'm not harassed or hurt by anyone,
I know you're a sheltered pseud, yes.

>>18813027
An expected lack of compassion or ability to say anything useful.
Try being a little good with your evil.

>>18813031
Good goy, don't ask questions, just meditate(tm)

>>18813045
Explain to me how Buddhist meditation is actually a jewish conspiracy to subjugate non-jews as cattle again?

>>18813029
No, it's One

>>18813055
meditate and the question will no longer bother you.

>>18813055
>>18813062
kek

>>18813057
Then there is no problem, since the "creator" is not a benevolent being but an all-pervading abstract source that is neither good nor evil. As I said, either god is omnipotent but not good (as with the One), or the opposite.

>>18813027
>le appeal to emotion
You're a faggot child. What's my argument? It isn't an appeal to emotion, that's my argument. Faggot.

>>18812984
Based.

>>18813062
Good little jew. Pretending the question wasn’t rhetorical for your pipul.
It’s inherently ridiculous to imply Buddhist meditation makes one a “good goyim”.
Meditation doesn’t make evil go away, it doesn’t make suffering go away, and it doesn’t make your individuality go away, it makes these things not a problem anymore.

>>18813106
Meditate and you will stop seething so hard.

>>18813122
I Am Meditiating

>>18813106
>doesn’t make evil go away, it doesn’t make suffering go away
Except that it does. Ignorance is the root of all evil. Evil is committed through ignorance. Meditation leads to wisdom, the opposite of ignorance.

>>18812643
He's right, you're wrong.

>>18813129
You are not yet enlightened.

>>18813154
Yes.

>>18813160
Get ready for my wrathful compassion. I need to nut.

>>18813154
Yes he is

>>18813129
>Buddhism is true because it's true
Yawn, same as with the abrahamists
>b-but if you become a sotapanna you'll realize it's the truth!
Yes, brainwashing yourself with meditation is a very good idea

>>18813175
He’s not a Buddhist

>>18813174
No.

>>18813183
Yes.

>>18813197
If he were enlightened, he would not so foolishly suggest that wisdom makes evil go away.

>>18813208
Nope, wait do you not know what enlightenment is?

>>18813071
The One is the only "thing" responsible for Good (yet it is not the Good), as well as everything else, which indisputably exists, including yourself. You can reject it if you want, but it is a rejection from ignorance and incapability. It is not a "creator" either, as I just stated; this is an unfortunate tendency of people to anthropomorphize super-physical realities. One does not have a beginning nor an end, it never creates nor was created; in this sense you cannot even blame One for the "creation" of "evil." One is not even "omnipotent" because this makes no sense (at least considered as an activity or intention of some sort, when One is closer to pure and eternal presence)
>You're a faggot child. What's my argument? It isn't an appeal to emotion, that's my argument. Faggot.
You will reject any rational argument a priori because you prioritize your subjective feelings over reason. There is not a single argument in existence that will ever solve your "problem of evil", because you have precluded all of them from the start by simply trusting your feelings over your reason. As long as you remain this way, you will spend the rest of your days in ignorance, and all of the happiness and sadness that entails.

>>18813218
The problem of evil is not an appeal to emotion or the prioritization of "feels over reason." Shut the fuck up.

>>18813178
I am a Buddhist.

>>18813213
I am enlightened. Perhaps the wisest poster ITT
>inb4 seething
>inb4 you pretend you’re not seething because that wouldn’t look very couth
>inb4 “nuh uh, if you think you have it, then you don’t”
The world was created with Wisdom, and yet it is full of Evil.
So I say again: it is foolish to suggest that meditation, and any wisdom gained thereby makes evil “go away”

>>18813242
A bit of a shit one.

>>18813254
I too am enlightened, indeed necessarily more so than you if you think the gp is not.

>>18813260
Nah.

>>18813258
lol

>>18812236
what's the problem?

>>18813222
Yes it is. There is no way for you to explain the argument without referencing emotions or emotional states.

>>18813265
Yah.

>>18812359
Can't God's omniscient allow him to see limitly? I mean can't he see human constrictions, finally understanding our conundrum and work around to allow men to see what non-contradiction they keep confusing?

>>18813270
Cretin.

>>18813275
If you’re so much more enlightened than me, then why am I not laughing?

>>18813280
Look, instead of troubling your emotional centers with philosophy, which is inherently non-emotional, you should be engaging with art or poetry to release the tension you've clearly built up. Philosophy isn't for you if you aren't willing to subjugate your emotion to your reason.

>>18813289
I don’t know? Although I’m enlightened and wiser than you that doesn’t make me omniscient.

>>18813291
>philosophy, which is inherently non-emotional
Nonsense

>>18813297
The joke is on you because I Am

>>18813305
I’ve been tricked!

>>18813218
Cool, so the One is literally nothing and you're a nihilist

>>18812396

Actually, ONLY Evil exists, and to exist is totally Evil.

>>18812236
Boethius Consolation of Philosophy doesn't solve it but I think it clarifies the problem. (Which I think is all that can be done really)

>>18813352
Wow you should really stop filling your fellow humans heads with this nonsense.

>>18812396
>[x] doesn't exist
This is retarded. You'll understand one day.

>>18813291
>dude zoroaster was just appealing to emotion lmao
Stop posting

>>18812770
Well?

>>18813391
>How do you do, fellow humans

>>18813300
Truth. Unless you consider existentialism to be philosophy, which I don't.
>>18813418
He didn't. Zoroastrianism is not dualist in the moral sense, it's a common misconception.

>>18813352
Show me what -1 is without using the number 1. This is the fundamental strength of the deprivation arguments.

>>18813466
Kek, because you already presuppose an identity of Good and Evil.

You don't need blue to know red. Likewise, you don't need evil to know good. You only need evil to know good in relation to evil. Their respective natures, however, are already accounted for by themselves.

>>18813459
>Unless you consider existentialism to be philosophy, it's not an emotional procedure
I dont either, you're still wrong. Philosophy is the LOVE OF KNOWING. πάντες ἄνθρωποι τοῦ εἰδέναι ὀρέγονται φύσει

>>18813476
Nonsense

Saying something is good already implies the possibility of saying it is not good - in a sense it has already been said. The realization granted by the fruit is the consciousness of their interpenetration

>>18813482
Wouldn’t it be the love of wisdom?

>>18813498
No, it doesn't, dualism rejects this dialectic "interpenetration" of opposites, for Christ's sake it's why they call it a Mixture dude.

>>18813466

What is the water in a cup resting in?

>>18813502
Yeah you're right, love of wisdom. Emphasizing the desire part though
>>18813504
Seems like me saying that good & evil interpenetrate implied the possibility of you saying that they don't - curious

>>18813507
They don't, their essences are self-grounding, Good is not defined in relation to the capacity for Evil, Good is defined in relation to itself, it's only in the Mixture where the two forces becomes the "two" sides of a mobius strip, always passing into each other (yin/yang).

>>18813507
Would Wisdom, being related to and perhaps the progenitor of beauty, not also be related to ecstatic emotions such as love and rapture?

>>18813516
You're in the Mixture right now, you believe we are on "two sides" of an argument

>>18813526
Yes, the Mixture is a chora where, like I said, Good and Evil are twisted into a mobius strip

>>18813521
Yes 100%, philosophy is a transmuting of emotion, love of wisdom is the initiative in the search for it. The search eventually passes beyond the strictly conceptual. The word Aristotle uses for "desire" [to know] is itself a metaphor for grasping or reaching, Plato-Socrates has his body metaphors, Hegel describes his Absolute Knowing as a "Golgotha"
>>18813543
So where is this "essential self-groundedness" which is also somehow elsewhere from the presence of good & evil in the world

>>18813549
In pre- and post-ontological time, and in the centrifuge of the soul.

>>18813568
"pre-ontological time" which you posit by inserting yourself, a being, as a spectator, & denying this embodiment

You're alienated man, you're not even aware of it

>>18813580
>has no context for what I'm talking about, has to be walked through the basics
>lame fanfic
Stop it

>>18813592
Maybe you should educate yourself in something other than the basics ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

>>18813482
That's the Greek etymology. In other languages it has a more profound meaning, usually simply "knowledge", "contemplation", or "to know."
>18813505
>Kek, because you already presuppose an identity of Good and Evil.
What? "Evil", if we're forced to treat it as something substantial at all (and in that sense it can be said to "exist", albeit only linguistically/logically, just like the negation of 1), is not in identity with good, because we have clearly demarcated them. It's just that the latter is simply a negation of the former, and is thus wholly subsistent upon the former principle for its substantiality (which is again a term which only has logical meaning and not real meaning).
>You don't need blue to know red
This is a false equivalency because the normal color spectrum is not binary. If we focus on the two poles of lightness and darkness (which are not in principle separated into three poles like regular colors), the latter is naturally a lack of the former, although it can't be represented in such obvious mathematical terms, because color is its own (imperfect) phenomenon. It is also an imperfect analogy because it requires on a degree of intuition, which is that white light is naturally the presence of something because it has weight, whereas darkness is absence, lightness, and thus deprivation of what formerly provided weight and substance.

>>18813606
meant to (you) >>18813476

>>18813606
You can't think outside the parameters of monism. And no, it isn't a false equivalence, I already anticipated you'd say that. I don't feel like walking you through anything.

Be a Lover (ie. power bottom) of Wisdom

>>18813624
>And no, it isn't a false equivalence, I already anticipated you'd say that
It is absolutely a false equivalence, and you cannot prove otherwise.
>You can't think outside the parameters of monism.
I'm not a monist.

>>18813459
>Zoroastrianism is not dualist in the moral sense
Yes, it is. Orthodox Mazdaysna was heavily dualistic. The Zurvanites were nondualists, however, and they were fatalists.

>>18813645
>It is absolutely a false equivalence, and you cannot prove otherwise.

Nah, Evil and Good are diverse principles, in that they are not different from (differentiated by) each other. Difference implies a universality that mediates between two ends of a spectrum. Diversity implies no such thing, which is precisely why I use the example of color.

>>18813669
I don't agree.
Greed, hatred, and delusion have a qualitative dimension that is irreconcilable with wisdom, compassion, and generosity.

>>18813419
Bump

Evil does not exist, it is only a privation of Good. This is why the greatest evils occur where the greatest good should be - such as the relationship between a father and daughter, or the relationship between a child and a spiritual leader.

The problem of evil is, thus, a logically inconsistent question. Is it like asking "why are there shadows?" - the answer is that light exists, and yet in some situations, this light is blocked, and the resultant privation of illumination is what we call a "shadow", although it has no independent existence in a material or metaphysical sense, and is only characterized by a privation of light.

"But not every absence of good is evil. For absence of good can be taken in a privative and in a negative sense. Absence of good, taken negatively, is not evil; otherwise, it would follow that what does not exist is evil, and also that everything would be evil, through not having the good belonging to something else; for instance, a man would be evil who had not the swiftness of the roe, or the strength of a lion. But the absence of good, taken in a privative sense, is an evil; as, for instance, the privation of sight is called blindness.

Now, the subject of privation and of form is one and the same—viz. being in potentiality, whether it be being in absolute potentiality, as primary matter, which is the subject of the substantial form, and of privation of the opposite form; or whether it be being in relative potentiality, and absolute actuality, as in the case of a transparent body, which is the subject both of darkness and light. It is, however, manifest that the form which makes a thing actual is a perfection and a good; and thus every actual being is a good; and likewise every potential being, as such, is a good, as having a relation to good. For as it has being in potentiality, so has it goodness in potentiality. Therefore, the subject of evil is good."

>>18813698
Why would you saying you disagree and then say something I'm in agreement with? Did you even read my post?

>>18813703
>maybe if I deny its existence that solves the problem
No, fuck off. And stop making those shitty spam threads about nondualism and christcuckery.

>>18813703
Parsimony fags actually think "because evil doesn't exist" is a satisfactory answer to the Problem of Evil. What do we mean when we designate this non-existent thing by the term "evil"? Doesn't imply quality, and therefore existence? What a cope.

>>18813703
>Evil does not exist, it is only a privation of Good.
I disagree. Read this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/25676936?seq=1
The uncreated good God is delimited by what is logically possible and the uncreated evil spirit is real but does not independently exist (i.e., it can only corrupt the good).

>>18813719
Evil doesn't exist in-its-self. It only exists in your mind.

>>18813666
I said it was not dualist in a moral sense. It was dualist more in the way that Neoplatonism was, in the sense of an opposition between chaos/formlessness (Ahriman) and form (Ahura Mazda). It simply puts more emphasis on this dichotomy rather than the origin of the dichotomy, which is fine.
>>18813669
>Nah, Evil and Good are diverse principles
No, they're not, by definition, one is the principle and the other is the negation of the principle (for example, with colors, we have red, green and blue as a basic palette. What equivalent is there of good, evil, and...? I'm at a loss for words, because there is no such diversity). Any other definition of "good" and "evil" which makes them "diverse" is simply meaningless, and your obsession with the "problem of evil" is thereby self-refuted (not to mention, the fundamental duality still remains even if you redefine the terms).
>Difference implies a universality that mediates between two ends of a spectrum.
Yes, the Good, or "matter" in its broadest sense depending on exactly what you mean here (you can always trust Hegelians to not explain themselves properly).

>>18813703

See: >>18813352

>>18813732
You're incorrect about Orthodox Zoroastrianism. Read this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/25676936?seq=1
You're correct about Zurvanism though.
>>18813709
Quoted wrong person.

>it's all in your head bro
lol, kill yourself.

>>18813732
>nuh-uh
>hegel is a zoroastrian dualist
Lol what? Fuck off, brainlet.

>>18813702
Why does nobody want to answer this

>>18813712
>maybe if I deny its existence that solves the problem
Can you provide a syllogistic argument which proves that evil has an independent existence per se, and is not solely characterized by a privation of goodness? Because I can do so for my position.
>And stop making those shitty spam threads about nondualism and christcuckery.
I literally haven't made a thread on /lit/ in years, at least. People who disagree with you are not one person.

>>18813719
>What do we mean when we designate this non-existent thing by the term "evil"?
We mean something which is "not good", which is why the scholarly definitions of words like "bad" and "evil" contain obvious admissions such as "Not achieving an adequate standard" (eg. the quality is characterized by a privation of adequacy), "Immoral" (eg. the quality is characterized by a privation of morality), and "Obscene" (eg. the quality is characterized by a privation of wholesomeness).
>Doesn't imply quality, and therefore existence
Shadows have the quality of being that area characterized by the privation of photons, and yet have no independent existence per se. Does a shadow "exist", or is it just a label we apply to an ultimately ephemeral phenomenon characterized by a lack of something which has a positive and measurable existence (photons)?

>>18813720
>Read this article:
Make your point, and we can discuss it.
>the uncreated evil spirit is real
Please provide an argument to support this proposition.

>>18813748
>actually, ONLY shadows exist, and photons do not
The symmetrical argument, in this case, is fallacious.

you’re all brainlets

>>18813767
>Can you provide
I can provide a sulfuric acid enema to your loved ones and make you swatch, that should make you reconsider your pseud stance on the supposed "non-existence of evil"

>>18813767
muh syllogisms lol

Evil is not the non-Good, it is the anti-Good, Evil is a positive force, not a privation. Besides, privation argument is nonsensical.

Either: you admit there are no degrees of Evil and all Evil acts are equally empty of the Good (in which case, there is an equal "deprivation" of Good in stealing somebody's tips and raping and murdering them), or you DO admit degrees of Evil (in which case there is some arbitrary point where God's boundless Love and Wisdom suddenly - or by degrees - becomes depravity and debasement, which is nonsensical)

>>18813767
Christcucks will really go to any lengths and go through the most ridiculous mental gymnastics just to absolve their desert demon of any responsibility for its obviously malevolent actions. Pathetic.
No need to reply I know it'll be some brainlet cope

>>18813789
>feeding a screaming child to a wood chipper is just, like, shadows bro
Based, fuck this nerd.

>>18813756
>(3) argue that objections to the Zoroastrian conception of the devil (and evil) are less strong than typically imagined, and (4) offer some brief concluding thoughts.
I can't access the whole paper because I don't have enough money, but this summary actually supports what I just said. Also, you may have misunderstood what I said, I was not implying the Zoroastrians were not dualists at all.
>>18813757
>>hegel is a zoroastrian dualist
How did you infer that from my post? You're the brainlet here, friend. Nor did I imply that Plotinus was a Zoroastrianism dualist. I stated that the duality present in Zoroastrianism was akin to one duality posited in the Enneads. This does not mean the two things are the same at all.

>>18813804
>I stated that the duality present in Zoroastrianism was akin to one duality posited in the Enneads.
Not at all, and since you didn't specify Zurvanism (or are dumb enough to believe Zurvanism is the only Zoroastrianism), I am forced to conclude that you are a brainlet.

>>18813789
Attempting to appeal to my emotions is not an argument. By performing that action, you would only be demonstrating a privation of goodness, in that you should treat fellow humans with positive qualities like respect and love - the absolute absence of these positive qualities (among others) characterize an unprovoked violent action against strangers.

>>18813793
>muh syllogisms lol
A syllogism is required for your propositions to actually be more than mere conjecture.
>Evil is a positive force, not a privation
Can you provide an argument to support this position?
>yEither you admit there are no degrees of Evil and all Evil acts are equally empty of the Good
Obviously not, as the severity of an act we call "evil" is characterized by the amount of goodness expected in that situation which is absent, which is why a father raping his daughter is more "evil" than a man raping a stranger.
>ou DO admit degrees of Evil (in which case there is some arbitrary point where God's boundless Love and Wisdom suddenly - or by degrees - becomes depravity and debasement, which is nonsensical)
God's absolute existence of pure actuality, goodness, etc. is in no way challenged by contingent beings choosing to reject His goodness in their actions. If the apple becomes rotten, it is in no way indicating the rottenness of the tree.
>>18813797
>appeal to emotion
Not an argument.
>>18813796
>will really go to any lengths and go through the most ridiculous mental gymnastics
Not an argument. If you want to be taken seriously, you should try to support your position with an argument.

>>18813767
>Please provide an argument to support this proposition.
Well, if you accept that qualia is real, then you'd have to explain why the immersing your mind into evil thoughts, feelings, and intentions has an entirely different character from wholesome ones. They both have a property that is not defined or overlapping with the other one, hence why they are distinct.
If evil did not exist, then one could not embody it.
I don't like the light and shadow example. A better example is clean, pure water versus radioactive waste, or healthy soil versus pesticides/additives. Radioactive waste and pesticides both exist, and what they do to pure water or healthy soil is contaminate or corrupt it. How can something that doesn't exist corrupt the good? Deprivation is an oversimplified example because we are discussing transformations.
What you're arguing is that purity and impurity are two sides of the same coin, but then how can one rid impurities to bring about purity? It's more that they're in tension with one side overpowering and changing the other. Empedocles argues this.

>>18813767
>Can you provide a syllogistic argument which proves that evil has an independent existence per se, and is not solely characterized by a privation of goodness?

Yes. As I said (>>18813352), ONLY Evil exists. All things purportedly good are not only Evil, but more Evil than Evil. For example: the anus and the mouth, the mouth is not a good opposing the Evil of the anus, it is itself the anus of the anus, the Evil of the Evil, that which dumps IN the body.

>>18813804
No, originally Zoroastrianism's dualism resembled Empedocles the most.
Empedocles is the closest Western philosopher to Orthodox Zoroastrianism.
You're correct about Zurvanism though.

>>18813824
>If the apple becomes rotten, it is in no way indicating the rottenness of the tree.
Yes, it does, if that tree is omnipotent and chose to actualize the potential of rot in beings that you yourself admit are contingent and dependent on the necessary existence of the tree. I really do fucking hate smug pseuds like you so much. So much.

>>18813832
>>18813829
>zurvanon and the shit-poster in one thread
Based.

>>18813824
>the absolute absence of these positive qualities (among others) characterize an unprovoked violent action against strangers.

Utterly absurd. Would a pigeon, a tree, or a telephone pole submit your loved ones to a sulfuric acid enema? Why not? They are MORE deficient of said positive qualities than any one man is.

>>18813824
Fuck off with your word games. If I tie you to a chair then rape your mother before your eyes, I'm demonstrating a "privation of goodness"? Get your head out of your ass

>>18813824
>m-muh argument
Shut your fucking mouth christnigger.

>>18813824
Stop asking for arguments if you don't even understand them, dipshit. If Evil is not a positive substance, then a father raping his daughter implies some "nonzero" quantity of light and goodness which is the efficient cause of that man raping his daughter. That is absurd. Or else what, Evil does not exist but possesses its own causality too, now? lol

>>18813829
>you'd have to explain why the immersing your mind into evil thoughts, feelings, and intentions has an entirely different character from wholesome ones
Because immersing yourself in what you call "evil thoughts", is more accurately called "thoughts which are not good". This different character is a result of a lack of goodness, much like how being in the darkness has a different character than being in the light, although this darkness has no existence in and of itself.
>If evil did not exist, then one could not embody it.
This proposition is based upon the existence of evil. I do not believe evil exists per se, and thus I do not believe that one can embody it.
>How can something that doesn't exist corrupt the good?
It does not corrupt the good, the "existence" of evil is simply a matter of how much good should occur in a given situation vs. how much actually occurs. This is why raping one's child is more evil than to rape a stranger.
>What you're arguing is that purity and impurity are two sides of the same coin
I am arguing, rather, that impurity does not have an independent existence, but is only characterized by the lack of purity. It is obvious even more obvious if you just look at the etymology of the word "impurity" or "immoral", for example.
>then how can one rid impurities to bring about purity?
The impurities do not exist on a metaphysical level, so the question of how to get rid of them is somewhat incoherent.

>>18813832
This is not a syllogistic argument, it is simply conjecture. If you want to have an actual philosophical discussion, you should provide an argument, not just a baseless assertion.

>>18813837
>if that tree is omnipotent and chose to actualize the potential of rot in beings
God does not actualize the potential of evil, but rather, in His act of giving us free will, allows us to choose to perform good, or to perform actions characterized by a lack of good. This is why "sin" is defined as "missing the mark".

>>18813851
>Why not?
Because, in not having a rational mind, they do not have the ability to make rational choices regarding choosing to perform actions we call "good" or "evil". Is it "evil" that a wolf might kill a deer, solely to eat its liver while it is still bleeding out? It is only its nature. It cannot make a moral decision.

>>18813887?
>If I tie you to a chair then rape your mother before your eyes, I'm demonstrating a "privation of goodness"?
Yes, you should treat people with positive qualities we call "good", but instead, you are choosing to perform an action which has a privation of those qualities. Again, an appeal to emotion is not an argument.

>>18813900
>can't provide an argument
At least you admit you can't contend.

>>18813851
>>18813887
>>18813901
Is this guy the "epistemological weight" retard? His extremely autistic writing style and self-satisfied obtuseness seem familiar.

>>18813901
>then a father raping his daughter implies some "nonzero" quantity of light and goodness which is the efficient cause
This is objectively correct, even though it doesn't cater to your emotional feeling. But in subjective reality, from the perspective of someone who knows what is good and witnesses the event, that lack of goodness perpetrated there appears as evil (because it is relative deprivation, it is a lack of thought in that person's mind), and it would be not only good but necessary to prevent rape.

>>18813921
>you are choosing to perform an action which has a privation of those qualities.
Holy fucking shit the mental gymnastics are insane. According to your arbitrary semitic desert dweller standards, some actions have a regular causality while other actions stem from a privation. How retarded do you have to be to buy into this shit? Nothing can come from a privation, dumb fuck.
You don't want the truth though, I can tell you're a brainwashed nigger who only wants to proselytize. Maybe you'll finally see your mistakes when something truly shitty happens to you and you're forced to confront evil instead of just talking about it on the internet.

>>18813925
>light makes a father rape his daughter
lol, jesus christ. It's not a lack of thought you fucking dipshit, it's a POSITIVE URGE encouraged, if anything, by that lack of thought. I'll never trust autists to understand evil, you can't even tie your own fucking shoelaces

>>18813921
>This is not a syllogistic argument...

Can you provide an blueprint for an argument that might satisfy you?

>>18813921
>providing arguments to chr*stians
I'm just here to make fun of you and call you a retarded faggot. I am unconcerned with your worthless opinion, cope harder

>>18813945
Don't bother, I just got the clown to admit God's goodness is the efficient cause of inter-generational rape lmao

>>18813921
>Because, in not having a rational mind...

You haven not answered my question.

>>18813956
>you see, evil doesn't exist and rape happens because you are depriving the rape victim of goodness
lmao

>>18813941
>it's a POSITIVE URGE encouraged,
Urges are not thoughts. Thoughts are what constrain urges; it is what distinguishes us from animals. Urges themselves (taken by themselves) are good, but due to chaotic circumstances (for example, pathological disease, brain tumor, mental illness, all caused ultimately by the natural unpredictability of phenomenal existence), they can be misdirected. If the mind is functioning properly, these urges can be prevented or redirected. If the mind is not functioning properly, if the person does not know what is good, then misdirected urges can be left to operate without intelligence, which is an urge not partaking of its proper nature, which is a lack of good, sometimes an extreme lack of good which would require extreme punishment or intervention. These are very rare cases, however, because good is generally the rule rather than the exception.

>>18813921
>Because immersing yourself in what you call "evil thoughts", is more accurately called "thoughts which are not good".
Thoughts "that are not good" have their own qualitative character and causal effect; therefore, they exist and cannot be simply dismissed as "privation of the good". There are thus thoughts that are evil.
>This proposition is based upon the existence of evil. I do not believe evil exists per se, and thus I do not believe that one can embody it.
You initially argued that evil is "privation of goodness", and then paradoxically argue evil does not exist. You are contradicting yourself.
At most, based on your logic, you can say evil does not exist, period, and, thus, even the privation of good doesn't produce evil. However, this denies a very real qualitative dimension which I pointed out. The absence of things do not produce their opposites.
>It does not corrupt the good, the "existence" of evil is simply a matter of how much good should occur in a given situation vs. how much actually occurs. This is why raping one's child is more evil than to rape a stranger.
Your logic doesn't follow. First off, you haven't even defended how everything is good.
>The impurities do not exist on a metaphysical level, so the question of how to get rid of them is somewhat incoherent.
Yes, they do exist, which is why you are using faulty logic to simultaneously argue it exists and does not exist.

>>18813901
>Stop asking for arguments if you don't even understand them, dipshit.
I'm waiting for somebody to present a coherent argument. On what basis do you say I don't understand something which hasn't even been provided yet?
>If Evil is not a positive substance, then a father raping his daughter implies some "nonzero" quantity of light and goodness
Yes, there is no human who has a complete lack of "goodness", it is always a matter of degrees. Even somebody performing an action perceived as disordered, such as smoking heroin, is attempting to reach the Good, although he is going about it in a disordered way.
>which is the efficient cause of that man raping his daughter
No, the efficient cause of a rape is not that nonzero quantity of goodness (which is a quality of the human), but rather the human himself. To put it into perspective, you wouldn't say that the efficient cause of a rape is the hair of a person (one of his qualities), but rather the rapist himself.
>Evil does not exist but possesses its own causality too
Evil does not possess its own causality. Like you said, it cannot, if it doesn't have an independent existence.
>>18813937
>some actions have a regular causality while other actions stem from a privation
All actions have a regular causality.
>Nothing can come from a privation, dumb fuck.
I never claimed that anything could, you are arguing against a strawman.
>You don't want the truth though
I am happy to contend with any arguments you decide to put forward.
>I can tell you're a brainwashed nigger who only wants to proselytize.
I haven't even mentioned my religion. This is a philosophical debate.
>Maybe you'll finally see your mistakes when something truly shitty happens to you and you're forced to confront evil
Basing your metaphysics on your subjective emotions doesn't seem like a very intelligent strategy.

>>18813945
For example:
1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist.
3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Then, we can discuss whether the initial two propositions are true through argumentation, or whether the two propositions necessitate the conclusion.
You can also provide any other type of logical argument, but it would help to follow some sort of "proposition -> proposition -> [...] -> conclusion"-type structure.

>>18813952
>can't provide an argument
At least you admit you are unable to contend.

>>18813961
Your question was basically, "Why do non-moral agents (pidgeon, tree, etc.) not perform actions we would classify as immoral?", to which I answered "because they are not rational moral agents". How did I not answer your question?

>>18813988
>evil does not exist but it has properties but it is also a misdirected urge unconstrained by the absence of thoughts which is evil and
Stop it. Evil does not exist, it has no causality, it has no "misdirected" urges to call its own, and these urges cannot actualize something which does not exist. If anything then Evil becomes the principle of that misdirection/misrecognition, and you've shot yourself in the foot. Stop posting.

>>18814000
Seethe harder faggot, your pathetic faux-calm facade is embarrassingly obvious

>>18814003
>but it has properties
Evil does not have properties. You're not quite intelligent enough to understand my post, unfortunately.

>>18814000
>No, the efficient cause of a rape is not that nonzero quantity of goodness (which is a quality of the human), but rather the human himself.

Man is nothing without the life and activity granted to him by God. That life and activity must be the efficient cause of Evil. Ergo, God is responsible for Evil.

There's your syllogism. Fuck you.

>Your question was basically, "Why do non-moral agents (pidgeon, tree, etc.) not perform actions we would classify as immoral?"

No you fucking retard, he was asking "why would man, endowed with most perfections of all God's creatures, be capable of the most radical Evil?"

>>18814000
>Evil does not possess its own causality.
Another point I wish to raise:
If evil did not possess its own causality, then how can one make artwork of pure evil?
This is one means of justifying the ontological realities of both good and evil: looking at artwork of the extreme opposites.
If you study malevolent or disturbing artwork, you will see it has qualities that distinguish it from more benign artwork.
Much like how nightmares are real, so too are the more benign dreams. They both have distinguishing characteristics.
Are you going to argue nightmares and macabre artwork don't exist now? Different intentions and meta-emotions underlie their constructions.

>>18814000
>because they are not rational moral agents

Why does this total deprivation not make them perform such acts exclusively?

>>18814010
>evil is pathological
You keep trying to sneak in all these brainlet premises that you think I won't notice, like: Evil can only be the result of a mind not functioning properly. I'm telling you that the most radical Evil is precisely only possible when the mind is working properly. There is non-pathological Evil, Evil that doesn't stem from a disturbance in the organism but the organism itself. You are a FUCKING brainlet.

>>18814000

1) The anus exists to pass organic matter across the body-not body barrier.
2) The mouth exists to pass organic matter across the body-not body barrier.
3) Therefore, they are indistinguishable.

>this nigger keeps jerking himself off about the ontological properties of evil and whatever the fuck
>he's so deep into his delusion he's not even capable of grasping the concrete reality of things
I maintain that the only way for these pedantic nerds to understand evil is to experience it. Trying to make them understand is useless, they're incapable of reasoning past concepts and abstractions, their atrophied souls are unable to grasp anything beyond a purely symbolic, academic and sterile level. Let them get Furuta'd and see if they keep arguing about muh inherent existence then. These conversations are useless

>>18814041
Of course this is true, but it's fun to bully smug autists.

>>18814034
>You keep trying to sneak in all these brainlet premises that you think I won't notic
Pathological is, as I described, merely an extension of chaos, which is to say formlessness and unpredictability. "Pathological", "mental illness", are all examples of things which otherwise possessed form (ie, good), being deprived of it. Pathology is a healthy body being deprived of it, mental illness is a healthy mind being deprived of health. Deprived by what? By the chaotic vicissitudes of matter, which is itself deprived of form, thereby being "chaotic", which is to say formless and corrosive to things with form.
>Evil can only be the result of a mind not functioning properly
That's not what I said. I said evil is the privation of good. A mind not functioning properly is one instance of a privation of good.
>I'm telling you that the most radical Evil is precisely only possible when the mind is working properly
And I'm telling that the most radical evil is precisely when a mind is not working properly.

>>18814041
>Let them get Furuta'd
If you can read that wikipedia article and still conclude afterwards that evil doesn't exist, you're a husk of a human being honestly

>>18814057
6 fucking lines to say "nuh-uh."

>>18814000
>AIIIIEEEEE NOT THE SUBJECTIVE EMOTIONERINOS
The fact that you feel the need to repeat that over and over again shows the cognitive dissonance inherent to your position. Your "beliefs" are unnatural and obviously false, and deep down you know this. Philosophy divorced from intuition and feeling is a masturbatory exercise in futility.

>>18814079
I was clarifying the points you couldn't seem to comprehend, nor even respond to without fudging my own arguments (how did you think I was stating that the human mind is the only source of evil?)

>>18814103
I don't give a shit what you were doing, sperg. You're not that smart. Start with Schelling's Essay on Freedom, work your way up from there

>>18814057
>mental illness is a healthy mind being deprived of health.
Mental illness involves more than being deprived of health. It involves different functional connectivity in the brain, for example. It involves different thoughts, themselves. Mental illness has its own defining qualitative character, hence why it can be described.
>I said evil is the privation of good. A mind not functioning properly is one instance of a privation of good.
There are many, many instances of a "privation of good" that is supplanted by entirely different and distinct processes, which can be construed as "evil".
>And I'm telling that the most radical evil is precisely when a mind is not working properly.
Radical evil is possible when one embodies bad intentions and acts based on it.
You're contradicting yourself a lot, so I am finding it difficult to continue this discussion. You also did not respond to my previous posts here: >>18813990
>>18814028

>>18813990
>Thoughts "that are not good" have their own qualitative character and causal effect
Which qualities arise as a consequence of lacking a certain degree of goodness. Thought is good insofar as it has being, which is good. A thought which we would classify as "not good" is more accurately characterized as something good (a thought) which has a privation of goodness.
>evil is "privation of goodness", and then paradoxically argue evil does not exist
This is not a paradox. I said that evil is a privation of goodness, and thus, having no independent existence apart from being the descriptive quality of a lack of good, it does not exist.
>you can say evil does not exist, period
Yes, it does not exist.
>thus, even the privation of good doesn't produce evil.
I am only using the term because of the nature of the argument. It would be much more accurate to replace every instance of the word "evil" with "non-good" or "lack of good", but for the ease of conversation, I am using the term colloquially.
>The absence of things do not produce their opposites.
Agreed - the relative lack of goodness does not produce evil, it simply does not exist independently (is never "produced").
>First off, you haven't even defended how everything is good.
The essence of goodness consists in this, that it is in some way desirable - as Aristotle says in his Ethics: "Goodness is what all desire". A thing is desirable only in so far as it is perfect; for all things desire their own perfection. But everything is perfect so far as it is actual (potentiality cannot be perfect, because it being potential rather than actual implies there is some privation). Therefore it is clear that a thing is perfect so far as it exists; for it is existence that makes all things actual. Hence, it is clear that goodness and being are the same.

>>18814017
>implying the efficient cause of the human is the efficient cause of every action that human performs
Does that mean a mother is morally responsible for the rape her son commits? Why do we not then imprison her?
>There's your syllogism. Fuck you.
It falls apart on the second premise. Efficient cause of a human =/= efficient cause of its actions. The efficient cause of a rape is the human, not its creator.
>"why would man, endowed with most perfections of all God's creatures, be capable of the most radical Evil?"
Obviously, because it is the only creature which contains the ability (free-will) to choose to perform actions which we would consider "evil" (non-good). A thing without a rational mind cannot make a rational decision, which is why we do not condemn a wolf for eating a deer's liver while it is alive and bleeding out.

>>18814029
Because they perform actions according to their instinct (a part of their nature), and not all of the actions performed by an animal's nature are considered to be "evil" (non-good) from a human perspective.

>>18814038
Conclusion 3) is a non-sequitur.

>>18814057
>>18814121
Also, I want to make a further point:
If we acknowledge some artwork is defined more by evil or "negativity", then we have to acknowledge there are certain real intentions and meta-emotions that underlie them.
How can something that doesn't exist produce a real effect such as the construction of artwork with its defining qualitative character?

To make my point clearer: What are the intentions that underlie creating artwork of raping one's own daughter?

>>18814131
Massive cope. An omnipotent god could've designed free will in a way that would've made it impossible for non-good actions to be performed, or he could've simply designed good to be the only thing that exists without allowing the possibility of its absence. Your worldview is shoddy as fuck and falls apart upon the slightest scrutiny. Christers are such retards

>>18814131
>Because they perform actions according to their instinct (a part of their nature), and not all of the actions performed by an animal's nature are considered to be "evil" (non-good) from a human perspective.

This is getting pathetic. None of this even means anything or maps onto whatever the fuck you were initially saying. SOME totally deprived things NEVER perform Evil acts, SOME totally deprived things ALWAYS perform Evil acts, therefore deprivation is not the cause or definition of Evil.

>>18814131
>Does that mean a mother is morally responsible for the rape her son commits?

If that mother is a self-proclaimed omnipotent and all-loving God, yes.

The rest of your post is worthless. If freedom can defy God's Love, then freedom is either independent of God as a principle, or God contains the cause & possibilities of freedom latent within Himself, and is therefore indirectly responsible for Evil. Read Schelling for god's sake

>>18814150
Don't waste your time, he's one of those spiritual semites who think freedom is only freedom if it can be transgressed. He is a demon puncturing reality's hymen and calling it God's good grace

>>18814131
>Conclusion 3) is a non-sequitur.

You prance around for dozens of replies like a fucking clown demanding "SYLLOGISTIC" arguments just to say "nno-0sequitqiur MERP", to a truly syllogistic argument at that?

>>18814131
>I said that evil is a privation of goodness, and thus, having no independent existence apart from being the descriptive quality of a lack of good, it does not exist.
Then why are you arguing evil is privation of good in the first place? Just argue evil doesn't exist. This would mean raping one's own daughter isn't evil too, which is what you were initially arguing.
See, you are constantly contradicting yourself.
>It would be much more accurate to replace every instance of the word "evil" with "non-good" or "lack of good
Nope, it's still a contradiction. It everything is good, then there is no non-good. At this point, you are just arguing semantics.
The fact is, you refuse to acknowledge the reality of different qualitative characters that define intentions, so it is futile to debate this.
At this point, we should move the conversation to phenomenology, which is relevant here.
>for all things desire their own perfection
Not true. Some things desire fulfillment of carnal desires; some things desire destruction of innocence or others; some things desire x, y, z.
>Hence, it is clear that goodness and being are the same.
Nope, it's not clear at all to me.

>>18814131
Also, answer this:
What are the intentions that underlie creating artwork of raping one's own daughter?

>>18814178
uhhh... the lack of... the lack of not finding it arousing... wew, that was close

>>18814178
The privation of teen pussy

>>18812236
>Does any book actually address this satisfactorily?
literally what is there to address?

>>18814028
>If evil did not possess its own causality, then how can one make artwork of pure evil?
One cannot make artwork of pure evil.
>If you study malevolent or disturbing artwork, you will see it has qualities that distinguish it from more benign artwork.
Even works of art perceived as malevolent or disturbing are not "evil". Insofar as they have existence, they are good - but even beyond that, one can look at two disturbing works of art, and grade them in degrees, saying one is "better", or "more good" than the other, whether this is based in artistic skill, use of colour to evoke emotion, etc.
Further, what distinguishes an artwork it as more "disturbing" are simply privations of good/beauty - a lack of symmetry (the basis of beauty), depicting an event which portrays an event lacking good, etc.

>>18814084
>argument from emotion
Again, not an argument. Please provide something rational for me to go off of, or else just stop wasting space in the thread.

>>18814121
>You also did not respond to my previous posts here:
I am not this poster >>18814057. I am trying to respond to all posts directed to me, but there are many.

>>18814150
>An omnipotent god could've designed free will in a way that would've made it impossible for non-good actions to be performed
Are you implying that free-will would still be free-will if there was no freedom to perform a certain subset of actions? What exactly would prevent one from doing a "non-good" action, then, if the entity had free-will? Would you truly consider it free-will if you could not freely do something within your power to do?
>An omnipotent god could've
How do you know what an omnipotent God could have or should have done, when you have the limited intelligence of a human being? How do you know that we are not in the best of all possible worlds, as Leibniz said?

>>18814152
>SOME totally deprived things NEVER perform Evil acts, SOME totally deprived things ALWAYS perform Evil acts
Nothing exists which is totally deprived from the good, and evil acts do not exist (it is more accurate to say "less-good acts").
>>18814153
>God contains the cause & possibilities of freedom latent within Himself
Insofar as He gave us free-will, yes.
>and is therefore indirectly responsible for Evil
Just as one's mother would be "indirectly responsible" for their son committing rape, yes. This does not mean that mother is the author or efficient cause of the rape, though.

>>18814169
Your argument is illogical. For example, using your logic:
1) Socrates is a man.
2) Aristotle is a man.
3) Therefore, Socrates is Aristotle.
Is true. Please work on your argument, to make it coherent.

>>18814217
>Are you implying that free-will would still be free-will if there was no freedom to perform a certain subset of actions
Yes dumbass because if the whole set of possible actions were good then free will could exist and always align itself to goodness
>How do you know
Because that's what omnipotence means you pedantic cocksucker, keep dodging

>>18814217
>One cannot make artwork of pure evil.
You argued, "Raping one's child is more evil than to rape a stranger." Therefore, making artwork of raping one's child is good from following your argument.
>Further, what distinguishes an artwork it as more "disturbing" are simply privations of good/beauty - a lack of symmetry (the basis of beauty), depicting an event which portrays an event lacking good, etc.
You can't describe the actual qualitative effects of artwork simply by referring to its lack of x or y quality. You have to describe something existent or real that led to its creation, such as negative intentions.

>>18814217
So God is indirectly responsible for Evil, lol got it. You lost. Just consneed.

>>18814217
>3) Therefore, Socrates is Aristotle.

I did not say that the mouth is the anus, I said that they are indistinguishable. Please stop posting this shit. You're approaching frater anselmo levels of embarrassment.

>>18814217
>Nothing exists which is totally deprived from the good, and evil acts do not exist (it is more accurate to say "less-good acts").

Does the gravity of "less-good" acts correspond to the level of deprivation? No. Telephone poles do not commit a fraction of the "less-good" acts that men commit in a given day, despite being much more deprived than men; though much less deprived than you, apparently.

>>18814256
>frater anselmo levels of embarrassment.
I think his posts are pretty good, why do you say that?

>>18814170

>>18814170
>Just argue evil doesn't exist
This is what I am doing. Because it is only a descriptor of a privation of good, it does not exist.
>This would mean raping one's own daughter isn't evil too,
Evil does not exist. Raping one's own daughter is an extreme privation of good (and what makes it worse than raping a stranger, is the expected goodness of a father to his daughter is much higher than the expected goodness between strangers).
>It everything is good, then there is no non-good.
Yes, you are right, I should have said "less-good", instead of "non-good". Thank you for correcting me, I should be more logically airtight.
>Not true. Some things desire fulfillment of carnal desires; some things desire destruction of innocence or others
This does not contradict that all things desire their own perfection (eg. strive to meet their final cause). Rational agents can desire more than one thing, but all things, including rational agents, desire their own perfection.
>>18814178
A desire for some goodness (eg. sexual pleasure), which is manifested in some disordered way (eg. rather than having sexual intercourse with ones wife for sexual pleasure, the desire for the inherent good of sexual pleasure is manifested in a disordered activity, the creation of pornography).

>>18814231
>if the whole set of possible actions were good then free will could exist
How do you know this? Further, what would be stopping somebody from, for example, biting their tongue off and killing themselves? Would they be arbitrarily barred from doing so, thus representing a limitation on their free-will?
>Because that's what omnipotence means
No, omnipotence means "all powerful". Your proposition based upon the quality of omnipotence is not self-evidence, and I believe it does not logically follow. For example, although God is all-powerful, I do not believe He can perform a logically impossible action, eg. creating a square triangle, or creating a free-will that is not free.

>>18814238
>making artwork of raping one's child is good
It has an inherent goodness insofar as it exists, but the act itself is disordered, and its "lack of goodness" is characterized by this privation of order and good.
>You can't describe the actual qualitative effects of artwork simply by referring to its lack of x or y quality
I can't say that X artwork made me feel bored because it lacked vibrant colours?
>something existent or real that led to its creation, such as negative intentions.
Negative intentions, insofar as you are describing them, do not exist. There are only intentions which are relatively deprived of the good, in degrees, but never absolutely deprived.

>>18814240
Being "indirectly responsible" for "less-good" actions by virtue of creating humans with free-will is not a condemnation of God, nor a contradiction to His goodness. Otherwise, all mothers would be condemned if their child committed rape.

>>18814287
... Except mothers are not omnipotent monads floating in the primordial dark. You're boring. I'm done.

>>18814287
>although God is all-powerful, I do not believe He can perform a logically impossible action
Ah so you're actually and unironically retarded, got it

>>18814121
>It involves different functional connectivity in the brain, for example. It involves different thoughts, themselves.
All of which are a lack of proper function, or form. The reason it can be described is because it is a lack of goodness in a particular organ which has a particular ideal form. It is always described as a negation, a privation.
>There are many, many instances of a "privation of good" that is supplanted by entirely different and distinct processes, which can be construed as "evil".
All of the different processes are all united as privations of form; there are not "different" evils, things are bad or good to varying degrees. That is the unifying factor. The exact efficient cause is not relevant, because it is a phenomenal contingency.
>Radical evil is possible when one embodies bad intentions and acts based on it.
Bad intentions are intentions which lack goodness, which is to say knowledge of what ought to be intended, for what is good. There is no embodying evil, there is simple error, as I've already stated countless times. What makes evil radical is the degree to which good is lacking. This is really basic knowledge which can be found in Plato's early dialogues; all intentions aim for what is good, it's just not all intentions know properly what that is, and they seek what they view as surrogates (which can, in rare cases, be extremely distorted views for reason we have already considered). I think this also answers >>18814143, which is merely an entirely distorted view of beauty, which could never parallel the real thing. As terrible as it sounds, such a thing must embody some small degree of good, else the admirer could not admire it. If he had his wits, however, he would know that something with such little beauty actually lessens him.
>You're contradicting yourself a lot, so I am finding it difficult to continue this discussion
Examples? I haven't contradicted myself once. You seem to not be able to keep up with the terms of the argument proper, and keep coming back to phenomenal contingencies, which are not relevant to the argument (the exact efficient causes of mental illness, for example, are not relevant to the argument).

>>18814256
You obviously see what I meant. The reason your syllogism is illogical is because you said "X has the quality of A, and Y has the quality of A, therefore X and Y are indistinguishable". This argument is obviously illogical. Both cats and dogs have the quality of being animals, yet cats and dogs are not indistinguishable. Please do some research into basic logic before making these silly arguments.

>>18814283
>Does the gravity of "less-good" acts correspond to the level of deprivation?
Yes, which is why the rape of one's child is considered more "evil" than the rape of a stranger.
>Telephone poles do not commit a fraction of the "less-good" acts that men commit in a given day
An inanimate non-moral agent cannot commit any moral acts, because they do not have a rational mind.

>>18814297
>no argument
Thank you for trying, at least. I appreciate your charitability, in comparison to some others.

>>18814302
You have no idea what you're talking about. That a thing cannot exist which is A and not-A simultaneously is a logical necessity, and we live in a logical and ordered universe, ruled by the Logos. A thing with three sides cannot have four sides. If I am saying that a thing literally cannot exist in a self-consistent universe, such as the one in which we live, I fail to see how this makes me "retarded". Your resorting to an ad-hominem argument makes it clear that you are at your intellectual limit, however. Thanks for trying.

>>18814332
>You have no idea what you're talking about
no u
I didn't read the rest of your post because you're boring as shit but keep seething brainlet

>>18814332
dude you got spitroasted 5 ways to sunday, don't act like le gracious debater

>>18814338
>I didn't read the rest of your post because you're boring as shit
It's okay, philosophy isn't for everybody. I hope you find your way to the true Good through whichever means you are called to. Have a good day, friend.

>>18814344
>dude you got spitroasted 5 ways to sunday
I have responded to every argument posited against my position, and 2/4 posters have resorted to leaving after dropping their guise of rationality, and shifted to ad-hominem attacks. Of the remaining 2, I look forward to continuing to rebut their arguments.

>>18814344
This faggot keeps making blatant logical mistakes and acts as if he is a master of rhetoric, it's funny and sad

>>18814359
No, you haven't, you've seethed uselessly in your blind spot and tried to dunk on people with Plato 101. wow, everything desires the Good, you say? mom, this must be that philawsofee everybody's talking about!

>>18814332
>because they do not have a rational mind.

I thought the cause of "less-good" acts was deprivation, not deprivation and having a rational mind. Do you just keep adding more bullshit asterisks as you get rebutted?

>>18814345
Drop the holier than thou act you pretentious faggot, you got absolutely blown the fuck out and no posturing will soothe your anal pain. God you're such a fucking tool

>>18814365
>can't provide an argument
It's good that you are trying, but this is not a very convincing rebuttal.

>>18814374
Based

>>18814371
Based again

I wanna give this faggot a fucking swirlie.

>>18814375
What're you gonna teach us next, master? The Allegory of the Cave?

>>18814371
>I thought the cause of "less-good" acts was deprivation
Yes, a "less-good" act is characterized by the degree of deprivation.
>not deprivation and having a rational mind
I was operating under the assumption that we both agreed only moral agents can perform moral or "immoral" acts. This is usually a given, in discussions of ethics, but I'm happy to discuss the premise, if you disagree.

>>18814374
>>18814378
>>18814384
>has to resort to ad-hominem arguments, cannot defend their positions
It's good that you are trying, but now you are just wasting space in this thread. Do you think anybody is impressed by anonymous posters upvoting each other by saying "based" and circlejerking one another? This isn't Reddit.

>>18814402
le ad hominem doesn't apply here because I'm not trying to make an argument you fucking faggot lol, I'm just calling you a fucking faggot, no strings attached.

>>18814411
Then as you've given up any pretense of having the ability to engage intellectually, I'll just ignore you. I welcome you to spend the rest of the thread seething at me, though, if it makes you feel better. God bless you!

>>18814402
How long are you gonna keep seething, pseud?

The Gita literally addresses it, evil doesn’t exist and because there is no difference between anything. Also from Spinoza:

“Whenever, then, anything in nature seems to us ridiculous, absurd or evil, it is because we have but a partial knowledge of things, and are in the main ignorant of the order and coherence of nature as a whole, and because we want everything to be arranged according to the dictates of our own reason.”3

>>18814425
I leveled with you and got the same psychophilic undergrad pilpul I always get from redditors like you. Seethe. Cope! Dilate.

>>18814425
Imagine trying this hard to make people believe you're not boiling in rage when your feminine passive aggressiveness immediately gives away your seething
You're fucking pathetic dude, seriously

>>18814432
Then Evil becomes the principle of this Mixture and its attendant misrecognitions. Spinoza was a brainlet

>>18814332
The one question this thread raises for me, brother, is why those who are so intent on affirming the existence of evil are also the ones so keen to do evil, and are so quick to violent, albeit impotent, threats.

>>18814287
Okay, you are not making any contradictions anymore. Your argument is logically consistent, but I do not consider it sound.
I do not personally agree with you since you deny the qualitative reality of negative intentions. You have not given an argument as to why I should reject the reality of negative intentions, especially given it is something that directly recognizable and experienced.
Also, you might as well say everything is evil or poop. Why even bother saying everything is good without its contrast? It loses its meaning.
Finally, if everything is good, then there is no argument for how one "ought" to do the things that are "more good". You are arguing for gradations of good, but there is no threshold, no line to say one should do more good.
Also, your views are more typical of Freemasons and Frankist-Sabbateans than most Christians I've encountered. Most of them draw a line at God's commandments; God created evil for whatever reason. There is a contrast of both good and evil God is responsible for among most Christians.
If anything, you are twisting St. Thomas Aquinas' arguments to become more Advaitan, Frankist Sabbatean, or Freemason like.

>>18814446
>le hating evil makes you evil neoliberal golem
Because we're sick of demiurge apologists like you and your low T equivocating. It's that simple.

>>18814446
Cry me a river you thin skinned nigger, this isn't your college debate team, if you didn't act like a faggot maybe people wouldn't feel so compelled to call you one

>>18814445
>Whenever, then, anything in nature seems to us ridiculous, absurd or evil,
>seems to us
what part of that did you not understand

>>18814332
>"X has the quality of A, and Y has the quality of A, therefore X and Y are indistinguishable". This argument is obviously illogical. Both cats and dogs have the quality of being animals, yet cats and dogs are not indistinguishable.

Do you even have a point? Not that it matters, but my example is incommensurably more coherent than yours (>>18814000). You do not know that everything that "begins to exist" has a cause, you do not know if the Universe "began to exist", regardless, you do not know if the Universe has a cause given that it is defined by Phenomenal totality, etc. Note that I COULD HAVE addressed this shit sooner but did not since, again, it does not matter. Whereas, for the purposes of the argument at hand, defining Evil and Good, my example (>>18814038) sufficiently proves my point despite falling short of the Logical rigor of the "ideal syllogism", which your fails to meet all the more AND is insufficient for proving your point, which does not even fucking exist.

>>18814329
Phenomenal contingencies are relevant to this discussion if we acknowledge qualia as real and irreducible.
Evil has its own form, its own function, hence why it can be experienced, embodied, and enacted.
>What makes evil radical is the degree to which good is lacking.
If there is no threshold by which something *either* becomes its opposite or starts channeling its opposite from elsewhere, then there is no opposite. Just say it is all good and there is no evil. You are just obfuscating your argument each time you bring up evil or "bad". You are arguing everything is good in just varying gradations or degrees. The issue is, there is no line to draw where something is no longer good "enough", therefore everything is permissible.

These views are more typical of Frankist-Sabbateans and Freemasons fyi.

Your argument is logically consistent, but you have given no reason why I should accept this worldview. Moreover, I do not find it sound based on my own experiences in life.

>>18814485
It's this seeming that is evil you fucking brainlet, stop repeating yourself

>>18812323
If you think of goodness as a kind of knowledge, then its obvious that the divine conception of goodness will contradict our own. If god is truly all knowing, then he has a perfectly understanding of goodness, but humans can only attain approximate knowledge as errors in perception and measurement will always stop us short of total certainty. In the same way that Aristotle's physics contradicts and pales in comparison to our modern conception of physics, so too does the human understanding of goodness contradict and pale in comparison to God's.

>>18814446
I might be biased, brother, but I would have to say that because they lack a coherent system of morality, epistemology, and spiritual development, they are left in a state of quasi-adolescence. Sadly, they are unable to reflect on how they are proving our point - that things act in a less-good way when they are deprived of the ultimate good, God.

>>18814459
>Your argument is logically consistent, but I do not consider it sound.
Thanks for the charitable assessment, I'm happy to debate this further with you.
>You have not given an argument as to why I should reject the reality of negative intentions
My argument is that because a negative intention is subjectively perceived as less-or-more good based upon its degree of deprivation of good (eg. an intention to rape one's daughter is "less-good" than an intention to rape a stranger), that the quality of the intention being "negative" is actually a result of a deprivation of good - hence, intentions are all good, and their "negative" aspect has no existence independently.
>Why even bother saying everything is good without its contrast?
Because it is a metaphysical necessity (a privation does not have independent existence), and because it is the most accurate way to describe moral actions, even if it seems counter-intuitive. Somebody injecting heroin is not performing an "evil" action, but rather, is seeking the Good in a disordered way.
>if everything is good, then there is no argument for how one "ought" to do the things that are "more good"
One argument, among many, would be that one ought to do things which are "more good" than "less good", because they lead to a more stable experience of eudaimonia, and properly order desires in a hierarchy which prevents against becoming vicious or incontinent by becoming consumed by one's desires.
>Most of them draw a line at God's commandments; God created evil for whatever reason.
No Thomist would hold to this position - but many Americans are Protestants, who are less likely to subscribe to Aristotelian logic/Thomism, so this might be why you encounter this position more online.
>If anything, you are twisting St. Thomas Aquinas' arguments to become more Advaitan, Frankist Sabbatean, or Freemason like.
I wholly disagree that I am twisting his arguments, I am only presenting them as Thomas himself did, but with rebuttals tailored to the specific objections in this thread.

>>18814527
There is no reason an omnipotent being would be constrained to endow human beings with only an approximate idea of his goodness...

>>18814459
Not him
>You have not given an argument as to why I should reject the reality of negative intention
Do you ever intend to do something you see as not good? Or do you always seek what is good, whatever you might think that is? Basically this amounts to asking why you would freely do what you don't want to do. In this way, one always seeks the Good, however because the Good is potentially present everywhere, through various accidents (like you said, good can present itself in a myriad of forms, it is not in reality a simple matter of black and white; all of the colors you can imagine and all of the shapes you can imagine, at least in spatial reality, all gain their good characteristics by partaking of Goodness; through whichever form they happen to embody). So, my argument would be that you always do what you see as best, which is all anyone ever does; but in order to do what is truly best, what one needs is wisdom first and foremost. So I would only tell you to acquire knowledge through philosophy.
>Finally, if everything is good, then there is no argument for how one "ought" to do the things that are "more good"
Well, this enters into the sphere of discrete ethics, which is where deeper and more specific discussion is required (it almost leaves the philosophical realm). Ideally, what one should seek is the Good itself through wisdom.

This thread is a shining example of why everyone finds Christians obnoxious, especially tradcath larpers who converted two weeks ago

>>18814402
>I was operating under the assumption that we both agreed only moral agents can perform moral or "immoral" acts. This is usually a given, in discussions of ethics, but I'm happy to discuss the premise, if you disagree.

To briefly explain your own idiotic ideas to you:

The deprivation argument claims that the lack of God's Good exclusively causes or incidentally results in what is described as Evil. Everything that is not God is on a spectrum of deprivation, with the grossly Phenomenal world near or at the end of total deprivation. This is obviously absurd since, again, most Phenomena do not perform a fraction of the Evil acts performed by men, which are supposed to be much less deprived. Introducing shitty qualifiers necessarily makes the argument NOT the deprivation argument since there is something else other than deprivation causing the Evil.

>>18814537
>My argument is that because a negative intention is subjectively perceived as less-or-more good based upon its degree of deprivation of good (eg. an intention to rape one's daughter is "less-good" than an intention to rape a stranger), that the quality of the intention being "negative" is actually a result of a deprivation of good - hence, intentions are all good, and their "negative" aspect has no existence independently.
So good can lead to deprivation of good?
If everything is good, and good can lead to depriving good, then it's still all good. Therefore, raping one's daughter is equally as good as raping another person's daughter. It's all good, even the deprivation of good.
>Because it is a metaphysical necessity (a privation does not have independent existence), and because it is the most accurate way to describe moral actions, even if it seems counter-intuitive. Somebody injecting heroin is not performing an "evil" action, but rather, is seeking the Good in a disordered way.
Even disorder is good in your worldview. Therefore, where is the metric it is less good?
If you say God, then it becomes a matter of faith and difficult to defend now.

I prefer taking the intuitive route.
I look at my mind with honesty.
I see there are different states with different qualitative characters.
I conclude there is such a thing as positive and negative intentions.
I privilege positive intentions over negative ones due to my own idea of God.

>>18814612
Nah man you don't get it, a father raping his daughter is still minimally good because he's still desiring his own Good in a disordered way. I've solved the problem of evil.

>>18814493
>Do you even have a point?
That your argument was illogical, and thus invalid.
>You do not know that everything that "begins to exist" has a cause
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_sufficient_reason
>you do not know if the Universe "began to exist"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
>you do not know if the Universe has a cause given that it is defined by Phenomenal totality
1. No thing, or series of things can actualize itself - its potential must be actualized by some thing which is itself actual
2. A chain of infinitely long actualizers leads to an infinite regress (what actualized the first actualizer)
3. Therefore, there must be a first mover which is pure actuality per se
4. A thing which is pure actuality cannot have any potentiality
5. Therefore, the first mover has no privation