The Knowledge of Good and Evil

[step314]

Thanks for your comments. My education about Taoism is mostly limited to the materials I have found on my own. Do you mind me asking your background with the subject?

My experience with Taoism is pretty cursory, just bits and pieces that I've read mostly on the internet. It definitely seems like the central tendency of it is to deny anti-addiction defenses. What I think has a similar appeal is existentialism. I know even less about the latter, but it seems to me a post war reaction against the emotions appropriate to war time, with constant danger of violation. During war, people tend to feel the need to find approval from their fellow sufferers, and to reassure each other that they are still all right, and to view themselves in terms of these assurances. Similarly, people cheer and boo at football games, etc., and it can have a big effect on the players, especially if they are not very experienced. Yeah, people get molested all the time in the chaos of most wars, or at the least they feel like they might. But during peace time, when forcible sodomy isn't something that happens everyday all around you, people appropriately feel it safe and upstanding to look "existentially" into themselves for their understandings of their own true natures, without bothering to feel the need for reassurance from others as to whether these be pristine enough to accept or not. Just exposure to violence itself will cause people to wonder whether they are still OK.

What, then, is "good" and what then is "evil"?

I mentioned what goodness is to me, namely love of beauty. To me, badness is just selfishness. Perhaps I should have said "bad" rather than "evil" (was I too purposive?). Evil as I think of it involves actually trying to advance badness. Since, how I look at things, goodness is more or less by definition the ideal that it is most beneficial to one's self to possess, evil is very self-destructive. Nevertheless, evil does happen, because bad people like to glorify their badness, to make it seem as though there is something good about it, and occasionally they try to prove this by going out of their way to destroy the good, and other times they mistake tendencies to make a show for tendencies not about making a show. E.g., a guy who beats up his women because he is selfish might make females think his violence is more about hatred of some phantom wicked tendency in woman than about controlling, because it makes him more look dangerous to cross; occasionally he comes to believe his lies or the lies of those similar to him, and he becomes evil serial killer.

[de Silentio]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Do you think, personally, that Taoism leaves us with a world in which everything is ultimately evil?

I don't know that much about Toaism. I read the Toa of Pooh, and had a single class period discussion on Toaism, but other than that I don't know much.

From what I do know, it sounds like Toaism will ultimately lead to a person being a product of his society, rather it be good or evil. I conclude this from the notion of the Uncarved Block. The block may be uncarved, but it is impossible for a person to escape the influence of experience. To keep with the analogy, the uncarved block must become carved in some fasion at some point (the person must become something and develop certain predispositions towards the world, in other words).

Now, if I incorporate the only other thing I know about Toaism, that one should not worry or stress over problems (like Pooh), I think the block will be carved without any internal influence of the person. In other words, a person will become a product of their environment because they will not allow the level of cognitive dissonance that is needed to make decisions on how a person becomes who they are.

So, to answer your question directly: No, I don't think Toaism leaves us with an ultimately evil world because I don't know enough to make the conclusion that it will. That is probably evident from what I wrote.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by step314

What I think has a similar appeal is existentialism. I know even less about the latter, but it seems to me a post war reaction against the emotions appropriate to war time, with constant danger of violation. During war, people tend to feel the need to find approval from their fellow sufferers, and to reassure each other that they are still all right, and to view themselves in terms of these assurances.

You're correct that modern existentialism arose out of a reaction to the apocalyptic notions that WWII brought Europe (though it was really started by 19th century philosophers like Kierkegaard and Nietzsche). But I don't think you've summarized it very accurately. I'll grant you that one angle to existentialism is finding meaning when life seems horribly unjust. But it's explored in far more detail in the actual traditions of these philosophers.

There are several notions within existentialism. One, championed by Sartre, is the clear distinction between one's existence and one's essence; wherein essence encompasses attributes that qualify your neutral existence, but are simply that -- attributes. This was largely a response to the Holocaust, and articulated extremely well by Sartre in Portrait of the Antisemite. We all have a tremendous freedom to define ourselves, and when we attribute bad or evil to someone else's essence, we're similarly restricting our own self-definition. Thus, the freedom that we have as neutral, existing beings, is undermined by prejudice (and assignment of good and evil).

Another major notion within existentialism is the source of meaning. And Camus was the champion of this. Basically, since life is short, and we can die at any time without warning, including prematurely, it's impossible to argue that anything in our life has meaning because it can always be interrupted. So how can we do anything? How can we face meaninglessness? What do we get up for every morning? This can be extremely invigorating for the strong person who finds meaning on his own, which is the positive spin on the existential crisis. But as Sartre explored in Nausea and as Camus explored in The Stranger, there is a horribly frightening emptiness in this as well. It led to Camus' great philosophy about suicide (in The Myth of Sisyphus).

[saiboimushi]

On the issue of good and evil: I'm beginning to feel like the world, or at least our experience of the world, is a ridiculous enigma, a ghastly farce. When something makes us feel good, we say it's good. And then we change, we become something else that feels things differently. I think "good" is what we like, and I think we are sadly ignorant. That's why I've been so worried about knowledge. Because how do we know what Good is, or whether something is Good? The question, "How do we know?" is a curse, a pox.

Nietzsche points out that it is not Hamlet's excessive deliberation that prevents him from action, but rather his awareness that all action is blind. This is the essence of tragedy--that the world cannot be understood, and our actions, as a consequence, cannot have the effect that we intend or foresee, either for good or for evil.

That's why I love movie characters who are total sociopaths, like the dark killer in "No Country for Old Men," or the serial murderer in "Perfume." They seem to be more in touch with reality; they seem to know that we do not know. The reality of our ignorance they embody, and in doing this, they shame us.

Knowing she is about to die, one of the characters in "No Country" tells the dark killer, "You don't have to do this." As he sits in the corner of the room, he ponders her statement aloud: "Why do they always say that? Why do they always say, You don't have to do this?" The killer wonders why people think that any choices can be knowingly and willingly made, either for good or for evil.

And he's right to wonder.

[Didymos Thomas]

But isn't there something good about charity, and something evil about random killing, if not killing in general?

And why is reckless brutality a sign of some deeper understanding? Allowing our tendencies to run wild, especially violent ones, only shames me in that members of my species often do just this when they clearly have the capacity to act otherwise. Or at least to not act at all.

[saiboimushi]

I certainly don't like the idea of murder, and I hope what I said didn't disturb anyone.

But to be honest, I don't feel that I know that murder is wrong. Hamlet kills a few people he probably shouldn't kill, and fails to kill the one person he probably should kill when the time seems right. And yet, there is no question that, like a madman with an axe, he leaves a gruesome trail of bodies in his wake.

What does that say about motive, will, intention, knowledge, good and evil? One doesn't need to fall tragically to sense that these concepts are perilously, ridiculously elusive. And one certainly doesn't have to be a drug lord's assassin--God forbid.

[Rasputini]

Hey. Just to add to the Daoist stuff, and maybe give a little spin to the current topic, the concept of Yin and Yang is an interesting concept when discussing "Right" or "Wrong." As you all are aware the Yin and Yang is a circle, part black, part white with the opposite coloured dot in the largest part of each half. The layout of the Yin and Yang suggests that out of the peak of one side the seed of the other is born. This concept can be applied to nearly everything, so in our case I'll plug in good and evil. At the peak of good, which would be the fattest part on the white side, the seed of evil is born. Meaning at a certain point things are so GOOD that anything bellow that ultimate GOOD things begin to appear evil. It is then the smallest tail of the black side begins, marking the rise of evil. Like good, at a certain point BAD gets so bad that anything under that peak begins to appear good, thus the seed of good, and the begining of the white section. I think this is a really interesting way in looking at what is GOOD or EVIL. It makes everything relative to some other action.
So in relation to the previous points, and keeping with this idea: yes murder we aggree murder is bad, however, I think we can also aggree that there are degrees in which murder can be viewed. As a totally rediculous example, suppose some whacko was sneaking around injecting people with some drug that painlessly killed them off. Compare that to some whacko who tortures and mutilates their victims or whatever. Yes, both are considered EVIL, yet in regards to the Yin and Yang, one would be further towards the large portion of the side designated EVIL. I dont mean to suggest this as a way to justify any actions frowned upon by society, but it's an interesting point of view.

[vajrasattva]

What is good? What is evil? As far as I am concerned they are both matters of perspective. A saint could see himself as evil in relation to his past and present. Some Christians think non believers are evil and vice versa. This leads me to believe that evil is a result of ignorance and egocentricity. Because without ignorance one does not see evil and without egocentricity one does not assume that the ignorance belongs to someone else. Evil is a product of perception and thereby is and illusion due to the nature of perception. Perception has multiplicity and when something is seen from many stand points different interpretations arise. In the case of good and evil their is no general consensus nor as to what evil is and as such due to the ignorance and egocentricity of man we refuse ti see this lack of virtue in ourselves so naturally evil grows even though it only exist because you made it.

[Rasputini]

You're totally right. Good and Evil are completely man made concepts that reflect a person's personal views. However, as I've said in other treads, the ultimate root of good or evil is based on a positive or negative emotional connection to an action or result. An emotional connection being a relation to something (physical, concept, mental state etc) that produces either a positive or negative emotional reaction (no matter how insignificant the reaction is). Anthing that sparks a negative emotion, or contradicts a positive one then becomes evil and good is just the opposite. The degree to which something has a reaction determines how evil or good something is to that person. I keep posting this notion, so sorry to those who've already read it, but I truely believe it is the root of all meaning and mental perception, good and evil included.

[vajrasattva]

I agree but I also believe that mental states are subject to change what is evil one moment is not the next and vice versa. If not then we need a better definition of evil and of good. I'm down and excited if this is what we will do.