|
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 skyblack on Jun 6, 2021 22:42:27 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. Evil is a part of the known. A word with associated meanings that change and evolve. By definition the "unknown" is neither good nor evil....that's why its called the unknown. (This response is also addressing the OP)
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jun 7, 2021 8:02:52 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. Evil is a part of the known. A word with associated meanings that change and evolve. By definition the "unknown" is neither good nor evil....that's why its called the unknown. (This response is also addressing the OP) To know something has degrees. Surely, we can say about any thing that is bad or good as the same we can say anything for certain about them both. But I accept the objection. It strikes the target.
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Jun 7, 2021 17:54:46 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. I started liking your imagery, but a question arises in my mind: Did you say that evil is [like]a stone in water because it differs from water, or because it is an unknown? In the latter case, it's true that when it is removed and known, it is no longer an evil. But then you presuppose that evil consists in something that is unknown. I disagree .... many unknown things in a bloodstream are or may be good, and a stone in a stream may serve as a stepping stone for people with short legs. Can we speak of something as good or evil in itself, or good or evil/bad FOR someone? Delve into "intrinsic/absolute evil" and "relative/accidental evil". There is no such a thing as evil becoming good, or vice-versa.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jun 7, 2021 18:00:53 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. 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. Extremes are absences as the extreme in one pole is the absence of another.
|
|