I’m reading The Mercy of Gods by James Corey. Just want to share a quote that struck me as clear and concise.
Good and evil are constructs lesser beings build to create divisions in places where rigor and intelligence are insufficient.
Fox news, anyone?
For me, that’s BS created by someone trying to appear intelligent with false depth.
As it comes from a novel, it does not mean that this reflects the true opinion of the authors.
@morgankane01 It is a novel, so the writing is to entertain. But I see much more than BS. I see “good” and “evil” as things defined by those trying to seek control. God hates faggots, for example. Or democrats are communists (unhuman). Judgements that have no purpose or reason other than to divide. Exactly the things Fox news thrives on. Perhaps something is lost in translation. I do respect your views.
All Republicans want lower taxes for the rich.
Republicans are the party for the elite. - This used to be an easy one, Democrats have lost the high ground.
If you’re pro-life, you don’t care about poor children.
Soldiers in the army support the policies of their government. - Biggest mistake made by the 60’s youth movement.
Ok i try to be more precise.
Good and evil are constructs lesser beings build
Yes and no.
Less and evil differ more or less according the different cultures.
But for instance, the ten commandments contain just the basic rules needed to a society of this time to work. And some rules protect the weaks.
I agree that, in some cases, the definition of evil and good can be the result of the acts of powers.
In ancient Roma homosexuality was allowed to the roman citizens, as long as they were active and dominant. for the church it became a sin, and a serions one, around year 1000.
Was it to divide? I don’t think so. It was rather a way to repress the people, to forbid them to search for pleasures, and to be faithful to their interpretations of the scriptures.
In fact, in the middle ages, the church was looking for unity, under its rule.
Some people try to divide, yes. And one of the character of fascism is that it needs an enemy. For trump, the " wokes" the " liberals " and so.
Rigor and intelligence are lacking?
I may be wrong, but for me rigor has a double meaning. It can mean accuracy, or it can mean harshness.
I would not say that people who define good and evil because they are looking to divide and get power lack rigor and intelligence. I would say they lack empathy and that they are evil.
The worst evil man is the one who promote evil and suffering, knowing it dores, and enjoy it.
And to go back where I started, when i say that such a man is evil, i am not looking to divide, i am neither an upper or a lesser being, I ma a human being and a humanist.
This definition of one sort of evil is cultural, subjective and assumed.
I see your point, but isn’t the purpose of “sin” to separate the “bad” from the “good”? To cast out the gays, to cast out those who don’t worship the single god, and to keep the “good” people in the tribe? It seems to me that repressing people was an unintended consequence as the church does want people to love the church; not resent it.
It’s not that the people lack rigor and intelligence. It is their definition that lacks rigor and intelligence. For example, love no other god but me. Why not? Isn’t jealousy your problem, god? Don’t tell me who to love. If I love another god, then you kick me out of your tribe? Not reasonable.
Yes, you are correct. But if you judge a man as evil because he works on the sabbath then your judgement lacks rigor and intelligence.
That is what struck me as wonderful about the quote. If you are judging someone to be “evil” just because you don’t like them, you are in a strict sense a lesser person for it. You are in a mental space lacking intelligence. A better person offers strong reasoning for her judgment. BTW, I think you do a very good job of interpreting things.
Youre all wrong. Evil is that which goes against gods will.
Define God and define God’s Will.
Agreeing. They don"t build to divide, but they do it.
Agreeing again about the people. The substitue ideology to rigor and intelligence, and knowledge.
Agreeing once more with your idea. but the text is " in places where rigor and intelligence are insufficient."
May be it is because my English is not up to the task.
I love this exchange as we make progress without bickering. In fact, you do a good job of defending the text.
I more agree with your ideas than with the text.
I take a very simple idea : " All human beings are born free and equal in rights"
This idea is the basis of Western civilisation. It is an axiom which cannot be demonstrated.
The alternative is dictature, or at least a classes and castes society.
It has been stated by intelligent people who wanted to unite, negating the ideas of rights depending from birth or race, or sex, and so on. It has divided as it has been rejected.
This idea implies that people who do not act according to it are “evil”.
In fact, for me, the authors generalize some cases.
I would not say:
But
In many cases, good and evil are constructs lesser beings build when they lack in rigor and intelligence and they create unfair and unjust segregations.
Really? Who created deadly diseases… Leprosy…?
I have loved all of our exchanges. You are a kind and reasonable person. I agree with your final edit of the original text. It’s sad that there are the occasional trolls/bots. I just ignore them and let @lausten sort them out.
Peace.
“take a very simple idea : " All human beings are born free and equal in rights”
“This idea is the basis of Western civilisation. It is an axiom which cannot be demonstrated”
In totalitarian regimes you are not free, and you know it. In free democracies you are not free, and you don’t know it.
Is trump or harris supposed to be less evil? I like my evil to be incompetent
But all of those “gods” are the product of our own minds!
So there’s actually not such thing as going against a “God’s Will” because it’s simply going against someone(s)’ interpretation.
We are material beings, living in a material world. Full Stop.
With metaphysics being a product of our human imagination, which is ultimately produced by the body, you are living within, as it engages with the rest of the material world.
@egghead You still have not answered the question define God and define God’s will. The discussion really cannot continue unless you give your definition of a deity and the will of that deity. The discussion needs to cease until you define what we are discussing.
Yes, but now we know that we don’t know it because you know it, and you told us. Will they come after you now and reprogram and you’ll recant? Or, can I read, listen, learn and determine for myself what’s true?
Anarchists say : " In a dictatorship, it is shut up, In a bourgeois democracy, it is carry on, (i don’t give a dam.)"
I prefer democracy.
Apparently, you do not understand that freedom can only exist within limitations.
For one, my freedoms cannot infringe on your freedoms and your freedoms cannot infringe on my freedoms.
Example: a trespassing law does not restrict your freedoms, it protects my
freedom of right to my property and privacy.
Freedom of speech is not an absolute. You and I do not have the freedom to lie and claim it is truth. Crimes are infringements on another person’s freedoms. That is why we have laws.
To answer, we must recognize that freedom is a general term, like liberty, independence, autonomy, and equality.
In reality, freedom cannot be absolute; no one can be completely free. Your talents, family situation, job, wealth, cultural norms, and laws against murder, incest, burglary, and so on, constrain and circumscribe your choices. And then there is the freedom of others that necessarily limits yours.
Broadly speaking, your rights, whatever they may be, define the limits to your freedom. In the Western tradition of freedom, these are your civil and political rights, including your freedom of speech, religion, and association. Some philosophers see these not only as morally justified rights in themselves, but also as means for fulfilling other possible rights, like happiness.
The opposing position is that such rights have no special status unless granted by government to maintain tradition, as does an absolute monarchy like Saudi Arabia; pursue a just society, as the Communist Party of China claims; protect a holy society, as by a Muslim government like Sudan; or economically develop a country, as attempted by a military government like Burma.
In totalitarian regimes you are forced to obey. In free democracies you are trained to think your obedience was your own idea.
Youre are self destructing with your comments
[quote=“mriana, post:15, topic:11043”]
The discussion needs to cease until you define what we are discussing.
[
The god of small things