Good exists because there is a universal good like breathable air, but evil is simply there all the time. So as a concept it doesn't exist.
Kant was a coward and Nietzsche an even bigger one. Heidegger is the man that gets it.
Evil doesn't exist
Good exists because there is a universal good like breathable air, but evil is simply there all the time. So as a concept it doesn't exist.
Kant was a coward and Nietzsche an even bigger one. Heidegger is the man that gets it.
Good is light, evil is darkness
Evil doesn’t really exist per say, but it simply an absence of good.
Thomists…
If good is light and darkness evil then we live in a winter north pole where the sun never shines.
What I'm saying is that the only good is breathable air and the rest is dubious at best.
or we live in a cave…
Nobody is born evil.....So while Evil exist there is always a motive or causality.
What do y'all think of senseless evil in humans,does it exist?.
He talks about the fact that Nobody is Evil for Evil Sake...
They talk about the possibility of The Good Eye in the future analyzing heroes..
Why not the other way around?
Good is an absence of evil. So just the breathable air.
Correct, St. Augustine was right and evil is merely the privation of good.
The point is that when you turn your back on what is good, then you are left with a void. Evil can occur here but the void that allows for evil to exist can only come into existence if there is a privation of good.
All evil done is only ever done to one's self.
Of Plato's 5 regimes to which belonged Socrates?
Exactly.
What do you think about a human who do Evil for its won for evil for evil sake?.
>evil doesn't exist
Don't care. Try telling a victim of childhood abuse, or a man with his life ruined by war, or a young person left disabled by a random attack that his experience of reality is enriched by the existence of your "universal", or that the evil which he knows intimately is fundamentally unreal by the lack of this impalpable quality. You can accuse me of being unphilosophical, but good and evil lose their intrinsically human meaning when they are reduced to abstractions. They are direct conscious experiences, only existing insofar as they manifest to us. In this sense, evil and good are equally real.
Even though there is no darkness as a force, a plant will still die if it’s placed in darkness.
Likewise, while there is no force of evil, there is the absence of good we call evil that harms those that are in it, like the plant that is harmed when it’s placed in darkness.
What we must strive to do, then, is identify what the good is and use it to attack the evil, bringing our allegorical plant out of the darkness and into the light of the sun.
Light always drives out darkness.
What about artificial light? There is no human plant today that sees the light of the sun.
Shadows and artificial light is our world.
But can a human be born evil?
Either every human is evil or none are.
Impossible.
Every human is capable of some degree
evil, but some are born with more capability of wickedness than others. Such as those that lack conscious or feel little to no remorse for acts others would.
>more capability of wickedness
Those that are abused.
But Scientists who study brain and heredity says that Genetics play a role in this,what do you think about psychopathy,narcissism and brain tumors,brain damage influence in this behavior.?
For example,no abuse but genetics and brain tumor cause this what your perception of this person would be?.
>genetics
Epigenetics.
This makes you feel a bit better doesn't it?
So what do you think about humans who are born evil?
Nietzche had no wife, no heirs, no money, no Patek, no irl conquests and you're telling me I should be taking übermensch advice from his Reddit ass?
he had threesome with that salome girl and his friend during their trip.i even had the full picrel
Plato didn't either. Why does it matter?
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/the_grass_is_always_greener_on_the_other_side
I love the idea of the infinite torture of the samsara. This guy was onto something for sure.
You avoid it by stopping the compulsion.
Or by accelerating it.
Evil does exist and only naive people think it doesn't.
Say it.
Give me evil.
The title "Beyond Good & Evil" is engaging with Hegel, and largely in agreement-- it's ab extra to knowledge, truth ect.
How’s 7th grade going?
This post sort of reminds me of one of Nietzsche's aphorisms where he asked whether free will exists or not and answered by saying the question is a waste of time and there is just will, everything else is just speculation done after the fact in an attempt to provide justification or meaning. If you are still reducing things to good and evil then you likely did not understand what Nietzsche had to say, if you prefer Heidegger there is nothing wrong with that but it in no way shape or form indicates Heidegger was right over anyone else. The pic related has spawned a variety of interpretations, and even Nietzsche ran into some issues with it, I have even seen some Kantian arguments that seem to use it as a basis for a sort of Nietzschean categorical imperative wherein the argument usually goes something to the effect that you should act in such a way that you would be content to repeat the action a number of times that approach or could include infinity. As with most arguments involving Nietzsche there are also aphorisms that seem to indicate he was not attempting to take it in that direction.
What do you think about the school of thought that Determinism is false and Limitless Free Will is true?.
Here´s the thought.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_(metaphysics)
I am not intimately familiar with 'libertarian metaphysics' but I did read the article. I would say some of what Nietzsche said is applicable, the notion is a sort of offshoot of the political idea and one which is born of necessity to justify the political opinion. This is a common theme in western society, sort of a necessary lie of sorts to make the system justified. The article makes reference to Epicurean thought which was already borne of observation and already seemingly compatibilitist, Nietzsche himself seemed to have a mixed opinion of Epicurean thinking. Science can explain certain things but may never be able to provide meaning for them, the juxtaposition results in what Nietzsche referred to as something along the lines of 'inherently odd' thought. Non-western societies have used similar or identical mathematical and scientific concepts to accomplish similar material outcomes and did not become libertarian. Western societies have been using the same methods for some time and are becoming less libertarian as time progresses. In my mind this seems to indicate that there may not be anywhere near as much authority in deriving morality from science as the libertarians seem to believe there is, but that is true for everyone since science cannot provide morality. The justification after the fact is an attempt to provide meaning I suppose.
I am glad with your answer,if you want clarification here´s the article regarding Nietzsche and Free will.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche_and_free_will
The article was quite good for a Nietzsche Wikipedia piece, the variety of sources was nice since Nietzsche's derivations tend to be all over the map on most things. I have generally subscribed to a belief that Nietzsche was almost making some of these derivations seemingly to counter actual people or in this case other philosophers, for instance: God is dead and we have killed him. The statement presupposes the existence of God and it sort of functions to say lacking belief killed God, this statement is seemingly more directed at people rather than one born of a sort of defined logic, either God exists or it doesn't, it is really that simple and if God doesn't exist then the presupposition is materially not relevant to the statement, and even if God did exist simply not believing in it would likely not kill it. The article references some of Nietzsche's derivations about the nature of humans and based on other aphorisms scattered about his writings the notion is more or less one designed for imperfect consumption. This is a common trait amongst some of the topics that the article mentions. We can even look at some of his statements about randomness and chance, they were geared mostly for statistical methodology of the time and retained validity and possibly still retain validity now but statistics has taken directions recently that do tend to emphasize causation more than correlation in certain circumstances. A Nietzschean response would likely be something along the lines that the inherent mechanism we use to filter our actions was already performing the process and the mathematical representation is becoming closer to this, and that may possess validity. This also gets into certain areas of Nietzsche that start to defragment as you analyze them due to some of the derivations he made at different times, Nietzsche may take one position but use wildly varying logic to assert it, then he may take another position that is meant as a counter but use more traditional thinking, sometimes he will simply just remove both from consideration entirely and make it a sort of materialistic determination with no discernable meaning. The result is a sort of strange wienertail of ideas that are seemingly designed just for what Nietzsche more or less wanted to say and done in such a way as to baffle the opposition, convince others without opposition, or demonstrate that the actual outcome had nothing to do with the methods themselves insofar as I have been able to determine at least. Perhaps the most plausible explanation just goes back go how he inherently viewed humans to be.
>answered by saying the question is a waste of time and there is just will
applies to almost all philosophy. and by almost all I mean almost nothing considered philosophy is possible to express unambiguously let alone is actually answerable
>if you are looking for express and direct answers then you are looking in the wrong place.
>if you are looking for some sort of justification for your chosen morality then you are likely talking to the wrong person.
>if you still need the previous dichotomies then you should start over again with the wisdom of more ancient thinkers.
evil is wrongdoings subjective to each culture,
how true they are, it depends on which regime is ruling at the moment,
for "might makes right" is the only actual power to actually make good and evil mean anything
>Good exists because there is a universal good like breathable air
>Good exists because good exists
Yeah, well, that's just like, your opinion, man.
Is jerking off to kiddie porn vigorously a universal thing to you, per se?
Breathable air, lmao. Tell that to anaerobic bacteria or the fish that die when exposed to it. Are you moralgays unable to think outside of what only benefits humans? And you wonder why you can't even define morality.
>breathable air
>universal good
baby's first try at metaphysics
Holy frick that quote is insane, which book did he write such wisdom in. He's truly one of the greatest philosophers of all time
Evil does not exist just as Good does not exist. The two words have no meaning outside a moralist point of view. Religion and culture are the main reasons why people want to use these categories. Your own doing is always good and the opposition is always evil. My man Xunzi claimed that man is born evil and can only achieve goodness through rectification by education. If left unchecked most people would probably gravitate to something that would be considered evil. Stirner is right that the idea of goodness is nothing but an excuse to justify the enslavement of the Western societies.
Saying "evil doesn't exist, only the absence of good" is the same as saying "3 doesn't exist, only 2+1".
These are some naive perspectives. Maybe half of people are evil. It's more than the shopping cart problem. There is a gnawing, crawling, dissolution of reality, of grim madness and death, that hosts into people and spreads, taking over more and more minds.
Maybe evil exist but either way you're a completely useless idiot.
Maybe there's some people that everyone here can agree are evil. Maybe the people worshiping plague and death, that refuse to bathe or wash, and instead burn incense to hide the fact - maybe those people are evil. Maybe the people still doing human sacrifice and boiling children alive, maybe those people are evil.
Maybe exterminating all of them wouldn't necessarily be "good" on principle. So what's a decent or at least neutral perspective? Keep them contained in one area? Sure.
What are people doing instead though, because they have this naive moronic idea, that evil doesn't exist? Just import and spread damnation everywhere with them, for money.
Evil absolutely exists. If you're so spoiled that you've never dealt with it, then maybe you shouldn't be in charge of important societal decisions.