IS EVIL REAL? OR, LIKE GOD, A HUMAN INVENTION?

[Simon Paynton]

@unseen – if you define something such that it cannot exist, then the reason it doesn’t exist is its definition.  That’s not an interesting or useful reason for saying something doesn’t exist.  It’s a trivial tautology to point out that X logically impossible thing is logically impossible.

[Unseen]

Simon Paynton wrote:

@unseen – if you define something such that it cannot exist, then the reason it doesn’t exist is its definition. That’s not an interesting or useful reason for saying something doesn’t exist. It’s a trivial tautology to point out that X logically impossible thing is logically impossible.

That’s stupid. So the reasons unicorns or leprechauns don’t exist is by definition. So, by that logic, there really are unicorns and leprechauns. Where may I see them?

[Simon Paynton]

You’ve defined Evil as something that only living things can display in their behaviour, but that doesn’t need living things to exist.  Yes it needs living things, no it doesn’t need living things.

At least, you’ve allowed that definition to stand.

[Davis]

Simon Paynton wrote:

You’ve defined Evil as something that only living things can display in their behaviour, but that doesn’t need living things to exist.  Yes it needs living things, no it doesn’t need living things. At least, you’ve allowed that definition to stand.

This is a pretty poor interpretation of Unseen’s total response to your questions and criticism. If beings who cannot make any decisions or judgements don’t exist, then no one would have ever thought up the concept of “evil”. You have to divide our approaches to your questions in two different ways and split one further into two different ways, because you are muddling up the two into two different questions that confuse things a lot.

1. The existence of evil as a concept defined by humans as existential:

The definition of this evil given, is one where evil transcends human beings (who make decisions based on moral judgements). According to this concept, evil can be around without humans. However, humans being able to form this concept would be impossible without humans. That is:

The concept of evil as defined here, doesn’t requre humans

Humans inventing and conceptualising this concept of evil DOES require humans

None of this says absolutely anything about whether humans are right in their analysis of the concept or if the concept reflects reality, we are talking about the creation and conceptualization of the terms. So yes, in one sense we need humans, in another sense we do not.

2. The existence of evil as a pattern in human decision making which leads to the occurrence of a defined set of human mass suffering or of individuals. Not existential, clearly requires humans both for its existence and conceptualization. Humans are absolutely necesary in this case.

_____________________

 

Response to these two approaches to evil

The first one is completely unfalsifiable, steeped in bad psychology, religious woo and the anthropomorphisation of humans doing bad things. There is no evil cloud that grows as more humans do unspeakable things and it doesn’t float around into other humans nor exist as anything other than in the imagination of humans. The definition is made by religious people or those who don’t take a psychological approach to evil. Unseen did not define this…they did. It is absurd and a waste of time to engage with this.

The second definition is far more problematic for two reasons. First, a lack of a clear definition of evil which is useful in its investigation, falsification and differing between the many different kinds of acts people lump into “evil” … does not exist and there is nothing remotely approaching consensus on what evil means. This is a fundamental barrier in having a useful conversation on the topic because we’ve defined ourselves (or non-defined anything) out of doing anything useful. The second problem is that, even if we had a sound working  definition of evil (humans committing acts that cause unnecessary suffering for example), which acts are considered as unnecessary and which create sufficient suffering…is an ever changing continuum of confusion and is difficult to pin down and near impossible to conceptualise well unless everyone agrees on a similar approach to moral problems and judgements. Good luck finding this.

Unseen hasn’t defined anything in a way that makes its existence impossible. He’s right to say that evil needs and doesn’t need humans depending on whether you are referring to that need per its conceptualization and whether that concept significantly means anything in the real world.

A third problem, whether humans are responsible for every evil act, is yet another question, unseen and I disagree on our approach to this, but he still has a sound argument that is defensible and falsifiable and has not defined anything in a way that makes its existence impossible.

To the flames. To the flames already.

• This reply was modified 8 years ago by Davis.

[Davis]

tom sarbeck wrote:

Thank you, Zweifel, for trying to prevent philosophy’s suicide.

Philosophy is alive and well and is under no threat by doubters and haters and most especially by those who don’t put any work into understanding critical approaches to universal problems. Some areas of philosophy would be best thrown down the toilet, other areas are extremely important, especially these days per: theory of artificial intelligence, free will, bio-ethics (medical practices, decisions during emergencies, decisions without patient unput, rights of making decisions for ones own body, genetic manipulation) all of which includes doctors and health policy makers leading to real life changes in practices and long term policies, and then there is a critical defense of human rights which directly effects the evolution of human rights especially in the European Union, jurisprudence especially by those who are both legal scholars and philosophers…which leads to changes in legal systems all over the world (usually making them fairer) and amongst the most important: the centre of the attack against woo, religion interfering with politics, pseudoscience, alternative medicine, tecnological and medical changes without precautions, postmodernist babble,  attacks on humanist ideas. I certainly dedicate myself mostly to the latter. Who else does this in a way that brings significant change?

[tom sarbeck]

Davis, you opened with “Philosophy is alive and well….” and then argued for politics being alive and well.

Simon and Unseen will tire of their debate before they see that good and evil have value in the world only as political words.

 

[Reg the Fronkey Farmer]

@Davis – while a “Like” button does not exist I have conceptualized one and press it regarding your recent responses.

[Davis]

• Nearly every field of philosophy is intimately related with some other field of study as such as law logic pedagology physics astrophysics literature politics history mathematics medicine architecture psychology sociology. A polítical science student deals with human rights in terms of its history, evolution, status, failings, how robust it is and which have been most successul at their own stated goals. Few of them theorise on a broad ethical framework to justify human rights let alone speculating on the correct process for applying human right to an emerging democracy and if they do they frequently refer to philosophers. This begins with and is directed by philosophers and interdisciplinary research. Lawyers spend next to no time studying the efficacy of legal processes, how fair prosecution of marginalised people are, the kind of power police should have or what system of legal investigation is best. It starts in philosophy and criminology and is dissminated through interdisciplinary research, activism and government initiatives. Bioethics is particularly in its infancy and it overwealmingly centred in philosophy departments and slowly passing on ethcal principals and policy to medical ethics boards in hospitals and in politics. The broadest and most basic research will never oeave philosophy as hospitals and politicians have little motivation or resources to conduct and work out comprehensive study and ethical frameworks in the long term. Not to mention that bioethics research is only one small branch of ethics in general. The fact that a philosopher starts with a broad question and then makes arguments about medical problems doesn’t mean he hasndeparted and ejtered into the lone reign of medicine. LOL. Perhaps the only fields of philosophy that are pure philosophy are broad metaphysical questions like “Do I exist” or “How can I know a thing is a thing”. I personally don’t know anyone who deals with these questions nor anyone who wants to.

Philosophy haters dwell excessively on these questions, old philosophers whose philosophy is of little use like much of plato and aquinas beyond historical study of emerging philosophical principles. Those who are the most confident to dismiss philosophy are tremendously ignorant of what it is they are criticising. The fact that you think I started with philosophy and ended with politics…demonstrates that clearly. Pick up some current journals and read.

If philosophy fails at anything, it is not being active enough in getting Kore philosophy in the clasroom, how relevant it is in nearly all aspects of our lives and contemporary philosophical problems. If we did and were successful we would have to listen to such outstanding ignorance.

I would never critique an established field of study when I have only the most superficial understanding of it. Imagine if I were to fly off the handle and dismiss physics and physicists because of incorrect things physicists said 200 years ago and because I wrongly believe all they do today is stuff like questionable string theory and multiunivrse theories that do nothing for anyone. I’d be a total fool and would lose out on a lot of potential knowledge and understanding.

• This reply was modified 8 years ago by Davis.

[Reg the Fronkey Farmer]

I am working on an idea for my next tattoo (to balance out my “science” ones) along the idea of the conversations with “Lady Philosophy” in Boethius book. (I already have Plato’s Cave as a full back piece). It would be an image of “her” along with some poetic words from the book. I have mentioned before that Hegel once said that “the study of philosophy is but the introduction to philosophy”. I think an understanding of philosophical thought is very important as it improves our ability to think abstract thoughts that can lead to profound ideas that have merit and value in the”real world”. Such thinking has to be one of the pillars of mind of the “free thinker”, something atheists are meant to be. Just sketching out and researching my ideas for the tattoo has led me down some interesting paths…..which, for me, is the whole point as I get new ideas to consider.

[tom sarbeck]

Davis, another predilection of philosophers is the use of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of words to remark on what non-philosophers can say in a half dozen or so.

 

[Davis]

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:

@davis – while a “Like” button does not exist I have conceptualized one and press it regarding your recent responses.

Now the real question is: are like buttons entities that can exist without humans?

[tom sarbeck]

That fossilized like buttons have not been found does not imply that none will ever be found. Ergo, suspend judgment.

 

[Davis]

tom sarbeck wrote:

Davis, another predilection of philosophers is the use of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of words to remark on what non-philosophers can say in a half dozen or so.

Nice misdirect. How would you know? You know nothing about philosophy or you wouldn’t keep using these tired cliches. Plato and Kant and Heidiger and some post-modern philosophers were verbose. Most aren’t. You’re stuck in the same rut as other haters are…where old and irrelevant philosophers are the only ones who exist. It’s really a shame that you’d duck and dodge instead of respond to any of the numerous arguments and examples I said. Never thought I’d ever see you duck and dodge by the way, considering your posts are usually impeccable and insightful. But it doesn’t matter, I could type 10 words or a five thousand page book….you’ve decided to cut off an avenue of learning and knowledge probably some time ago and become completely impervious to any counter-arguments of your broad and ignorant dismissal of a field you know nothing about. It’s a pity. Now I wait for your next humerous duck and dodge. Maybe on my bad spelling or perhaps you’ll criticize the long names French Philosophers have, or maybe laugh about a few philosophers who went insane. I recommend a good website that will arm you with more material:

https://www.brainz.org/10-philosophers-who-were-mentally-disturbed/

[Simon Paynton]

If these famous philosophers are famous because they’re good, then it means they’re different from most people, enough to be going crazy once in a while.

[Reg the Fronkey Farmer]

I will consider that profound question with the use of my 2 philosophical pencils, the ones I use when I ponder our existence. One of them is a 2B, the other one is not a 2B.

[Author]

Posts