/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.7518793]

How do you like my definition of evil /lit/?

>Evil:
When one organism appropriates matter over another organism in such a way as to cause a life-threatening detriment or deterioration to the organism that it is appropriating matter away from.


When one plant steals sunlight away from another plant by growing its leaves over top of it--thereby causing the plant underneath to either shrivel and/or die, the sunlight stealing plant is committing an evil over the other plant because it is appropriating life-sustaining matter away from the other plant thereby causing it to suffer biologically.

Theft/murder/etc all basically stems from one thing--that is, the appropriation of matter from one organism away from another.

[Anonymous No.7518797]

Autistic and willingly blind to the existence of emotions.

[Anonymous No.7518799]

What about introducing a bullet to someone

[Anonymous No.7518803]

>>7518799
Logic absurdum.

[Anonymous No.7518806]

>>7518793
yeah but why is that evil

[Anonymous No.7518811]

>>7518793
its fucking shit

[Anonymous No.7518812]

Evil: shit I really don't like

[Anonymous No.7518821]

>>7518793
Evil does not apply no non-aware organisms. If that were the case, everything would be considered evil from the grass under your feet to the lava that "eats" everything in its path. You can't call a lion evil for eating a gazelle, it defeats the purpose of what is evil.

The mentality of evil and good applies only to humans, in high part due to our awareness of morality.

[Anonymous No.7518825]

>7518806
It's my definition of evil.

You can remain nihilistic/skeptical/useless all you want, but I'm getting shit down by building structures of meaning and understanding--you're free to be a poo pooer of everything though--just don't think yourself clever in the least.

[Anonymous No.7518826]

What if you force feed someone pudding until they die?

[Anonymous No.7518832]

>>7518826
What flavor?

[Anonymous No.7518833]

How do you gauge possession of matter? What's proper appropriation look like?
The consequence of this is that every ordered system, all of life, is evil. Even people that breathe too close to you are evil if you possess the oxygen like the plant possesses the sunlight.

[Anonymous No.7518834]

>>7518797
blind to the reality that emotions are the time-relevant tools of a chemical-fueled computer we, in our self-importance, call the human brain

but what do I know, I'm just a cynical edgefag

[Anonymous No.7518836]

>>7518793
It's completely fucking retarded

[Anonymous No.7518841]

>>7518793
>>7518825
>>7518834

Newton's sleep is fucking strong here.

[Anonymous No.7518843]

>>7518821
>If that were the case, everything would be considered evil from the grass under your feet to the lava that "eats" everything in its path.
They are all evil.


>You can't call a lion evil for eating a gazelle
Yes you can.

>The mentality of evil and good applies only to humans, in high part due to our awareness of morality.
Wrong.

Studies show 2-3 year old humans almost always have a phase where they are hyper aggressive and they test out their aggressive behaviors (totally instinctual and unconcious).

It's evil behaviour because it's not having a conscious that makes something evil, it is a physical act that is immutable, like gravity or numbers.

Sure you may use exceptions to disprove a rule (as you fucks love to do) but accidents fall within a special intermittent area (as often laws of physics have special rule breaking principles).

Anyway, you come from a faggy Kantian notion of morality which is pretty gay.

I come from a scientific view point (which is extremely superior).

[Anonymous No.7518847]

>>7518833
Read the OP again, you'll find you'll answer a lot of your own questions.

[Anonymous No.7518849]

>>7518793
theres no evil.

only man

[Anonymous No.7518851]

>>7518843
Why do you waste so much time on shitposts?

[Anonymous No.7518853]

>>7518843
come on man are you even trying

[Anonymous No.7518854]

>>7518851
>gets rekt
>s-stop shit posting
Damage control much?

[Anonymous No.7518864]

Entertaining & well-conceiced, I'd say. What would your definition of evil be if we change the level of analysis from individuals to nation states or, let's say, organizations?

[Anonymous No.7518865]

>>7518854
I only replied with a short shitpost (>>7518836), I'm not really rekt.

[Anonymous No.7518884]

>>7518843
Doesn't your superior scientific viewpoint ask for support to go with claims.

[Anonymous No.7518885]

>>7518793
Eh. "Evil" describes something as being morally wrong. At any given moment, everything is technically taking from everything else. Morality makes it necessary to show that an "evil" organism is one that is deliberately attempting to disadvantage another. Further, if the party committing this "evil" does not perform this evil action, is it still evil, since the organism has disadvantaged itself?

[Anonymous No.7518891]

>>7518793
Very materialist. Very scientific. Very naive.

Is psychological torture evil? Is breaking your word evil? Is abortion evil?

Anyways, the much more philosophically interesting question is how does evil come into the world? For anyone interested in the problem of evil, I'll suggest one of my favorite theories from ancient times: The forms are good and perfect, however matter is imperfect and this imperfection is where evil arises from.

[Anonymous No.7518892]

>>7518864
Ah you misunderstand friend, I don't base it on "individuals" I base it on "organisms" aka, life forms.

A mountain wreath that grows out of the sheer cliffs is perfectly good--and does not infringe on the life of any other (by causing biological deterioration or death by appropriating resources).

Most life that exists on this earth is evil, but there are exceptions where there are life forms that live free of being a burden on any other.

Anyway...

If we applied it widely from organisms to countries/nations--it's just natural selection/social darwinism.

Pretty simple to boil it down.

Life seems to only become more evil as it goes up the food chain and higher in collective count.

[Anonymous No.7518899]

>>7518793
>When one organism appropriates matter over another organism in such a way as to cause a life-threatening detriment or deterioration to the organism that it is appropriating matter away from.

oh god this is the dumbest fucking thing I've seen all week
oh fuck

[Anonymous No.7518901]

>>7518843
>I come from a scientific view point (which is extremely superior).

Gotta admit, that was funny. Do you sharpen your fedora to show off how edgy you are?

Not sure why you would think a lion is evil for eating what was made to be eaten. Care to expand that a bit for me?

And thanks for mentioning Kantian to me. Never heard of him before, but it doesn't make it any less true. Through morality we managed to find what were desirable and non-desirable traits that were favorable in the creation of villages, that evolved to cities, and evolved to empires.

That sounds extremely familiar.

[Anonymous No.7518910]

All things eventually whither and die.

A constant of reality is intrinsically evil.

Competition is evil, differentiation is evil.

Mass extinction is the teleology the "good".

[Anonymous No.7518912]

>>7518901
>And thanks for mentioning Kantian to me

[Anonymous No.7518913]

>>7518891
Platonist please, but you do raise an interesting test to my definition of evil:


>Is psychological torture evil?
Well let's attempt to apply my framework to it. When someone psychologically tortures someone else, are they appropriating matter from the other person so as to cause death or biological deterioration?

I'd say so.

Through the physical act of manipulating sound (aka matter) to utter offensive noises to another organism, thereby causing that organism's biological processes to deteriorate as a result of psychological torture, you are committing an evil.

Boom, you're defeated.

[Anonymous No.7518921]

>>7518913
Hold up, fuccboi.

The torturer isn't appropriating shit. Your framework doesn't fit so neatly.

[Anonymous No.7518923]

OP is a faggot

http://krautchan.net/int/thread-32511053.html

[Anonymous No.7518928]

>>7518913
What do you mean by appropriating

[Anonymous No.7518933]

>>7518793
No
Discernable
Talent.

Can't Write. Can't Think.

[Anonymous No.7518934]

>>7518921
>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/appropriate

>appropriate
>to take or use (something) especially in a way that is illegal, unfair, etc.
>to take or use (something)
>use (something)

Learn English.

[Anonymous No.7518935]

>>7518913
>sound (aka matter)
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HOLY SHIT

[Anonymous No.7518939]

>>7518935
>sound=/=matter

Buddy...

[Anonymous No.7518942]

>>7518934
Ok. Still, sound ain't matter. How is the torturer committing an evil?

[Anonymous No.7518943]

>>7518913

[Anonymous No.7518945]

>>7518939
sound is information. Information is not matter.

[Anonymous No.7518949]

>>7518793

Stupid definition.
So the definition of evil is a 'parasite'.
If that is so, then is the parasite of a parasite evil?

[Anonymous No.7518953]

>>7518942
You're attempt to keep moving goal posts is pathetic.

You're intellectually creampied, bow to my sentience or offer up something constructive.

What I hate about /lit/ is that it's full of bickering brats instead of thinking men who engage with proposed ideas--nobody runs with anything around here, they just start semantic arguments and one-way hash cluster fucks.

Pathetic and amateur.

[Anonymous No.7518952]

OP you seem horribly attached to your own ideas. You introduce this as a concept and there are some people that have genuinely engaged with it but you're still treating the whole discussion eristically and explaining your way around things. By your tone and the way you're setting up situations you either introduced this definition of evil because you think it's brilliant and you don't want to have a real discussion about it, or you introduced it sincerely and are crumbling under the criticism you're receiving.

[Anonymous No.7518955]

U wot Kant? If u don't shut your mouf in a minute and stop Hegelling our clientelle I'll av to Sharpenour peeler and stick it right up your Popper. Hume do you think you are? U must have a right big pair of Rawls coming in here chatting shit. Me and the boys will Sartre you out once and for all and if you think this is a joke don't come A cwyin ass back to me. l Sock rats easy believe me.

[Anonymous No.7518962]

>>7518939
Definition of sound from Merriam-Webster:
>mechanical radiant energy that is transmitted by longitudinal pressure waves in a material medium (as air) and is the objective cause of hearing
>mechanical radiant energy
>energy

[Anonymous No.7518966]

>>7518962
energy is matter.

[Anonymous No.7518970]

And what's your definition of good?

[Anonymous No.7518973]

>>7518970
Read the thread next time:

>>7518892
>A mountain wreath that grows out of the sheer cliffs is perfectly good--and does not infringe on the life of any other (by causing biological deterioration or death by appropriating resources).

[Anonymous No.7518977]

>>7518953
Your attempt to avoid a valid point is pathetic.

[Anonymous No.7518981]

>>7518977
I am?

>>7518942
>How is the torturer committing an evil?
By causing the biological deterioration of another organism through the appropriation of matter.

Boom, you're intellectually creampied.

[Anonymous No.7518984]

>>7518901
"they call it the counterbait, only the finest masters can wrangle this awesome martial technique"

[Anonymous No.7518994]

>mfw this thread

[Anonymous No.7518999]

Really it's not that hard a concept to get. I'm not even sure why I thought the cretins on this board would understand it, but I've got plenty of time to shoot you down one by one.

It's okay to admit you've failed to define morality as well and concisely as I have. Just accept that it's a scientific deficiency inherent in the pitiful systems you call your intellects. When this definition shines on down the ages I'll be the one on top and you won't be able to appropriate the matter of my genius anymore like the bullies you are.

You know maybe you would all be better at this if you read some real books, like those by Dr. Dawkins or Dr. Tyson.

[Anonymous No.7519000]

Evil: Something on which a determined majority of people is against.

[Anonymous No.7519002]

>>7518999
>>7519000
nice trips

[Anonymous No.7519003]

Stupid person: I hate evil people.

Me, smart: Actually, there's no such thing as evil.

[Anonymous No.7519004]

>>7518999

[Anonymous No.7519036]

Let's go with your definition.

Can anybody, as part of their very being, be evil? Or is it that people can act in an evil manner and this action is the only sort of evil in the world?

[Anonymous No.7519044]

>>7519036
How quaint. I think you'll find that my definition covers this droll perspective extensively.

Read my posts next time >>7518981 >>7518913

Boom, defeated.

[Anonymous No.7519059]

>>7519036
>Can anybody, as part of their very being, be evil?
Pretty much--most life forms are evil.

To qualify as being "good" you must appropriate resources without causing harm or deterioration to any other organism.

Plants are capable of this because their survival is from minerals, water, and the sun. The second a plant steals any of these away from another organism, it is evil.

Very finicky rules, but thems the rules.

Maybe one day we can create solar powered a.i. robot probes that are truly "good" beings but that's a long way aways.

[Anonymous No.7519073]

>>7518891
>Is abortion evil?

Yes, murdering babies is evil.

[Anonymous No.7519079]

>>7519003
i have a twitter too.

[Anonymous No.7519080]

Sounds similar to Deleuze's explication of Spinoza:
...there is no evil (in itself), but there is that which is bad (for me): "Those things are good which bring about the preservation of the relation of motion and rest the human body's parts have to one another; on the other hand, those things are bad which bring it about that the parts of the human body have a different relation of motion and rest to one another."4 Every object whose relation agrees with mine (convenientia) will be called good; every object whose relation decomposes mine, even though it agrees with other relations, will be called bad (disconvenientia).

[Anonymous No.7519092]

>>7518843
As a physicist who browses /lit/, I laugh at your shitposting.
You sound like someone who took a 200 level intro to scientific theory and thinks they know shit.

Being evil is a 'moral' distinction, anything lacking a conscious cannot be described by morality.

[Anonymous No.7519109]

>>7518793
wrong

Evil is generally understood as immoral
You cannot ignore this connotation
Evil is thus not an intrinsic or extrinsic motivator
It's a descriptor, applied to a narrative by a third onlooker
Evil is an intrinsically or extrinsically motivated breachment of a system
intrinsically or extrinsically motivated breachment of a system = immoral

animals and plantlife are motivated solely by self preservation
in this case appropriation of matter functions as part of a system
appropriation of matter is not Evil

appropriation of matter commited by man is not Evil when the motivation behind does not interfere with pre-existing systems

[Anonymous No.7519110]

Check these evil dubs

[Anonymous No.7519125]

>>7518793
>Organism

Fair enough I suppose. I don't think many people would argue that there is no evil within cosmic events or natural disasters. Inanimate objects suffer from no evil.

>appropriates matter.
Seems unnecessarily formal and ambiguous but Its applied sensibly.

>cause a life-threatening detriment
Wrong. There are plenty of "evil" things that people do that do not threaten a person's life.

Water-boarding has a very low chance of killing the subject, but inflicts what FEELS like drowning. Is it evil? Almost absolutely so.

But even then, I would argue that its ONLY evil insofar as it is done for its own end.

I think it must be acknowledged that evil can only exist when the perpetrator KNOWS what they're doing is wrong. The lesser of two evils, or evil deeds done with "the best intentions" are ultimately not evil in my eyes.

The spanish inquisition can be viewed from the modern day as an "evil" event which inflicted immense suffering and harm, but I don't believe that this view is very honest given that it completely neglects the fact that the inquisitors did what they did in the hope of saving the "IMMORTAL" souls of victims.

Theft is not really evil, especially given that much of it is done out of (to my knowledge) desperation or necessity. The only time it would be "evil" would be when it is done intentionally for the purpose of harming another for its own sake and no other.

Evil is not a term to be applied liberally.

[Anonymous No.7519160]

>>7519110
>one away from trips
Now this is true evil.

[Anonymous No.7519162]

You're taking evil as a relationship bewteen two individual organisms.
FFS let's even say that you have used better concepts, scuh as the cruel.
You're taking individuals (organisms) rather than individuations, by failing to understand that your conception of evil (why such a concept that introduces morality ?) is purely originating from organisms taken on one-on-one situations or in a closed circuit, with limited energy.
This situation makes a reverse ontogenesis and forces a shift between your redistribution of energy and individuals : there's energy BEFORE the individual.

However, you're totally forgetting a crucial aspect of the situation. One of the defining aspect of organisms,adaptation, restructuration, and new distribution of energy is completly left behind by your initial intuition.
You're also supposing that individuations only consist in growth, but why consider so easily that plant B (concealed from the sun by plant A) is threatened BY (and that is the important word) A ? A simpler solution would be to consider that the total amount of energy is redistributed and that a node grows while another shrinks.
Your concept is obsolete because it serves to describe a bad situation. There's a gap between your inuition and your concept. You wanted to be edgy and willfully ignorant of emotions, yet you fail miserably to be scientific, and you introduce emotions when they're not needed.

[Anonymous No.7519297]

>>7518984
it's only dumb m8

[Anonymous No.7520411]

>>7518843

[Anonymous No.7520436]

>>7518843

>I come from a scientific view point (which is extremely superior).

I could literally hear you delicate ego quiver in self-assurance as you typed that.

[Anonymous No.7520439]

>>7518843

>I come from a scientific view point (which is extremely superior).

I could literally hear your delicate ego quiver in self-assurance as you typed that.

[Anonymous No.7520440]

How do you apply your definition to someone throwing acid to someone?

[Anonymous No.7520446]

>>7518793
May sound random but are you by chance communist or similar leftist belief system?

[Anonymous No.7520484]

>>7520446
Nope, I'm more like a hermit/have a god-complex.

[Anonymous No.7520488]

Evil is an abstract determination of thought.

[Anonymous No.7520489]

Dat shit I don't like

[Anonymous No.7520491]

>>7518966
HOLY FUCKING KEK

[Anonymous No.7520492]

>>7520484
Read: massive faggot

[Anonymous No.7520777]

>implying that something with a history can be defined

[Anonymous No.7520807]

>>7518793

Given that it makes it evil for cows to eat grass, I'd say it's a pretty useless definition.

[Anonymous No.7520832]

evil is an illusion

[Anonymous No.7520840]

>>7518913
>Boom, you're defeated.

[Anonymous No.7520914]

>>7518821
>The mentality of evil and good applies only to humans, in high part due to our awareness of morality.

You're right but not completely. Evil applies anywhere there is an expectation of cooperation. Evil is valuing your own good over the good of your tribe (neighbors/family/team/group/whatever).
>>7518843
I'm glad you're being panned as an idiot, because you are one. Your definition of evil totally misses the actual heinous aspect of evil-as-humans-experience-it. Betrayal. It is evil to embezzle money because it places your own profit above the profit of those who made that profit available to you in good faith of being compensated fairly for their trouble.

[Anonymous No.7520931]

>>7519059
No you're still dumb. When a plant uses a resource it removes the possibility of that resource being used by another life-form, and so it is thieving potential-to-survive from any life forms similar enough to itself to survive on the same resources. The plant passively prevents the possibility of other life, and so is evil, according to you.

This is really why your definition is fucking stupid. If everything is evil by your definition (and it is), then the entire concept of evil becomes meaningless and useless. And evil isn't a useless concept. When a man embezzles money from his company there is another layer of heinous betrayal there that is beyond simple animal predation, or vegetable absorption of minerals. The word evil, as used today, not your stupid definition, captures that sense of heinous selfish betrayal.