[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 61 KB, 954x267, evilgood.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11379373 No.11379373 [Reply] [Original]

Does evil exist? Was Augustine right?

>> No.11379411

Good? Evil? Mein Gott...
*sniff*

>> No.11379422

Of course it does

>> No.11379433

>>11379373
What can be evil that can’t be experienced? If life no longer existed, where would evil be found? Evil exists, but it is subjective.

>> No.11379453

>>11379373
Hes right though
I think pretty much everyone from every political persuasion and point of view has one thing in common; they want what they think is the best for humanity. They just have different methods and ideas of what that might be. Even the most selfish people ever like Stirner, Ayn Rand, or Anton LaVey still published books to try and convince (help, or at least their idea of helping) other people.
Aside from sociopaths and psychopaths normal people arent "evil". People can definitley be stupid though.

>> No.11379458

It takes a monster to fight a monster.

>> No.11379511

>>11379453
man im so sick of this whitebread milquetoast reddit idea of evil

>> No.11379517

>>11379511
Which is what

>> No.11379530

>>11379453
>they want what they think is the best for humanity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism

>> No.11379531

Augustine was right about things that you can't begin to grasp you colossal brainlet

>> No.11379533

>>11379511
>Plato is milquetoast reddit
inb4 edgelord agrees

>> No.11379537
File: 252 KB, 421x460, mosley.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11379537

>>11379373
>MUH OVERPOPULATION
>MUH EVERYONE IS THE SAME
>MUH RAPE ISNT EVIL BECAUSE THE RAPIST SUBJECTIVELY THINKS ITS GOOD

>> No.11379541

>>11379517
its all subjective the road to hell is paved with good intentions some people try to do good but they do bad see we just all need to get along and learn how to communicate :^)

no there are people out there who'd fuck you in the ass and slit your throat when they cum, get the fuck out this retarded onions-soaked hyperreal and come back to reality where monsters actually exist

>> No.11379549
File: 94 KB, 557x832, 1528165563338.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11379549

>>11379541
>we just all need to get along and learn how to communicate :^)
BASED LIBERAL DEMOCRACY

>> No.11379574

>>11379373
>augustine
nigga, JESUS was right

>> No.11379579

>>11379373
It exists, but not objectively.

>> No.11379618

>>11379579
>when people use the word subjective in a way that moral relativists can't understand

hehehehehe nothing personal kid

>> No.11379620

>>11379530
What are you trying to say here
Nationalists dont care about other people? Thats a pretty stupid statement

>>11379541
Yeah thats why I said aside from sociopaths and psychopaths

>> No.11379623

>>11379453
>they want what they think is the best for humanity
That's complete and utter bollocks.

>> No.11379643

>>11379620
>Yeah thats why I said aside from sociopaths and psychopaths


and you did I was being kind of unfair to you but still

>> No.11379645

>>11379453
>people disagree
>"lol no one is right"

How profound.

People these days can't seem to comprehend disagreement. They seem to think that because we live in the same world, therefore all opinions should converge, or at least be equally valid.

Humans are fallible and without infinite knowledge. Facts exist. Some people believe these facts, others do not.

Just because not everyone believes in these facts, doesn't mean they aren't real.

>> No.11379649

>>11379620
You are suggesting that every political philosophy believes in a common humanity and that is just complete nonsense. My country (Australia) has hundreds of illegal migrants in detention centres because they "might be a threat th the nation, and the nation's people come first". Nationalism is always exclusionary, to vary degrees of extremity. Truly altruistic political philosophy is rare, so stop applying your liberal delusions (if people just listened everything would be fine! :D) on to philosophies you know nothing about.

>> No.11379658

>>11379649
>You are suggesting that every political philosophy believes in a common humanity and that is just complete nonsense. My country (Australia) has hundreds of illegal migrants in detention centres because they "might be a threat th the nation, and the nation's people come first".

The very fact that they haven't wiped them out in death-camps, like in Nazi Germany, means that isn't true.

>> No.11379659

>>11379645
based post

brainlets keep re-reading it until you get it

a serial killer's immorality does not refute morality as such, any more than honey boo boo's diet proves nutrition isn't actually a thing. there is such a thing as being deficient.

>> No.11379666
File: 51 KB, 500x579, zizek fear.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11379666

>>11379658
you are so retarded holy moly

>> No.11379670

>>11379645
>>11379659
mmmmm grayooons

>> No.11379674

>>11379645
>>11379659
I want you to know that I rolled my eyes at these posts.

>> No.11379680

>>11379666
>You are suggesting that every political philosophy believes in a common humanity and that is just complete nonsense.

You really think that keeping out illegal immigrants means that you don't believe in common humanity? Nationalism and common humanity aren't mutually exclusive.

>> No.11379691

>>11379623
Give me a counter argument then

>>11379645
I didnt say everyone is right or has opinions that are equally valid
I said I dont think someone is evil just because they're stupid and have a stupid dogmatic opinion
In their own mind they still want the best for people
This isnt a difficult concept to understand
Even Hitler did what he did because he cared about people, specifically his German people, it made sense in his head
I dont think people legitimately come from a place of pure hatred and anger and want to just ruin everyones lives unless they're mentally ill and have no moral compass

>>11379649
I'm Australian too.
First of all are you implying that our incredibly liberal democratic country is Nationalist because we put illegal immigrants in detention? Thats incredibly stupid mate.
Have you been outside? 90% of my suburb is immigrants. They dont seem very oppressed.
Secondly you're an idiot if you think Nationalism comes from hatred of others and not love of your closer family.
Nobody believes in it because they think "This'll really piss off those Niggers!" they believe in it because they percieve aliens as a threat to their nation and want to protect it for the benefit of their "people".

>> No.11379715

Every individual is both good and evil. Disposition, Learning, Ignornace.

>> No.11379749

>>11379373
Norm is a goddamn gem.

>> No.11379764

>>11379373
Evil is subjective as I see it. Anyone who recieves punishment or is excluded by society will look at it as evil, meanwhile the rest will look at it as the good or sensible thing to do. Even beyond that, our societies shape the way we undestand good and evil, with the whole Judeochristian suffering being looked as a positive/good thing, or an older outlook where power = good.
I believe the only thing one can truly do to understand the whole complexity of evil vs good is doing a sum of every action in history and looking at the consequences and then discerning, but is it practical? is it even possible? Even if these two were are resounding yes, we would have to reanalyze the whole sum of actions every year or so.

However, considering that understanding an absolute evil or good is impossible, one should try to draw a line in life about what constitutes evil and good, and live according to it until the bitter end or until it's impossible to uphold. I guess it's a leap of faith towards a meaning of the whole aspect of good and evil. Altruism (in all kinds of matters) is a good start and it can help show where goodness should be headed (I believe).
I'm sorry that I can't think of anything more substantial and I have to paraphrase some existencialists, but there isn't a way a human mind (and considering our material and mortal form) can possibly create an absolute good. Only a God can do absolute good, and that might be scary or relieving depending on your view about religion.

>> No.11380036

>>11379541
Seeking out evil is like picking at a scab and never allowing the wound to heal.

The concept of evil has a very strong sociolinguistic utility in that it’s a kind of ethical fire-alarm that you can be pulled in extreme situations. Hence, evil exists, but ethics is not contigent on it’s existance.

The monistic expansion of the circle of empathy, regardless of it’s naive expressions in neoliberalism, is definitely an expansion and progression of the human spirit. Using the potential of sickness to avoid the state of being healthy is hypochondria pure and simple.

>> No.11380052

>>11380036
unironically good answer

>> No.11380065

>>11379649

You're one of those morons who think people should roam the earth freely like beasts. lol fuck off

>> No.11380072

>>11379680

they are necessarily connected actually. Anyone who cares about the good of humanity knows that nationalism is the thing that keeps every distinct group alive instead of turning them into new consumer demographics.

>> No.11380116

>Problem of Evil

Why are christians so afflicted by this buy not other faiths?

>> No.11380321

Explain the basis for the conflation of good and existence. Can't existence as easily be associated with evil, i.e., pain, suffering, struggle, etc? What is the ground for this assertion?

>> No.11380349

>>11380116
Christians believe in an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent god. For any religion with a different god, the answer to the problem of evil is simple.

>> No.11380361
File: 75 KB, 186x238, rich.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11380361

>>11379373
>its another episode of people that think good and evil is a dualism

>> No.11380372

>>11379649
>My country (Australia) has hundreds of illegal migrants in detention centres because they "might be a threat th the nation
No, it's because they arrived here by boat. Over 1000 people had died trying to get to Australia. By not allowing them to reach the mainland, and housing them offshore, the boats have stopped. Literally hundreds of lives have been saved.

>> No.11380389

>>11380116
It's really not a problem at all for Christians. In fact, the existence of evil is a good reason to believe God actually exists since the concept of evil is unintelligible without a transcendent standard of good to recognize when things don't measure up.

>> No.11380401

>>11379674
Yes, we know you're a redditor.

>> No.11380434

>>11379433
Thread should have ended here.

>> No.11380442

>>11380036

Empathy is evil

>> No.11380454

>>11379373
>Does evil exist? Was Augustine right?
Peterson unironically has one of the best arguments for this I've ever encountered.
>try to look for it
>video has been deleted
>he gives half assed versions of the original 2 hour tirade which are 5 minutes or less and mass promoted
Well, the idea is that people absolutely do act malevolently, with the intent to harm and worsen the world. It's not that they are pursuing their own conception of justice, it's that they want to do damage and know theirs is a transgression. He gave a lot of good examples...

>> No.11380457

>>11379511
Something something banality of evil.

>>11379649
Wanting what is best for one group of people at the expense of another group of people is not evil. That's economic law. This interpretation of evil to mean "anything which creates even the minutest amount of negativity anywhere at anytime" has got to be the most singular braindead interpretation of the concept ever created by humanity.

Equally vapid is this supposition of a True Altruism™ that necessitates absolute, 100% sacrifice.

>> No.11380460

>>11380454
>It's not that they are pursuing their own conception of justice, it's that they want to do damage and know theirs is a transgression.

Yes but is it ever possible to refrain completely from a transgression? Or is it merely a question of degree? Any population of humans who continue to affirm living will have to feed on the surrounding fauna. It seems there is no universal form of non-violence which is consist with any type of existence.

>> No.11380462

>>11380321
Existence isn't evil because it only makes sense to call something bad or evil when it's lacking some sort of existence. We would call a sock with holes in it a bad sock precisely because it's lacking the existence of some wool or cotton. A sock is good when it's perfect according to it's nature or what it's supposed to be. I wouldn't call pain or suffering necessarily evil but we usually experience these sensations because we lack health in some respect.

>> No.11380473

>>11380462
Then the useful is the good?

>> No.11380478

>>11380473
I don't see how "useful" can be anything more than a neutral.

>> No.11380484

>>11379530
This is a very good post.

>> No.11380497

>>11380462
Then the good is something entirely subjective.

>> No.11380500

>>11380497
Don't explain your reasoning or anything.

>> No.11380505

Norm is correct.

>> No.11380527

>>11380500
A sock is entirely object and would therefore not exist without a subject. To attribute goodness to it is to say that goodness also is not independent of the subject.

>> No.11380530

>>11379373
>Was Augustine right?
always

>> No.11380542

>>11380527
Would you say there's no such thing as a bad sock? I suppose you would have to in order to keep from contradicting yourself. Either way I don't know what you're talking about with "object" and "subject." If you insist on talking like a robot you should define your terms.

>> No.11380548

>>11380460
Most people certainly don't feel or are aware they wrong others in their daily doings. It seems facile to suggest so grand a narrative of violence.

>> No.11380553

>>11379649
retard

>> No.11380555

It doesn't even matter. Everyone is always fighting X vs. X. Norm gets partial credit.

>> No.11380557

>>11380548
>>11380460
If you read about German police in Poland during the Nazi regime they vomit and shake as they do their "duties" but steadily become acclimated to them and both the scope and severity of what they do. Men who felt ill contributing to violence against others became numb to it, but still that suggests a sort of consciousness to the act. Stepping on ant doesn't seem relevant.

>> No.11380558

>>11380542
Sure there is a bad sock, but when you attribute badness to the sock you are attributing it to an object, whose determinations are conditioned by the functions of the brain. Thus, this says nothing of those determinations which exist outside of the subject which gave rise to the perception in the first place. A sock is not even useful to all human beings since there are different sizes of feet. Would an adult, then, say that a sock that is supposed to fit a child is bad, or as you say, has less existence? Nay, its goodness or badness consists entirely in a thing's relation to either another object or a subject, which is to say that there is no absolute goodness or badness, and these are relative terms.

>> No.11380563

>>11379453
I mean part of the problem in discourse is that many people believe that you don't need to define your terms. The trouble with both sides is that they have very different ideas of what "humanity" is and how to apply it people as a whole.

For example while the left thinks it evil to shoot young unarmed men with a tool of the state that he has no real chance against republicans will choose to see that the young man is more a young animal that is now out of their misery.

So norm isn't even saying that evil doesn't exist just that both sides of each argument see themselves as the good guy, which is why he thinks it hilarious. I don't believe hes even commentating on who is or isn't right by their defined terms just that everyone is the hero of their own story and the definitions we use when we look upon people's actions define evil.

>> No.11380576

>>11379453
>they want what they think is the best for humanity.
imagine being this much liberal

>> No.11380577

>>11379373
>cynics
>caring about muh evil
Wretched sophists fuck off

>> No.11380584

>>11379453
So, Hitler wasn't evil, he just had a difference of opinion?

>> No.11380588

>>11380558

An ill fitting sock isn't a bad sock, it's merely a sock not suited for your purpose. How do you go from "good and evil is determined by the brain" to "good and evil is subjective?" It seems like you're begging the question.

>> No.11380594

>>11380584
Quite literally, unironically yes.

>> No.11380600

>>11380594
hitler wasn't evil but his actions quite literally, unironically were. of course this could be said of many of many of peoples. when discussing evil can we/should we separate actions from people? does it change our concept of evil in any meaningful way?

>> No.11380608

>>11379453
this is a dumb post i hope you flesh out your ideas past this

>> No.11380611

The world is dumb chimp vs dumb chimp thinking they are liberating the other chimp from their stupid idead

>> No.11380612

>>11380600
>hes not evil
>his actions were

how do you square this?

>> No.11380615

>>11380036
>the expansion of the circle of empathy... is definitely an expansion and progression of the human spirit
This "expansion of the circle of empathy" dates back to Christianity, it is hardly "new". What you call "the expansion of the circle of empathy" is merely the negation of the superiority of moral obligations to those near us in order to equivocate all moral obligations regardless of moral distance. It is a leveling the moral hierarchy.
You have more moral obligation to your parents than you do to your aunts and uncles.
You have more moral obligation to your brother than to your friend.
You have more moral obligation to your friend than to the stranger.
You have more moral obligation to the stranger in your city than the stranger on the other side of the continent.
Now for the triggering part: You have more moral obligation to someone of your race than you do to the foreigner.
You have a moral obligation to every other human, but you have more moral obligation to those near to you than those far from you.
None of this is new. This is entirely derived from the core tenets of Christianity and was articulated by St. Augustine over 1500 years ago. The contemporary inversion of morality states that you have the same moral obligation to those far from you as you do to those near, so you are forbidden to prioritize those near to you because those far from you may suffer for it. As far as those things which are not zero-sum, it is right not to harm others, but the modern expectation to sacrifice one's own people for the sake of some hypothetical human monotribal code isn't an improvement or a progression in the slightest. The contemporary Western zeitgeist has run so amok that the moral duty to the foreigner has been elevated to be even greater than the moral duty to the countryman. Build the wall.

>> No.11380619

>>11380612
He's a good human being in that he had two legs instead of 3 or two arms instead of 4. His actions and thoughts are what were disordered.

>> No.11380621

>>11380612
i was going off the other anon's response dumb shit, pick up rhetoric

>> No.11380632

>>11380615
all spooks my friend

>> No.11380634

>>11379453
>I think pretty much everyone from every political persuasion and point of view has one thing in common; they want what they think is the best for humanity.

This isn't true, plenty of people don't fit into this mindset.

> Even the most selfish people ever like Stirner, Ayn Rand, or Anton LaVey

These aren't "the most selfish people ever" lmao

>> No.11380638

>>11380632
wow, so deep, good post

>> No.11380648

>>11380638
prove me wrong then lass

>> No.11380658

>>11380648
You would stop being a nihilist pretty quickly if I started punching you in the face until you decided that it's morally wrong to punch people in the face.

>> No.11380667

>>11379373
movement

>> No.11380670

>>11380658
try again -- spook is an egotist concept, not nihilist. i don't really identify with either but was simply using a shorcut to exemplify the short-comings of your concept of obligations.

>> No.11380683

>>11379453
Yes goy. We're doing this for HUMANITY!

>> No.11380686

>>11379453
What about psychopaths?

>> No.11380688

>>11379373
But for Augustine, evil WAS nonexistence. So, yes, evil is something you should avoid, and, no, it does not exist.

>> No.11380716

>>11380670
>a shortcut to exemplify the short-comings of your concept of obligations
>muh spooks
It isn't even relevant, dumbass. Whether morality is a spook or not, morality exists, it changes, those changes can be analyzed within a moral framework.

>> No.11380731

>>11380716
dude obligations r ur spooks. goddamn ur dumb

>> No.11380732

>>11380615
Liberal's only pretend to care for the foreigner, or care only when it is not inconvenient. The liberal machine still runs on the blood and sweat of black, brown and slanty eyed fellows working 80 hours a week in oppressive conditions. Society is not failing because it has spread its empathy too thin but not thin enough. If the world was a better place to live for everyone then no one would need to move to white strongholds for a better life.

>> No.11380741

>>11380462
The existence of a parasite eating your brain is not a lack of existence.

>> No.11380748

>>11380741
Yes, and? You don't suppose the brain isn't beginning to lack existence do you?

>> No.11380778

>>11380732
>Liberals only pretend to care for the foreigner
This is true of those who hold the reins, but there are many genuine negro-worshipers.
>If the world was a better place to live for everyone then no one would need to move to White strongholds for a better life.
There will always be those who want to move to "White strongholds". Whether or not there can be "White strongholds" is entirely contingent upon whether or not Whites relearn to defend their territory.

>> No.11380831

>>11380748
A brain that does not exist is not an evil, the number of non-existent brains is limitless. A brain that has been gnawed upon can certainly exist.

>> No.11380842

>>11380831
I agree that a brain which doesn't exist is not evil but a brain that does exist becomes a bad one through the process of being eaten by a parasite. The brain becomes bad because it's no longer what it should be. If it never existed it obviously can't go bad.

>> No.11380856

It's funny how nobody who rejects the idea of evil being a lack of good can actually define evil in a coherent way. All they do is try to nitpick you with stupid shit.

>> No.11380857

>>11380856
Evil is pain and actions that perpetuate it.

>> No.11380868

>>11380857
Going to a dentist and getting my teeth fixed is good yet painful.

>> No.11380872

>>11380868
you are trading pain now to have less pain in the future, it's a simple and rational equation. Also I mean not only physical pain but psychic as well.

>> No.11380881

>>11380872
So evil is pain except when it's not. Got it.

>> No.11380885

>>11380881
>toothache = 2 pains
>dentist = 1 pains

2>1

>> No.11380902

>>11380885
I legitimately laughed out loud. You're retarded.

>> No.11380913

>>11379649

Whatever crack you're smoking to think a country that imports 1% of its population of chinks and poos year over year is Nationalistic, i don't want it because it's fucking retarded.

>> No.11380995

If God created everything, did he also create all evil in the world? If so, is that a God we should worship?

I think Aquinas' argument was that evil had no substance, evil is just the absence or negation of good. Therefore God didn't create evil.

>> No.11381057

>>11380389
Imagine being this stupid.

>> No.11381075

>OP pic
That is the most pretentious fucking statement I have ever read.

Not only is it pretentious, it's not even fucking right.
>a psychopath is really good at heart, just pursuing a different conception of the world!
No, a psychopath is a literally broken human being incapable of empathy - half a person, with the most important features missing. Is that evil? No, it's just their nature. But it's sure as fuck not good.

>the world is a battle
This too is fucking stupid. The world isn't defined by the battles, it's defined by the common cause. Humans are a social and cooperative species. Wars catch our attention because they're what happens when the systems FAIL. The human experience is not a struggle between humans, it is a struggle against the circumstances that make conflict inevitable.

In short, people with an IQ of less than 130 should be banned from having opinions.

>> No.11381083
File: 7 KB, 160x181, 1520475282530.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11381083

Good is that which evil fears, and justice is when you make those fears a reality.

>> No.11381110

>>11380584
He obviously didn't see himself as the evil one you mong

>> No.11381126

>>11381110
Yeah, and he was wrong.

>> No.11381141

>>11381126
From my point of view the Jedi are evil

>> No.11381146

>>11381141
Your point of view is wrong.

The fact that people think that they are doing the right thing does not therefore mean that they are in fact doing the right thing.

Relativism is baby's first ideology.

Positivism is the one true God.

>> No.11381157

>>11381146
t. spike lee

>> No.11381241

>>11380902
The math checks out dude.

>> No.11381282

>>11379411
Zizkek doesn't speak German, idiot.

>> No.11381308
File: 430 KB, 1840x1000, w_w_'.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11381308

Evil attributes agency to badness.

>> No.11381389

>>11380995
Can God create a rock ne can't lift?
Also can you be less retarded?

>> No.11381456

>>11381389

God can make everything possible, even the impossible. God is a paradox that can't be understood, there can be only faith.

>> No.11381474

>>11381456
yes god is impossible, ie he doesn't exist

>> No.11381500

>>11381474
Low tier bait

>> No.11381676

>Does evil exist?
No

>> No.11381681

>>11381282
he actually does

>> No.11381894

>>11380732
>Liberal's only pretend to care for the foreigner, or care only when it is not inconvenient.

This has recently been demonstrated by the outcry surrounding the separation of families at the border. When it came to the untold number of civilian casualties from drone strikes during the Obama administration, they invoked the same, tired cliche that we have to protect our country, and sadly there's just collateral damage. They wouldn't speak on the morality of those strikes, each approved by Obama, of knowingly risking innocent life. But Trump is a psychopath because of border protection.

>> No.11382055

>>11380594
>>11381110
>how to instantly lose the argument and render yourself not worth speaking to

>> No.11382133

>>11381282
He speaks it very well.

https://youtu.be/E1J1q0uaDt4?t=142

>> No.11382141

>>11380576
I'm a Fascist actually

>> No.11382157

>>11380584
Correct Hitler wasnt evil
Hitler wanted the best for his German people
And if you were a German living in peace time Nazi Germany it was basically a utopia, hence why he was so beloved around the world in the 30's before the whole Poland issue
Himmler is an example of someone who is evil, because he completely lacked any kind of empathy or morality
He was mentally unhinged and this was noted by many top Nazis even before they took power, no idea why he got to his position
He didnt care about his fellow man he only wanted to destroy others and serve his own interests

>> No.11382164

>>11379453
It's not about what they think is best for humanity, it's about what they think is best at all. Sometimes what they consider to be the greatest good is to aid only themselves, either their country or race or their own individual self, while for others the scope is larger.

>> No.11382193

>>11382157
>>Hitler wanted the best for his German people
When they started to lose the war Hitler intentionally let Germans die left and right. He refused surrender, or to be reasonable with their directives or possibilities. We're talking about someone who instead of redirecting resources to fight the war had them focus more on their extermination camps, when the allies were reclaiming territory he sent the orders to kill everyone to try and hide what he'd done. There's something there that speaks of shame. But more importantly his total lack of concern for the German people come the inevitably of defeat...well, it essentially reveals he didn't care at all about the Germans but rather himself, they were a tool to an end, to feed his personal brand of demented narcissism.
>>11382157
>He didnt care about his fellow man he only wanted to destroy others and serve his own interests
This describes Hitler to a T. Once you start believing your own propaganda you've lost anon.

>> No.11382206

>>11382193
But he was a vegetarian, didn't you ever see that picture with him and the dog? Hitler was a great guy, the kind you'd want to have a hefeweizen with!

>> No.11382208

>>11382141
Yeah. That's what he said.

>> No.11382219

>>11382206
>These events probably strengthened Hitler's resolve not to allow himself or his wife to be made "a spectacle of", as he had earlier recorded in his Testament.[24] That afternoon, Hitler expressed doubts about the cyanide capsules he had received through Himmler's SS.[25] To verify the potency of the capsules, Hitler ordered Dr. Werner Haase to test one on his dog Blondi, who died as a result.[26]
The absolute state of /pol/. His dog is in fact a perfect parallel to the German people.

>> No.11382255

>>11379373
Augustine would have never simplistically denied that evil exists. He believed in sin after all. But his conception of evil is that it is a lack of good. Moral evil is a failure to do good. Evil is never a positive, only a negative.

Again, this isn't to say that Augustine literally thought that rape or murder or corruption are not evil. He just defines them as the absence of respect for sexuality, respect for life, and respect for the law.

>> No.11382263

>>11380995
The Catholic Christian response is that God created humans with free will out of respect for our dignity. The real evil would have been to create us as automatons capable only of goodness. Thus he didn't create Evil as such, he created Freedom and human freedom created evil (see Original Sin).

>> No.11382275

>>11379373
If evil exists, moral relativism is a form of evil, right?

>> No.11382286

>>11382263
Is there evil in heaven? If not, are we automatons in heaven?

>> No.11382288

>>11381681
That wasn’t his point.

>> No.11382330

>>11381057
Good argument

>> No.11382381

>>11382286
"Eye has not seen, ear has not heard, what God has ready for those who love Him." The pleasures of Heaven are infinite and therefore unknowable and impossible to describe. I imagine that if Heaven exists it includes a strange combination of Freedom and Determinism. You get to choose, but the choice is always the right choice without a doubt. A bundle of pleasurable paradoxes. The pleasures of sex exist without the anxiety of gender. You eat without getting full and are hungry without hunger pangs.

Those are my thoughts on Paradise, to my knowledge the Church and the Catechism have few official positions on what Heaven is like other than that it involves "seeing God face to face."

>> No.11382403

>>11382381
>You get to choose, but the choice is always the right choice without a doubt.
If this is so great, why would it have been evil if God made humans like this on Earth? Why would be automatons here, but not in heaven?

Btw every Christian should read Romans 9 before commenting on free will.

>> No.11382449

>>11382403
I'm not sure. There's lots of contradictions in Christianity. Romans 9 is interesting, thanks for referring me to it.

>> No.11382453

>>11379620
>Yeah thats why I said aside from sociopaths and psychopaths
Do you think ill will is an anomaly? That an ordinary person doesn't have the capacity for developing a malevolent attitude, and that almost everyone manifests it, though in a constrained manner?

>> No.11382504

if something isnt physical, it doesnt exist

>> No.11382527

>>11379373
that is such a pile of hollywood mysticism bungus

>> No.11382543

>>11379373
literally the dumbest thing ever types

unsurprising coming from an unfunny "comedian"

>> No.11382570

>>11382504
dumb materialist

>> No.11382589

Good and evil only counts for humans though, in nature there is none of both

>> No.11382592

>>11382570
>>11382504
of the dumbest kind, read marx, you feuerbach

>> No.11382611

>>11380457
>Wanting what is best for one group of people at the expense of another group of people is not evil. That's economic law.
I agree that it's okay to advocate for to good of one group over another in certain instances but most economic transactions are mutually beneficial. The notion that wealth is a zero-sum game is false and incredibly damaging.

>> No.11382616

>>11382570
>>11382592
prove something immaterial exists then

>> No.11382624

>>11382616
prove something material does exist
you can't because it's perception and that's something immaterial

>> No.11382628

>>11382624
>perception is immaterial
"no"

>> No.11382636

Y'all niggas need to read Schelling's Inquiry into the Essence of Human Freedom, he blows privatio boni the fuck out

>> No.11382642

>>11382628
yes it is.
how is it material? ooh u use ur eyes to c dumb idealist :p
well I also perceive my eyes

esse est percepii faggot

>> No.11382649

>>11379533
Maybe it was true in Platos day, when racial homogeneity existed. That idea of evil doesn't apply anymore. Wake up.

>> No.11382654

>>11382642
your eyes interact with the world, physically

>> No.11382660

>>11382654
my field of vision is not a physical item within my field of vision you fuckin chud

>> No.11382666

>>11382660
why not

>> No.11382671

>>11382666
because then you have to ask what is that for which my field of vision is an object, threatening a regress

>> No.11382674

>>11382654
the physical world is only real if I want it to be real

>> No.11382686

>>11382674
please stop wanting it to be real so i can die

>> No.11382691

>>11380584
CORRECT

>> No.11382701

>>11382686
I'm a low level Willist so tough luck kiddo

>> No.11382702

>>11382671
>because then you have to ask questions that trigger me

>> No.11382707

>>11382702
do you not understand what a regress is?

>> No.11382727

>>11382707
seething

>> No.11382739

dumb materialist/idealist
I'm radical centrist

>> No.11382743

>>11382727
what a maroon

>> No.11382754

>>11379453
Not a single decent rebuttal in this thread. If anything, everyone missed the point. All humans move towards their individual idea of good. No, im not advocating for "it's all relative man". We can still advocate our own formulations of good and act upon them. Rather, I recognize my own subjectivity and inability to access Truth about The Good. That there exist empirical facts does not mean there are ethical ones - see Hume. Empirical facts are couched within scientific theories that virtually always turn out to be inadequate - see Kuhn. This means that even empirical facts have some layer of mediation that can be fallible; our understanding of gravity, for instance, could turn out to be inadequate. Ethics has a much lower bar for validation and proof. At best we have notions of "utility," which try to be scientific and verifiable but really are not.

What all of this means for "evil" is that it only makes since as a term for the negation. Maybe you argue that evil is all that would privilege one people before another, i.e. Nationalism. But you are left with an impasse as to how you assert your views over the nationalist without falling into your own definition.

Ultimately, I believe humans are contradictory and without a singular strand of reasoning or desires that they might be able to build a moat of pure logic around. I wish /lit/ of all places would be less willing to instantly descend into insults when they encounter a different point of view. If they are ignorant, educate them. If they are wrong, argue with them. If they are obviously baiting, ignore them. I think we are all trying to learn and grow and make the best of what limited abilities, resources, and time we've got.

>> No.11382766

>>11382754
sophistry and language games played by degenerates who have the luxury to deny evil when it's out of sight and out of mind

read a transcript of the lynette ledford tapes. stop letting language neuter you. lift and crush the darkness wherever you find it.

>> No.11382781
File: 1.78 MB, 265x257, 1525160155825.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11382781

>mfw these morons on this thread thinks good and evil exists


someday you´ll learn kiddo

>> No.11382784

>>1137
Evil is finitude, evil intent is the will to finitude, and evil acts bring to being results which maintain or elevate the finite over the infinite.

t. Hegel

It's not that deep of a concept desu. Hegel's conception of evil pretty much makes everything evil to some extent.

>> No.11382826

>>11382766
I don't believe I am playing any language games or sophistry. Like I said, I do have and advocate for my ethical beliefs. To give an example, I believe many crimes deserve capital punishment and would follow a Kantian train of thought about them. For instance, execution for capital punishment preserves the deceased's dignity as a human being. That I recognize the appeal of restorative justice, under a completely different train of thought of consequentialism, does not prevent me from still thinking this is the best course of action.

>> No.11382829

>>11382784
Can you define finite and infinite for me? Or just expound? I barely have any understanding of Hegel.

>> No.11382839

>>11379373
Evil has no ontological status; it is a lacking of the good by the turning of the will away from the good and so it can be nothing and insofar as we sin we have no existence at all. Freedom does not consist of a choice between good and evil but between the infinite multitude of goods.

>> No.11382842

>>11382826
I think ethics as a philosophy is a waste of time when it comes to gut feelings about horrific acts but I'm not going to shit on you for being a cut above the "evil is subjective we just have to learn how to get along :^)" redditors itt

>> No.11382843

>>11382781
this but unironically

>> No.11382851

>>11382839
>Freedom does not consist of a choice between good and evil but between the infinite multitude of goods.

incoherent, once again trying to handwave evil away with language.

cold is the absence of heat but that doesn't change the fact that I perceive it as a positive force

evil being the result of a differential good just forces the question of why the good should be differential like this in the first place.

>> No.11382991

>>11382263

Mate, God says in the bible, that he creates both good and evil.

>> No.11383042

>>11382991
Where's the quote, I'm curious. I never said I had read the Bible, I was simply parroting the common Catholic line.

>> No.11383100

>>11379373

Evil as a universal? No. Evil as a particular relative instance? Yes. What it is, could be summed up in various ways. The arbiter of this could be anything. There are people who have irrational fears of cucumbers, to them, perhaps, these green-devil phalluses are evil. But base relativism is very boring. Evil can be talked about in detail, only in particularity, if we are to be philosophically honest. Whatever the case. It seems that the label of evil is applied to something which has an anthropic intelligence. Would you call a bear eating some hiker-- evil?

Evil must be something which goes against our interests. Thus it would be determined by our capacity. Now, people with APD have neurological and physiological qualities, which stop them from being able to sympathize, among other things. Are they evil just because of this? Does having a lower level of cortisol make them do evil things? It clearly predisposes them to act which we would consider evil. These people are often hailed as the most evil examples of the species. They are then evil because they are not neurotical?

But if we are to talk of evil in true philosophical sense as it relates to ethics. Then look at something like theft traitorship. There exists no culture in this world, which value traitorship as a virtue. This is a great indicator into the true nature of evil. I.e. that it is the thing which goes against our interest, whatever it may be, and whatever arbiter determines this for us. But, sometimes, in an odd twist, even traitorship becomes a virtue. And only if it brings benefit. E.g. a defector (perhaps convinced of the ideological right of the other) may be valued as a revolutionary and so on.

The same goes with even theology. Evil is merely what the deity determines, for the deity has the ultimate power, thus the ultimate right.

>> No.11383102

>>11383042

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+45%3A7&version=KJV

Here you go anon.

>> No.11383118

>>11383100
>They are then evil because they are not neurotical?

Neurotypical.*

Language is a spook

>> No.11383122

>>11383102
Well damn. I guess that's further proof you should never expect consistency from religion.

>> No.11383173

>>11383122
It would be inconsistent if you found a passage that stated the opposite. It definitely contradicts most Christians’ interpretations, though. Internet Christians almost never accept the passages, but bring up mistranslation as the cause for confusion. If that’s the case, why not learn Hebrew to determine that every passage is what it really means?

>> No.11383222

>>11383173
Another point to raise is that even though this verse says God created good and evil, the book of Genesis clearly states that God pronounces the whole of his creation to be good. This leaves room for Leibniz's "best of all possible worlds" hypothesis: God created evil because he had to in order to also create good.

>> No.11383274

>>11383222

A bit of a Daoistic platitude, but ''When the good is created so is the bad.'' and so on. The point here, though. Being that God *creates* evil. He does not put it down and let it grow, no. It is a progressive and generative thing. He is omnipresent. Islamic theology takes this further, that nothing at all escapes the will of God.

But the Judeo-Christian God is also omnipotent, and *omnibenevolent*. This is where theological problems arise. If he creates evil, he can not be omnibenevolent. He does remain the highest power, thus he is what determines the good and the bad, as well as what creates it. If he is the most powerful, then he is the most good, he himself, not in relation to his creation. He is good for he determines what is good.

>> No.11383309

>>11383222
When contrasting good and evil, I think it would be best to describe the world as a whole not good or evil, but perfect. It wouldn’t make sense to describe the world as perfectly good while claiming the world needs some of the opposite of good to be the most good. We all understand how irrational and odd a world without evil would be, so instead of claiming that good + evil is most good, we simply say that they are both natural and necessary. After all, if there were no humans to describe the world as good or evil, it couldn’t be either, but it could still operate through necessity. Because whatever is necessary is perfect.

>> No.11383333

>>11379649
Are you living in a rundown shack in order to donate all your earnings to charity? If not, you're complicit in this "evil" system

>> No.11383339

>>11383309
>Because whatever is necessary is perfect

But everything is necessary.

>> No.11383343

>>11383339
Is heroin necessary?

>> No.11383348

>>11383333
Nice quads my nigro.

Your post is indicative of something. That selflessness truly only exists in complete obliteration of the self and all desire.

>> No.11383377

>>11383343

Odd question. Is the poppy plant necessary? Is the cultivation thereof necessary?

Is it necessary that people become addicted to it? Yes. It is written in the structure of heroin as it relates to the organisms it effects.

What I mean by necessity, is determination.

Regardless, my claim was that *everything* was necessary. So, your question is a bit odd.

Show me something that is not necessary? Whatever exists, exists due to the necessity of its existence. I do see though, how this plays a role in morality, and the notion of evil. Usually people will say that an act of evil is evil because it was not necessary, say, someone beating their dog. Well clearly the necessity for this to occur laid in the desire of the man beating the dog. It is necessary, just not to you.

>> No.11383383

>>11383377
Furthermore. You *not* beating a dog, is not due to the unecessity of it, is it? No, you are repulsed by the act. The necessity for your repulsion exists.

>> No.11383391

>>11383339
>But everything is necessary
Then everything is perfect, as a whole. But of course, any world would therefore be perfect if it existed. We just ignore that, and say this world exists and not another one, therefore it must be more perfect than other “possible” worlds.

>> No.11383396

>>11380615
>Now for the triggering part: You have more moral obligation to someone of your race than you do to the foreigner.
bullshit, my race never did anything for me and a for long time that's not who I lived around

>> No.11383409

>>11380732
>Liberal's only pretend to care for the foreigner, or care only when it is not inconvenient.
you should speak for yourself
I can't speak for other people and I don't consider myself that liberal, but I absolutely care about every human being

>> No.11383415

>>11381894
they see Mexicans (and Canadians) as our neighbors because we share a border with them, whereas they see Arabs as true foreigners because they're oceans away
it's still about proximity

>> No.11383425

>>11383391

It is seen as not perfect, as far as it offends our nerves. Thus a perfect world would be anything which pleases them. We see associate perfection with the good. But even a torturer can be perfect in his ''art''. The teleology of perfection is only relative to the intent, or desire of the subject in question. Of course, I can claim everything to be perfect in such a way. God is in his heaven, everything is gucci, and so on. But still, I will be prone to suffering, and have a preferred state to it, with my suffering being determined by my condition. The suffering of a man and a bacteria are very different things.

>> No.11383434

>>11383409
>but I absolutely care about every human being

https://libcom.org/files/Stirner%20-%20The%20Unique%20and%20Its%20Property.pdf

Here, have fun.

>> No.11383452

>>11382649
dude even Greece wasn't homogenized a lot of the time, each region was its own state and had its own dialect of Greek and, crucially, its own idea of how to run things

>> No.11383454

>>11382133
I love 10 vor 11.
>10 vor 11 wurde vom 2. Mai 1988 bis 26. Juni 2018[1] auf RTL gesendet.
reeeee

>> No.11383460

>>11382453
not that guy but I think true, long-lasting ill will is an anomaly, yes
can you think of anyone you know that really believes in fucking people over for no other reason than self-advancement or simple entertainment?

>> No.11383496

>>11380902
not that guy but can you refute it? more to the point, can you refute it without pretending you don't know what he's saying? he's talking about an overall reduction or increase in pain, not just in the moment

>> No.11383526

>>11382660
why would it be?
your field of vision is aspect of the interaction between your eyes and the light around them

>> No.11383532

>>11383496
I know exactly what he's saying which is why I find it so ridiculous and the mathematical formula just put it over the top. He defined evil as pain and when asked if a dentist is evil he said no because good can come from the pain. If pain is evil then the dentist is evil for inflicting pain regardless of whatever good might come from it but aside from that there's a much bigger problem with his thinking. The notion that good can come from evil assumes what he's trying to deny, which is that evil is a privation of good because what exactly is the dentist doing if not correcting a deprivation?

>> No.11383534

>>11381075
>Wars catch our attention because they're what happens when the systems FAIL

Wars happen for a number of reasons. What system failed to cause the Assyrians to go engage in brutal conquest?


>The human experience is not a struggle between humans

You are arguing with a human, on a message board. The struggle is real!


>it is a struggle against the circumstances that make conflict inevitable.

These circumstances are of such a vast number, that you may as well label the human experience to be that of conflict.

>> No.11383538

>>11382754
>Maybe you argue that evil is all that would privilege one people before another, i.e. Nationalism. But you are left with an impasse as to how you assert your views over the nationalist without falling into your own definition.
thank you for putting words to what I've been feeling
it seems like it's becoming more common on all sides to have this holier-than-thou attitude and I haven't been able to form a good argument or even statement of why that's wrong, but you nailed it-- to attack anyone for false superiority is to posit yourself as superior (unless you take great pains to demonstrate the other party is still mildly superior or that all parties are equal)

>> No.11383549

>>11383496

His measure is absurd.

What if the pain the dentist produces is greater than the tooth ache? Is the dentist evil then?

But of course, this is also temporal thing. The future pain will be greater than the pain needed to stop it.

Of course, we have masochism. Now pain is evil, but the masochist enjoys pain. Since his pain is transmuted into jouissance, then it is good?

I mean, shit. He's not even wrong. But its such a dull platitude that ti should go without saying. But it does not serve as a definition of evil.

>> No.11383577

>>11383434
didn't recognize the name and you gave a link so I looked-- so this is the book I've heard so much about
just from his introduction I can tell this really is the cringy shit some people claim it is
disappointing

>> No.11383580

>>11383532
you're being overly literal
the dentist is obviously performing a good work in fixing teeth and preventing infection regardless of the transient pain involved, no one is denying that
it's about the bigger picture

>> No.11383588

>>11383549
you're also being too literal
let's just decouple from the pain guy
I'm saying that evil is suffering
if you enjoy pain then you're not suffering, but if you're left with boredom, or a pain you don't enjoy (e.g. losing your mother), then you're suffering

>> No.11383593

>>11383580
It's not obvious that the dentist is doing good work. If pain is evil and the dentist inflicts pain then the dentist is engaging in an evil act regardless of whatever good may come of that act.

Murdering somebody in cold blood by shooting them in the face could result in a lot of good if we suppose the murdered man was a stingy rich man with a kind hearted relative who inherited the fortune and used it to fund research that cures cancer. The end result doesn't change the evil nature of my act of murder.

>> No.11383627

>>11383588

Alright, that's better.

Life is predicated on suffering, something, something Buddhism.


>>11383577

To each his own. But if you are that anon. I am interested in the claim ''I care for all of humanity'', seems impossible and easily falsifiable.

Whatever you think about Stirner's general philosophy (or anti-philosophy), his critique of Humanism is interesting.

>> No.11383647

>>11383627
I am that anon, and I don't see why it's impossible
you'll call this a spook, and it kind of is, but I was taught at a young age that that was the right thing, so I adopted it into my moral code
I'm not perfect but there is not anyone that I do not have basic human respect for; there are things you can do to a person that I think are not deserved by any person, be it Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc.
I didn't read far enough to look at his critique of humanism, maybe I'll do that one of these days

>> No.11383679

>>11383647

Well, you see, your 'care' is more flexible than it was presented. What you're saying here just seems to be ''I don't like the idea of living beings being brutalized''?

As for Stirner's criticism. To put it briefly: ''You can not care for the whole of humanity, you care for an idea of humanity which has its arbitrary parameters.'' There is more, of course, that's a basic gestalt.

>there are things you can do to a person that I think are not deserved by any person

This is interesting. What about the source of this suffering? In this case, other humans. Are they deserving of basic human respect, and fat does that entail? What about people with antisocial personality disorder, they simply can not feel empathy, they do not *care*.

>> No.11383796

>>11383415
I think it really is some kind of white guilt in many cases. My father is an immigrant and even he understands that a border has to be protected, but all of these liberals are actually calling into question things like secure borders and citizenship.

>> No.11384166

>>11380778
You don’t get out much, do you?

>> No.11384270

>>11383679
>Well, you see, your 'care' is more flexible than it was presented. What you're saying here just seems to be ''I don't like the idea of living beings being brutalized''?
what did you think I meant? if we could have a world where no one was unhappy (unless they wanted to be) then I'd support that, but just having basic respect would have to come first along the way to that and is a lot more achievable
>>there are things you can do to a person that I think are not deserved by any person
>This is interesting. What about the source of this suffering? In this case, other humans. Are they deserving of basic human respect, and fat does that entail? What about people with antisocial personality disorder, they simply can not feel empathy, they do not *care*.
I think they are deserving of things like not being tortured, not being isolated more than is reasonable, not being starved, etc.
the most that I think is justified to do to someone is to kill them, but only if they're presenting a clear and present danger to others in the moment with no other options or if they're irredeemable enough and violent enough that you couldn't expose them even to other violent criminals, and lacking empathy would be a major factor in determining that
even then the death should be as quick and painless as possible and their rights such as right to trial, attorney, food, free speech, leaving a will, etc. should be upheld until they're killed

>> No.11384281

>>11379373
It doesn't; evil is potentiality.

It's the privation of good. Auggie was right, yes.

>> No.11384434

>>11384270
>what did you think I meant?

''I absolutely care about every human being'', doesn't carry much subtlety, does it? ''Basic respect'' does not necessitate care for the other.


>world where no one was unhappy (unless they wanted to be)

lol

>> No.11384439

>>11381282
>implying that Slovene aren't germans

>> No.11385105

>>11384434
"absolutely" as in "I mean it"
like I said, I want everyone to be happy as a basic precept, the only thing in the way of that other than the randomness of life is what people do, both other people each person theirself
some people don't deserve a certain level of happiness because of what they've done, but they don't deserve to be unhappy forever, and there are things they deserve even as they're made to be unhappy

>> No.11385359
File: 669 KB, 1000x1450, 1528769614410.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11385359

>>11380584
Yes. If you want a look at whether or not someone is "evil," all you have to do is look at what they write that they expect nobody else to see.

Hitler genuinely felt he was doing the right thing. In fact, given his situation, he probably was. His estimation that Stalin intended to conquer all of Europe was absolutely correct, but he direly overestimated his ability to influence and make nice with the British. He assumed that once France fell that'd be it, the Bongs would pull out and that'd be the end of it. Wrongo. The British Empire (more specifically the banks of the British Empire) wanted him dead, and they got it.

>> No.11386647

>>11379373
Yes. Right about what?

>> No.11386861

>>11382829
The finite is the limited and restricted in relation to another finite beyond it. The infinite is the unrestricted and unlimited, it is not opposed to the finite but exists as the finite. These concepts are not quantitative but qualitative.

A lot of the discussion of evil so far is stupid. For Hegel some finites are more infinite than others, thus the imposition of one on another is not itself evil when it is a higher finitude.

>> No.11386907

>>11379373
http://www.tedhiebert.net/classes/archive/bisia450w14/books/Baudrillard_IntelligenceofEvil.pdf#page=163

>> No.11386936

>>11382754
Underrated post