|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 31, 2021 11:45:03 GMT
Aristotle said*: "When you know what is evil, and how to use it, the evil is no more evil, but good".
Does it really mean that there's no evil for anyone who knows it? I guess it depends on the purposes and intentions of the activator.
Perhaps we might add: good can be evil, if you don't know it, and don't know how to operate it.
* B. Russell's "Wisdom of the West", 1959. – Preface.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 31, 2021 20:16:10 GMT
Aristotle said*: "When you know what is evil, and how to use it, the evil is no more evil, but good". Does it really mean that there's no evil for anyone who knows it? I guess it depends on the purposes and intentions of the activator. Perhaps we might add: good can be evil, if you don't know it, and don't know how to operate it. * B. Russell's "Wisdom of the West", 1959. – Preface. 1. Evil is the absence of being. 2. When this void of being is actualized into real being good occurs. 3. The change of evil to good is the unactualized being actualized. 4. To know evil is to know a void in being. 5. Once this void is known it becomes actualized as a state of being considering something is now observed, the void becomes a set of relations. These relations are an actual phenomenon. 6. To know evil is to change something into a good considering what was unknown, ie unactualized, is now known, ie actualized. 7. To know that which something lacks is to know what the being should be hence bringing about the actualization of what it should be. This actualization is good.
|
|
|
Post by joustos on May 31, 2021 20:22:43 GMT
Aristotle said*: "When you know what is evil, and how to use it, the evil is no more evil, but good". Does it really mean that there's no evil for anyone who knows it? I guess it depends on the purposes and intentions of the activator. Perhaps we might add: good can be evil, if you don't know it, and don't know how to operate it. * B. Russell's "Wisdom of the West", 1959. – Preface. We should interpret Aristotle in terms of his Socratic/Platonic background: a man does not choose something [objectively] evil or wrong; he acts according to what seems to be good.... or good for him, as when a thief takes your possessions. Hence their great issue: What is truly good? [For some non-Greeks who wanted to establish a non-arbitrary criminology: What is truly wrong? Remember the Roman Jurisprudence that Justinian defined as -- scientia faciendi et nec faciendi-- the science of what must and what must not be done. Unfortunately the method to do jurisprudence has been lost, though I have traced it back to its principle, namely the asserted Freedom of the citizens of the Republic ............
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 31, 2021 20:24:48 GMT
Aristotle said*: "When you know what is evil, and how to use it, the evil is no more evil, but good". Does it really mean that there's no evil for anyone who knows it? I guess it depends on the purposes and intentions of the activator. Perhaps we might add: good can be evil, if you don't know it, and don't know how to operate it. * B. Russell's "Wisdom of the West", 1959. – Preface. We should interpret Aristotle in terms of his Socratic/Platonic background: a man does not choose something [objectively] evil or wrong; he acts according to what seems to be good.... or good for him, as when a thief takes your possessions. Hence their great issue: What is truly good? [For some non-Greeks who wanted to establish a non-arbitrary criminology: What is truly wrong? Remember the Roman Jurisprudence that Justinian defined as -- scientia faciendi et nec faciendi-- the science of what must and what must not be done. If evil is choosing the wrong out of ignorance of the good, then evil is ignorance.
|
|
|
Post by joustos on May 31, 2021 21:09:14 GMT
We should interpret Aristotle in terms of his Socratic/Platonic background: a man does not choose something [objectively] evil or wrong; he acts according to what seems to be good.... or good for him, as when a thief takes your possessions. Hence their great issue: What is truly good? [For some non-Greeks who wanted to establish a non-arbitrary criminology: What is truly wrong? Remember the Roman Jurisprudence that Justinian defined as -- scientia faciendi et nec faciendi-- the science of what must and what must not be done. If evil is choosing the wrong out of ignorance of the good, then evil is ignorance. Indeed, for Socrates, wrongdoers act out of ignorance (lack of wisdom...), but I don't think that evil/wrong is properly defined as the lack of its opposite. Anyway, legislators need a more concrete foundation.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 31, 2021 21:18:14 GMT
If evil is choosing the wrong out of ignorance of the good, then evil is ignorance. Indeed, for Socrates, wrongdoers act out of ignorance (lack of wisdom...), but I don't think that evil/wrong is properly defined as the lack of its opposite. Anyway, legislators need a more concrete foundation.If evil is not a lack of being then what is it?
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jun 1, 2021 7:32:53 GMT
Aristotle said*: "When you know what is evil, and how to use it, the evil is no more evil, but good". Does it really mean that there's no evil for anyone who knows it? I guess it depends on the purposes and intentions of the activator. Perhaps we might add: good can be evil, if you don't know it, and don't know how to operate it. * B. Russell's "Wisdom of the West", 1959. – Preface. 1. Evil is the absence of being. 2. When this void of being is actualized into real being good occurs. 3. The change of evil to good is the unactualized being actualized. 4. To know evil is to know a void in being. 5. Once this void is known it becomes actualized as a state of being considering something is now observed, the void becomes a set of relations. These relations are an actual phenomenon. 6. To know evil is to change something into a good considering what was unknown, ie unactualized, is now known, ie actualized. 7. To know that which something lacks is to know what the being should be hence bringing about the actualization of what it should be. This actualization is good. The transmission to ontology is a beautiful mind decision. Mine position is that there's such a thing as knowledge. If one doesn't know how to operate that being – a void in past and a non-void in present (or without any time references: a transformed void) – he still can be in danger when he use it. That's why, not putting away the ontological format, if anything that seems to be that being acts if a certain (wrong way) or it interacts with its activator wrongly (in a certain way), then that being doesn't actually being realized. In other words, to reveal an apple's being or a puffer fish's being these things must be cooked (or used) in a very correct way. Note that even a wrong bite an apple may cause teeth problems. Being, whatever it is, can hide from us. What we see might be just a surface or a dim, we never know what is it until we meet it in a proper way. Generally, to have a being as a non-void one must to know that being first. A void is transformed into a being via a set of certain operations (laps, levels, etc). To know and to operate the process is to use that being.
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Jun 1, 2021 21:25:14 GMT
Eugene, you said that Being can hide from us . Thus you seem to speak of Being as a substance.... which can hide or reveal itself. At this point, you should start writing an essay "On Being" or, more comprehensively, "On Being, Essence, and Existence", or a history thereof. Take your time.
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on Jun 2, 2021 16:22:50 GMT
Aristotle said*: "When you know what is evil, and how to use it, the evil is no more evil, but good". Does it really mean that there's no evil for anyone who knows it? I guess it depends on the purposes and intentions of the activator. Perhaps we might add: good can be evil, if you don't know it, and don't know how to operate it. * B. Russell's "Wisdom of the West", 1959. – Preface. The Green New Deal Is a Dead Man's Hand The word evil is actually related to the word over, just as hubris is related to hyper. So it means "going to extremes." Little or nothing is evil in itself. Not only that, but "pollution" is not just harmless unless taken to extremes; it's actually beneficial and antiseptic. Viruses can only survive in what the spoiled and bossy enemies of human progress call "Clean Air," which is the most toxic of all environments. Nature is a crime against humanity. The lockdown, which reduced antiseptic auto emissions, caused the 2.5 million deaths from the cronyvirus.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jun 2, 2021 18:39:43 GMT
Aristotle said*: "When you know what is evil, and how to use it, the evil is no more evil, but good". Does it really mean that there's no evil for anyone who knows it? I guess it depends on the purposes and intentions of the activator. Perhaps we might add: good can be evil, if you don't know it, and don't know how to operate it. * B. Russell's "Wisdom of the West", 1959. – Preface. The Green New Deal Is a Dead Man's Hand The word evil is actually related to the word over, just as hubris is related to hyper. So it means "going to extremes." Little or nothing is evil in itself. Not only that, but "pollution" is not just harmless unless taken to extremes; it's actually beneficial and antiseptic. Viruses can only survive in what the spoiled and bossy enemies of human progress call "Clean Air," which is the most toxic of all environments. Nature is a crime against humanity. The lockdown, which reduced antiseptic auto emissions, caused the 2.5 million deaths from the cronyvirus. Evil Could Be Vile and ChronycYes, this is a very helpful thought. I didn't even imagine that the meaning of the verb could be an adverb. Let me guess, it is closely to the bad case. We usually say that this thing is bad or that thing is bad, while 'bad' is also an adverb. So, the bad is rather a name, than a notion. The resources are gathered and concentrated at the hands of the most powerful of this world. Even if I would dare to start looking for some oil or silver, I should be pretty equipped and politically prepared for a series of wars. I mean all the wars usually are about the resources or spheres of interests. People went away of the interests of those power elites.
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Jun 4, 2021 12:45:23 GMT
Aristotle said*: "When you know what is evil, and how to use it, the evil is no more evil, but good". Does it really mean that there's no evil for anyone who knows it? I guess it depends on the purposes and intentions of the activator. Perhaps we might add: good can be evil, if you don't know it, and don't know how to operate it. * B. Russell's "Wisdom of the West", 1959. – Preface.
This only makes sense if you substitute 'evil' for 'dangerous'. Any force of physics can be dangerous, but evil is a state of mind.
We could stretch it a bit and say that if we understand why people become psychopaths, then we can make good of that.
But that is just not enough. Being able to communicate that understanding is another matter altogether, and that also hopes that the psychos can be communicated with.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jun 4, 2021 15:11:08 GMT
Aristotle said*: "When you know what is evil, and how to use it, the evil is no more evil, but good". Does it really mean that there's no evil for anyone who knows it? I guess it depends on the purposes and intentions of the activator. Perhaps we might add: good can be evil, if you don't know it, and don't know how to operate it. * B. Russell's "Wisdom of the West", 1959. – Preface.
This only makes sense if you substitute 'evil' for 'dangerous'. Any force of physics can be dangerous, but evil is a state of mind.
We could stretch it a bit and say that if we understand why people become psychopaths, then we can make good of that.
But that is just not enough. Being able to communicate that understanding is another matter altogether, and that also hopes that the psychos can be communicated with.
Underlined words are truly essence. Exactly. I mean mostly the real problem is the problem of communication. Sometimes I guess it's tied up more or less with the feeling of another feelings... i.e. because I don't know which reaction a person will be expressing, I don't know how to say something to make him worried less. Especially it is really urgent when I use phrases. The more ambiguous the phrases are, the less sure in that those phrases will be effective. For me, with my plain level of English, is indeed important. The words might be like blades: sharp and witty.
|
|
Triangle
Full Member
Posts: 356
Likes: 134
|
Post by Triangle on Jun 4, 2021 18:23:58 GMT
Same principle of atomic bomb and the nuclear energy, just a example. The principle is the same but the ends changed.
|
|
arin
New Member
Posts: 1
Likes: 1
|
Post by arin on Jun 6, 2021 20:51:17 GMT
Throughout all of these I keep getting the image of a pool of water. Evil is a stone in the water. It is unknown. When we reach in and remove it from the water it comes into the light and is known, seen, then it is no longer evil - it's transformed. So, I suppose it wouldn't qualify as "evil" anymore.
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Jun 6, 2021 21:31:47 GMT
Throughout all of these I keep getting the image of a pool of water. Evil is a stone in the water. It is unknown. When we reach in and remove it from the water it comes into the light and is known, seen, then it is no longer evil - it's transformed. So, I suppose it wouldn't qualify as "evil" anymore. Let's say this stone comes out of the water and kills a baby that was there at the lake with it's family. Then it was a good deed done since the stone is good and can't do evil? The baby dying was good?
|
|