Absence of good

[Anonymous No.23279555]

Cold is lack of heat,Darkness is absence of light and evil is lack of good.
How does /lit/ think of this argument in a general and metaphysical way?is evil just an act and not a substance?can evil create anything in the same way good can?.

[Anonymous No.23279565]

>>23279555
in order to be bad, you have to be a bad something. Everything that is, is something, or it is not anything and therefore also not anything bad. But in order to be something, you have to be minimally good at being that something. Even a bad apple is an apple, and therefore must be good enough at being an apple in order to be an apple, else it could not be neither an apple nor a bad apple. A bad apple is something that is good enough to be an apple, but still lacks some goodness for being a good apple. The bad cannot exist without the good, but the good is independent of the bad. Being and Goodness are interchangable.

[Anonymous No.23279579]

>>23279565
Thanks!

[Anonymous No.23279587]

>>23279565
conflating two different meanings of words is not lit

[Anonymous No.23279641]

>>23279555
>___YES___

Matter is hypercondensate Light. 'Privation of the good' could be said to be being unavailable for Absolute Knowing by virtue of being incapable of being-beside-oneself [a BEHOLDER] as opposed to being-BEHOLDEN-to-particularity (compelled and bound by the contingent and mutable as a False/Bad Infinite, what gnostics dimly conceive of as le Demiurge).

That said, transgression as such may or may not be 'moral' (e.g. Pharisees); what is Evil is EXCESS (ab extra)-- it's about rigidly conforming to self-interest or a personal advantage standpoint of gain/advantage, consciously as negating others', unconsciously in ignorance (what's the harm if it cannot be attributed or one made to be held to account).

[Anonymous No.23279712]

>>23279555
It’s the basis of my metaphysics why?

[Anonymous No.23279727]

>>23279555
"""evil""" doesnt exist you christcuck slave mental midget; there exists only ideals & less-than-ideals

[Anonymous No.23279755]

>>23279727
>"""evil""" doesnt exist
Yes, that is precisely the point. Good exists, evil does not, only lack of the good. Retarded Nietzscheposter.

[Anonymous No.23279773]

>>23279755
whats this universal, elemental "good" then, which "evil" is universally, elemantally a lack of?

[Anonymous No.23279835]

>>23279773
Quite simply, happiness, a good which once obtained has nothing better, for it is a state made perfect by the presence of all that is good, and which all men seek. Evil then would be the lack of this happiness, or a corruption, or a false form of happiness, since there is no real opposite or alternative to happiness than un-happiness. Or do you disagree?

[Anonymous No.23279842]

>>23279835
What do you think about evil for evil sake?.
A subject who behave in this form.

[Anonymous No.23279852]

>anons attempt to define good & evil, eclectic boogaloo

[Anonymous No.23279888]

>>23279555
"Good" is fundamentally subjective concept enforced only by might.
What is "good" for (You) is not for others, for jews "good" is eternal suffering and ultimate humiliation of all non-jews.

What in the end ultimately matters is the power to enforce that belief into reality and that's it.
By the way, I don't mean you cocksucking faggots that morality doesn't matter, I mean that your "objective good" won't save you when your family is being raped to death by jewniggers, only power to defeat them instead will.

[Anonymous No.23279936]

>>23279835
You think everyone experiences happiness in the same way?
>>23279888
based poste. it seems very silly to me for philosophizing types to attempt formulating an understanding of """objective""" good/evil in a world like this, in which different organisms & people & classes & such possess mutually exclusive, competing, incompatible needs & desires. what's """good""" for the lion isnt """good""" for the zebra isnt """good""" for the vulture isnt """good""" for the maggots

[Anonymous No.23280065]

>>23279587
I think that I am /lit/

[Anonymous No.23280095]

>>23279936
>what's """good""" for the lion isnt """good""" for the zebra isnt """good""" for the vulture isnt """good""" for the maggots
>>23279888
>What is "good" for (You) is not for others, for jews "good" is eternal suffering and ultimate humiliation of all non-jews.

Hate this undergrad twaddle. And what is evil is this arena of mutually exclusive goods. evil is that which causes suffering. disease, death, and predation hone species into lethally beautiful killing machines, or prey animals. ergo: evil is productive and a positive principle.

[Anonymous No.23280099]

If you think the universe is ultimately good, then evil will be understood as a lack. If the universe was ultimately evil, then goodness could be put in that same place, as a gap in the fabric of evil, or a plant growing from a crack in asphalt.

A spider dissolves its agonizing prey. Is that spider evil? Should the spider not do this? Is there something missing or lacking, that, if given to the spider, would turn it to good? To the spider, it's just a delicious meal.

On a human level, I prefer to think we are inherently evil, that evil always win and that goodness is something rare and doomed to fail. I don't think it is like so for real, just that it is useful to me, saves me from frustration when trying to do good, I understand it takes effort, it costs us something and that we must acknowledge that cost.

[Anonymous No.23280105]

">The absence of good (Latin: privatio boni), also known as the privation theory of evil,[1] is a theological and philosophical doctrine that evil, unlike good, is insubstantial, so that thinking of it as an entity is misleading. Instead, evil is rather the absence, or lack ("privation"), of good.[2][3][4] This also means that everything that exists is good, insofar as it exists;[5][6] and is also sometimes stated as that evil ought to be regarded as nothing,[7] or as something non-existent.[8][9][10]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absence_of_good

[Anonymous No.23280718]

>>23280095
>evil is that which causes suffering

[Anonymous No.23280736]

I don't know if good exists, but I know evil does.
I don't know what else to call someone who tortures and rapes for sexual pleasure.

[Anonymous No.23280741]

>>23280736
someone who has misconceived the good, just don't think about it too hard and order a pizza. life is good :)

[Anonymous No.23280744]

>>23280095
>evil is productive and a positive principle
COLDSTEEL

[Anonymous No.23280773]

I don't know if a person like what I am about to describe exists.
A millionaire, a king, a person with so much power he can will whatever he wants into the world and change it forever.
This person is a hateful hedonist, a sexual sadist who enjoys indulging in the most extreme of pleasures, no matter what.
This person has a corrupting presence: The people who are useful to him are dragged down to his level, transformed into the same as he is. There is a trickle down effect that managed to reach even the lowest of humans. All institutions are hollowed out under his rule.
This person is sustaining himself on the work of countless individuals whom he regards as little more than slaves. He is draining the world of resources and polluting it, he keeps the bread and circus running, the people fighting each other. The only things he builds are monuments to his own ego, as if to mock the reality that allows him to exist.
It's like a void made flesh. A thing that only destroys and cause misery. All values are rendered meaningless under his immense power. He lives it up everyday as he destroys reality a little but more. Hateful creature of lust.

[Anonymous No.23280779]

>>23280773
All of these things are subjective :) It's just you trying to express a subjective preference as an objective fact. learn to be more tolerant, okay?

[Anonymous No.23280867]

Evil is just an absence of good, but it still can harm.
Cold is an absence of heat, but it will cause you to freeze to death.
Darkness is an absence of light, but plants will die in it.

Be a torch in a cold and dark world, radiating warmth and light

[Anonymous No.23280891]

>>23280867
>thing that doesn't exist has properties

[Anonymous No.23280991]

>>23279555
Language games

[Anonymous No.23281022]

>>23279587
Which senses or meanings am I conflating?

>>23279773
>Doesn't know that goodness, just like being, is spoken of in many ways.
>Is unaware of Aristotle's criticism of Plato in EN I
spoken like a true Nietzschean. Maybe someday you will understand Aristotle's and the Scholatics' theory of the Transcendentals and the Interchangability of Being with Goodness.

[yogurt666greece No.23281047]

you try to appeal to reason, but I do not believe in any universal called reason. There are no universals! Everything is subjective, therefore you cannot define what is objectively good or objectively true. Also you cannot define what is objectively bad.

[Anonymous No.23281052]

>>23281022
Good is negative, evil is positive. A blind man doesn't lack the property of vision in the same way a wicked man lacks a conscience. Do they lack the same amount of Being? How do we distinguish the privations that we associate with evil?

[Anonymous No.23281055]

>>23281047
I define what is objectively bad as this mixture of universals vying for dominance. Easy peasy

[Anonymous No.23281818]

>>23279727
wait until you are tortured for years and then tell me again

[Anonymous No.23281965]

>>23280718
Better never to have been

[Anonymous No.23282110]

>>23280718
How the fuck could you know there is more pain than pleasure? Pleasure can be as something small as laughing or having a snack mind you

[Anonymous No.23282580]

>>23281052
I think that you have forgotten to argue for your position or to refute the argument to which you initially replied >>23279565

You simply claimed the opposite (namely that evil is "positive" whereas good is "negative" - which I take as stating that not"evil" is the privative term, but rather "good").
You have not demonstrated any confusion of senses. As far as I see it, you mentioned that if metaphysical evil were a privation of goodness or being, you would not know off the hook how to distinguish between different types of privations. But this shouldn't be taken to be some criticism of the privational theory of evil as much as it tells about your lack (!) of understanding of the teleological structure of the natural world.

[Anonymous No.23282603]

>>23280773
The egregore of Western liberalism.

[Anonymous No.23282814]

>>23281965
thats debatable, but i'm still going to try to stay alive for as long as possible
>>23282110
merely existing in isolation without engaging in recreations to distract oneself from actively experiencing ones own consciousness & existence is literal torture; happiness is a cookie with which your brain rewards you for slavishly fulfilling the endless demands of your body

[Anonymous No.23282827]

>>23280099
>On a human level, I prefer to think we are inherently evil, that evil always win and that goodness is something rare and doomed to fail. I don't think it is like so for real, just that it is useful to me, saves me from frustration when trying to do good, I understand it takes effort, it costs us something and that we must acknowledge that cost.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=652FHukzIlA>>23281818
>>23281818
>wait until you are tortured for years and then tell me again
i wouldnt enjoy it, but does that malevolence & sadism make my torturer """evil"""? what if in their view i deserve to be tortured for years?

[Anonymous No.23282894]

>>23279555
Cold and darkness are the default states of material existence. The implication is that evil is the default state of moral existence. But that is wrong. Indifference is the lack of good.

[Anonymous No.23283029]

>>23282580
I hate smug privatio boni cuckolds. Easily refuted by a cancer: a good cancer, an excellent cancer, is a privation that spreads, well, like a cancer. How can an absence, a lack, or a defect, be virulent?

[Anonymous No.23283114]

>>23283029
Deprivations exist in substances which although have some being, lack some further being. And these substances can also deprive other substances. We call this the spread of the deprivation.

>>23280891
Unicorns are fictional creatures.
Evil can harm.

[Anonymous No.23283125]

>>23283114
>Deprivations exist in substances which although have some being, lack some further being
Then you have no grounds to assert the interchangeability of Being and Goodness. At most, Being is a necessary but not sufficient condition for goodness.

[Anonymous No.23283441]

>>23279565
X is good when it is good at not being non-X (a saint free of defilements)

X is evil when it is good at being non-X (a tiger honed by biology to kill in order to survive)

Good is negative, evil is positive. What's your answer to the tiger problem? If (1) Evil causes harm, (2) Predators cause harm, then (3) Predators are evil. The whole food cycle is evil.

[Anonymous No.23283474]

>>23283125
Forget this post. You did prove that Being is a necessary and sufficient condition of Goodness because a bad apple has to be good enough at being an apple before it can qualify as being a bad one. I see the error in my logic.

Good is independent of evil, but goodness is not Being. That's my position

[yogurt666greece No.23285445]

>>23283441
you are making a biconditional out of a conditional in your "tiger problem" syllogism
3 does not follow from 1 and 2.
Your syllogism is
> If something is evil, it causes harm. (For all x: If x is F then x is G)
> If something is a predator, then it causes harm (For all x: if x is H, then it is G)
> Therefore: If something is a predator, it is evil (For all x: If x is H, then it is F)
This simply is not formally valid. Consider the following:
> If something is a cat, it is an animal (For all x: if x is F then it is G)
> If something always lands on its legs, it is an animal (For all x: if x is H, then it is G) [assuming that only cats always land on their feet]
> Therefore: If something is an animal, it is a cat. (for all x: if x is H, then it is F)
It is quite late for me and I enjoyed a few drinks at the bar, but it seems to me, that you would be well advised to learn some basic logic before diving into metaphysics. I don't want to sound like a regular 4 channer, I think that I am well meaning. But maybe i am just too drunk to realize my own mistake.

Further you are conflating different ways of speaking about causation. Properly speaking, only a substance (material, formal or hylomorphic) can be a cause, but improperly speaking, privations, which are not substances, can also be causes. (see >>23283114)

Also, you seem to have not realized that the privational theory of evil comes with the thesis that being is NOT a single and unified genus.
> As the Philosopher says in Metaphysics 5.7, ‘being’ has two senses. In one sense, being signifies that which is divided into the ten categories; in another sense, that which signifies the truth of propositions. The difference between these is that in the second sense, anything can be called a being about which an affirmative proposition can be formed, even if the thing posits nothing in reality. In this way, privations and negations are called beings, as when we say that affirmation is opposed to negation, or that blindness is in the eye. But in the first sense, nothing can be called a being unless it posits something in reality, and thus in this first sense blindness and similar things are not beings.

And last, but not least, even if it were true that the entire food cycle is evil, that would neither prove nor refute the privational theory of evil.

[Anonymous No.23285462]

>>23283441
>What is your answer to the tiger problem?
you are making a biconditional out of a conditional in your "tiger problem" syllogism
3 does not follow from 1 and 2.
Your syllogism is
> If something is evil, it causes harm. (For all x: If x is F then x is G)
> If something is a predator, then it causes harm (For all x: if x is H, then it is G)
> Therefore: If something is a predator, it is evil (For all x: If x is H, then it is F)
This simply is not formally valid. Consider the following:
> If something is a cat, it is an animal (For all x: if x is F then it is G)
> If something always lands on its legs, it is an animal (For all x: if x is H, then it is G) [assuming that only cats always land on their feet]
> Therefore: If something is an animal, it is a cat. (for all x: if x is H, then it is F)
It is quite late for me and I enjoyed a few drinks at the bar, but it seems to me, that you would be well advised to learn some basic logic before diving into metaphysics. I don't want to sound like a regular 4 channer, I think that I am well meaning. But maybe i am just too drunk to realize my own mistake.

Further you are conflating different ways of speaking about causation. Properly speaking, only a substance (material, formal or hylomorphic) can be a cause, but improperly speaking, privations, which are not substances, can also be causes. (see >>23283114)

Also, you seem to have not realized that the privational theory of evil comes with the thesis that being is NOT a single and unified genus.
> As the Philosopher says in Metaphysics 5.7, ‘being’ has two senses. In one sense, being signifies that which is divided into the ten categories; in another sense, that which signifies the truth of propositions. The difference between these is that in the second sense, anything can be called a being about which an affirmative proposition can be formed, even if the thing posits nothing in reality. In this way, privations and negations are called beings, as when we say that affirmation is opposed to negation, or that blindness is in the eye. But in the first sense, nothing can be called a being unless it posits something in reality, and thus in this first sense blindness and similar things are not beings.

And last, but not least, even if it were true that the entire food cycle is evil, that would neither prove nor refute the privational theory of evil.

[Anonymous No.23285561]

>>23285462
I intuitively feel that privatio boni is wrong but I struggle expressing at this level of rigor. I have never taken a logic class. I think there are conclusions you can come to the nature of evil and suffering that don't depend on me taking a logic class, but I appreciate the breakdown regardless.

[Anonymous No.23286173]

Btw, there is an excellent chapter in Aristotle's Categories on the question "Are stones blind, since they cannot see?" and his answer is no. Already in the Categories, Aristotle dives deep into logic and biology. Initially I wanted to post some Aristotle pasta, but I finally decided that you should read the thing in it's entirety for yourself. Let me tell you that this is my favourite passage in this work. Have fun reading it!

[Anonymous No.23286189]

>>23285561
I think that it is very ill-advised to arrive your metaphysics by intuitions ("it is my gut feeling that it is wrong") rather than by rigourous and painstakingly autistic thinking. But I do admit that gut feelings *should* have their place too. But they should be initial in the order of inquiry and should not be regarded as having great decisive power. Aristotle always starts with the endoxa before starting anew with the phainomenoi