The Knowledge of Good and Evil

[Didymos Thomas]

Adam and Eve are banished from paradise after eating the fruit from the 'Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil'. Distinguishing between good and evil is their crime.

From Thomas Merton's introduction to Chuang Tzu:

"...the hero of virtue and duty ultimately lands himself in the same ambiguities as the hedonist and utilitarian. Why? Because he aims at achieving "the good" as object."

Chuang Tzu criticizes "profit motive" - hedonism and utilitarianism - because they strive for what is constantly out of reach (much like John Rockefeller's quest for enough money, one dollar more) and look towards good in the future, and not good now, in the present moment.

Chuang Tzu's criticism is not limited to the means of philosophers from his time, but he also criticizes the ends they pursue. He criticizes the notions of happiness and unhappiness as ambiguous because they are set in the world of objects. According to Merton, this criticism is equally true of virtues, justice, and even of 'good and evil' or 'right and wrong'.

"When the whole world recognizes good as good, it becomes evil" - Lao Tzu

Some early morning ramblings for your consideration.

[Aristoddler]

He criticized the thoughts of happy and unhappy as ambiguous because they're subjective, from what I understood...unless you're speaking of his disdain of materialism, but that was something he gained from following the teachings of Confucius, from what I understand.

I'm happy when I see a raging blizzard on the weather channel. My wife is unhappy for the same news. It's subjective.


I love ramblings.

[de Silentio]

So where does Thomas Merton (or Chuang Tzo) leave us? What should we seek, if everything we seek is ultimately evil?

Something funny, this morning is the first time I heard of Thomas Merton, it was from a co-worker suggesting an author, then you make a post with a quote from him. Well, it's funny to me at least.

[Didymos Thomas]

Where does Merton or Chuang Tzu suggest that everything is ultimately evil?

I'm happy when I see a raging blizzard on the weather channel. My wife is unhappy for the same news. It's subjective.

So (to carry the example, nothing against your wife) why does your wife persist in being unhappy with such news?

As for Merton - I've enjoyed the book, and found it useful. I do have two concerns; Merton does not know Chinese, so his study of other translations (though, from various languages) is not supplemented with any familiarity with source documents, also, he is from a Christian monastic tradition, and despite appearing to me as wonderfully knowledgeable and understanding of Taoist and Zen tradition, I usually like to keep with scholars from the tradition of the book.

[step314]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Adam and Eve are banished from paradise after eating the fruit from the 'Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil'. Distinguishing between good and evil is their crime.

Religions tend to discourage thinking for oneself about what is good and evil, since so doing may lead followers to seek moral truths otherwise than from the priests, thereby causing reduced titheing, etc. Pelagianism is the one ancient heresy I feel strongly should not have been heresy. Christ said he came to save sinners, and that's what religion properly should be for as well--for people too screwed up to feel comfortable thinking otherwise than very traditionally, which is not everybody.

[saiboimushi]

I think there may be some interesting similarities between Eastern philosophies and Christianity. Of course, it all depends on how one interprets things. The "knowledge" of good and evil, for example, can be interpreted as the opposite of Wisdom--as a kind of error or false belief, which produces and has produced every ill that flesh is heir to. The world of opposites may undermine itself, returning unto dust, for it is inherently self-opposed, a house divided against itself. Truth may exist beyond opposites, beyond good-and-evil, where all is only Good.

Furthermore, the notion of an anthropomorphic diety could actually contradict Christ's teachings, making Christ more of a Buddhist than a Jew. But, as I said, it is all a matter of interpretation.

[de Silentio]

Where does Merton or Chuang Tzu suggest that everything is ultimately evil?

Sorry, my error, I don't know what thoughts were racing through my mind last night.

[Didymos Thomas]

Religions tend to discourage thinking for oneself about what is good and evil, since so doing may lead followers to seek moral truths otherwise than from the priests, thereby causing reduced titheing, etc. Pelagianism is the one ancient heresy I feel strongly should not have been heresy. Christ said he came to save sinners, and that's what religion properly should be for as well--for people too screwed up to feel comfortable thinking otherwise than very traditionally, which is not everybody.

Religious authorities, centrally organized groups, tend to promote the notions of good and evil so that they can white wash their political opponents as evil, themselves as good, which prevents people from seeing any truth in the matter - that their leaders are simply political fiends searching for more and more power.

If nothing is inherently evil, we cannot be justified in claims about evil Islamic extremeists. If nothing is inherently good, we cannot be justified in claims about the good and wonderful Church. The extremist might do something which seems to be evil, and the Chruch might do something that seems to be good - but if nothing is inherently good or evil, we know that these events are all circumstantial, and that both are capable of 'good' and 'evil'.

By eliminating notions of 'good-evil' we remove many broad assumptions about people, and groups of people. We begin to remember that people are people, just like you and me - even if the authority figure says they are evil and must be destroyed.

I don't know about you, but my preach always called it the "Tree of Knowledge". They never paid much attention to the "good and evil" part, nor the fact that once Adam and Eve began to distinguish from good and evil, then and only then, were they forced to leave paradise.

As for your comments about sin and the purpose of religion - sinners are not "people too screwed up to feel comfortable thinking otherwise than very traditionally", we are all sinners. Even wanted something that was not yours?

Religion is for everyone. Some people prefer traditional explanations from religion. Who cares? What is "traditional" varies a great deal from tradition to tradition. Traditional Zen teaching and traditional western Christian teaching are greatly separated.

Sorry, my error, I don't know what thoughts were racing through my mind last night.

It's cool. The initial post represents my random thoughts - why not build the whole thread on them?

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

[step314]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

As for your comments about sin and the purpose of religion - sinners are not "people too screwed up to feel comfortable thinking otherwise than very traditionally", we are all sinners. Even wanted something that was not yours?

If it is in someone's nature to do something bad, preaching in an effort to stop it won't do any good, and there isn't really any point in fighting against that tendency in oneself, because if you were that way yesterday, you'll be that way tomorrow too, presumably. Religion is only effective at reforming sins that aren't natural; e.g., alcohol may cause one to behave selfishly--in such a case, religion can be useful by convincing the individual that he is behaving unnaturally, i.e., contrary to his innate tendencies. One can behave selfishly from error, but the best antidote for that is moral philosophy. True, there are bits and pieces of insight in most religions just as in myths, but essentially by definition a religion must be traditional, and the ones I know of are each of them replete with outdated highly unlikely notions. In fact, if a religion doesn't have much superstition in it, people are likely to consider it a philosophy, much as some people think Taoism should be considered a philosophy or a way of life rather than a religion.

If people don't distinguish between good and evil, there will be no justice and evil will have a free reign. Then people won't need to distinguish between good and evil because evil will have destroyed the good. I tend to think of morality, of what is good, as trying to make the world more beautiful, and goodness is what beauty is mainly. You can't be very good without wanting to advance what is good. Nor is it reasonable to suppose that people would at all evolve to be good if good people didn't love fellow good people more than bad people, as they couldn't if there were no distinction. I would suggest that the overall spirit of Taoism doesn't so much suggest that there should be no distinction between good and evil, but just that we should not be very purposive or obsessively urgent when we make these distinctions, the way many people feel (for example) when making disctinctions about controversial political issues. But that's what I don't like about Taoism. Sometimes it is appropriate to behave extremely purposively, namely when one is fighting addiction; sometimes one's hindquarters actually do get screwed. Wu wei, purposiveless action, is only appropriate when not fighting addiction. Some moral action should be taken with a will.

True, Taoism tends to be against distinctions, but my impression is that it is only against distinctions mildly: mainly just if they are arbitrary, forced, or unnatural. E.g., the famous ideal butcher separates effortlessly, but he still separates.

If I remember right, when China was plagued with opium problems there arose a famous leader who was so fed up with the lazy indifference that he associated with Taoism that he called himself (in Chinese, of course) "purposive action" or "no purposiveless action", or some such thing (by changing the "wu" of "wu wei" to its opposite character?).

[Didymos Thomas]

If it is in someone's nature to do something bad, preaching in an effort to stop it won't do any good, and there isn't really any point in fighting against that tendency in oneself, because if you were that way yesterday, you'll be that way tomorrow too, presumably.

Is religion limited to the experience of being preached at?

Religion is only effective at reforming sins that aren't natural

How do you differentiate between "natural" and "unnatural" sins?

One can behave selfishly from error, but the best antidote for that is moral philosophy.

Philosophy is merely discourse. To practice a moral philosophy, on the other hand, is often a great part of religious life.

True, there are bits and pieces of insight in most religions just as in myths, but essentially by definition a religion must be traditional, and the ones I know of are each of them replete with outdated highly unlikely notions.

What do you mean by "traditional". Traditional to who? Do you think that Zen practice is "traditional"? Do you think that Zen practice would be called traditional by a Catholic, for instance, living in the US?

Regarding unlikely notions - yes, often times, silly concepts survive and thrive under religious guise. However, I cannot help but wonder if this is something necessarily true of religion, or if we can imagine religion without such silly notions.

In fact, if a religion doesn't have much superstition in it, people are likely to consider it a philosophy, much as some people think Taoism should be considered a philosophy or a way of life rather than a religion.

Is there necessarily a difference between religion and philosophy?
You mention Taoism. Well, Taoism is philosophy. The school grew up out of the I-Ching school of thought, and has certainly changed a great deal over time. Taoists might disagree as Empiricists might disagree.

If people don't distinguish between good and evil, there will be no justice and evil will have a free reign.

What, then, is "good" and what then is "evil"? Is anything inherently good or evil?
If nothing is inherently evil, I do not see how "evil will have a free reign".

You can't be very good without wanting to advance what is good.

And this, I think, is the heart of the criticism - treating "good" or "bad" or "evil" as objects to be pursued.

Nor is it reasonable to suppose that people would at all evolve to be good if good people didn't love fellow good people more than bad people, as they couldn't if there were no distinction.

Which would be more accurate:
1. There are good and bad people
2. There are people that sometimes act poorly, and sometimes act well

I would suggest that the overall spirit of Taoism doesn't so much suggest that there should be no distinction between good and evil, but just that we should not be very purposive or obsessively urgent when we make these distinctions, the way many people feel (for example) when making disctinctions about controversial political issues.But that's what I don't like about Taoism. Sometimes it is appropriate to behave extremely purposively, namely when one is fighting addiction; sometimes one's hindquarters actually do get screwed. Wu wei, purposiveless action, is only appropriate when not fighting addiction. Some moral action should be taken with a will.

Isn't addiction a purposeful action?

In the Confucian school, the Tao was constantly subdivided until Tao came to mean any abstract ethical doctrine. This Chuang Tzu criticizes - only addressing the manifest aspects of the Tao "that can be named". What of the Tao "that cannot be named"?
Chuang Tzu does not think that happiness can be found in some "profit motive". He also criticizes the "Superior Man" of virtue because they (namely the Confucian school, the philosophers nearest Chunag Tzu) treat "good" as some object - something to be obtained through some particular kind of action which results in happiness. This process places "good" and "happiness" outside of ourselves, into the world of objects, and therefore, "good" and "happiness" are forever out of reach because they are to be obtained in some distant moment as the product of our heroic actions, instead of being here in this moment.

True, Taoism tends to be against distinctions, but my impression is that it is only against distinctions mildly: mainly just if they are arbitrary, forced, or unnatural. E.g., the famous ideal butcher separates effortlessly, but he still separates.

The butcher example, as far as I can tell, shows us something about action and the way we do things. Remember, "My cook has shown me how I ought to live my own life!"

"Great knowledge sees all in one. Small knowledge breaks down into the many."

If I remember right, when China was plagued with opium problems there arose a famous leader who was so fed up with the lazy indifference that he associated with Taoism that he called himself (in Chinese, of course) "purposive action" or "no purposiveless action", or some such thing (by changing the "wu" of "wu wei" to its opposite character?).

Perhaps this is so. But I will remind you that 'Taoism' is a broad subject, sometimes absolute superstition, sometimes tantamount to academic philosophy. Especially in China, there is little distinction between traditional religion, Taoism, Buddhism and Confucianism because they all compliment each other, and are incorporated in to the same practices. Yet, somehow, Chuang Tzu manages to criticize Confucius. So they are obviously not the same.


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?