The source of evil.

[CurtSibling]

@nihilistic,

I would trust that half-mad Thane more than Mr Gates!

 

[Pikachu]

Originally posted by nihilistic


Uhh .. no. First of all, there is no number called infinity. Infinity means "arbitrarily large". Second, don't claim to know things you obviously do not know. Definition? The definition of division is that it is the opposite of multiplication, that a/b = c is only valid when a = c*b for one unique c.

and there is no irrational numbers, zero doesn't exist, nor negative numbers and pi is exactly 4... I hope you are not a mathematician In my school infinity was an accepted concept, and there were good definitions on how to use it in calculations. Your definition of division is legal for infinite numbers too, except that the finite number is not unique:
Any finite number / Infinity = Zero
Infinity * Zero = Any finite number
These equations are defined to be true. This is just an extension of the old definition for division. When infinity is defined there is no rational reason to why c in your equations have to be unique. It is consistent anyway.

This is getting a little off topic. Maybe we should agree that mathematics is the source of evil

 

[CurtSibling]

I would hazard a guess that the source of human negativity (or 'evil', if you wish to quantify it) would be the human mind's imagination and emotional motivation.

 

[Pikachu]

Originally posted by Ayatollah So


Emphasis added to "had to". You have made a wrong assumption my friend when you said "had to" -- we were talking about the case where your free will always DID good. Doing good presumably is what god wants for you, but you could be doing because it's good rather than simply because god wills it.

Please try not to assume your conclusion.



There you go again, assuming your conclusion. (Emphasis added, again.) Suppose I consistenly feel like doing good. How does that prove I am literally incapable of evil? Incapable in the sense of "it's beyond my abilities" -- not just in the sense that you can safely bet I won't do it.

That's exactly how the world works. All people want to do good things, and most people do what they want most of the time if they can. You can safely put your bet on that

If nobody ever had done anything evil, I would suspect that there was no free will. I would probably have to kill someone then, just to see if it was possible I think that when somthing is possible, sooner or later someone will try it. I don't like the idea of humans being only good like God. It must be a sad life to be a god We need a little evil! Since God didn't create evil, we had to do it ourselves

 

[allhailIndia]

It's all about the choices we make in life.

We have been given a free will and a brain to be able to see the consequences of our actions and hence must take responsbility for our actions and not blame fate, destiny or karma, etc.

 

[nihilistic]

Originally posted by Pikachu
and there is no irrational numbers, zero doesn't exist, nor negative numbers

Math cannot prove existence. If you have taken modern set theory (or read a book on it) you will see.

Originally posted by Pikachu
and pi is exactly 4...

Now you are just slandering. I never said that.

Originally posted by Pikachu
I hope you are not a mathematician In my school infinity was an accepted concept, and there were good definitions on how to use it in calculations. Your definition of division is legal for infinite numbers too, except that the finite number is not unique:
Any finite number / Infinity = Zero
Infinity * Zero = Any finite number
These equations are defined to be true. This is just an extension of the old definition for division. When infinity is defined there is no rational reason to why c in your equations have to be unique. It is consistent anyway.

This is getting a little off topic. Maybe we should agree that mathematics is the source of evil

Infinity is defined as the limit for an unbounded sequence of increasing numbers in R under the standard distance metric. You can then prove its uniqueness as well as the existence and uniqueness of -Infinity, as well as an infinite amount of ComplexInfinities. There is no actual point on the number line you can call "infinity".

Any finite number / Infinity = Zero

It should have been that any fixed finite number (or a sequence with that finite number as a limit), when divided by an unbounded sequence of numbers approaching the limit known as infinity, will approach 0. There is a fundamental difference between those two statements. Your statement suggested a lack of knowledge of calculus and analysis.

Infinity * Zero = Any finite number

NO, imbecile! NO. Withing the set all sequences that approach infinity counpounded with the set of all sequences that approach 0, there exists at least one pairing of sequences that whose term-by-term product will be a sequence approaching any fixed finite number. However, a particular sequence cannot converge to "any finite number", as it can only approach AT MOST one limit. There is also the possibility that it will diverge to either infinities, or diverge nowhere. Also, if by 0 you meant the number 0, then it really doesn't matter what the unbounded sequence that approaches infinity looked like, the limit is 0.

 

[Portuguese]

Originally posted by YNCS
The source of evil is when one thinks of other people as things rather than people.

True, true....

 

[Ayatollah So]

Originally posted by Pikachu
If nobody ever had done anything evil, I would suspect that there was no free will.

Nah, you'd be too busy choosing between some really great options. Which in itself would prove your free will.

QUOTE]I would probably have to kill someone then, just to see if it was possible I think that when somthing is possible, sooner or later someone will try it. I don't like the idea of humans being only good like God. It must be a sad life to be a god We need a little evil! Since God didn't create evil, we had to do it ourselves [/QUOTE]

If human beings were created, deliberately in every detail, by a Deity, the scattershot randomness of human behavior ("when something is possible, sooner or later someone will try it") was Its choice. That puts some evil into that godly choice. Unless you think it's some huge favor to us that we were made to act in a scattershot, random way. I don't see it.

 

[Gastric ReFlux]

After lunch today, I have to say the source of evil is McDonald's.

Now back to your regularly scheduled debate.

 

[CruddyLeper]

Apologies if I'm posting on an old thread...

"Radix Malorum" = the root of evil has been applied to the love of money and women.

Personally, I lean more towards the bhuddist view that desire is the root of evil.

I see that many posters have indicated their belief that evil is a human concept, and should not be applied to non-human situations for instance, the male lion eating cubs and natural disasters like volcanoes and earthquakes.

But evil is real, in the sense that people believe in it, just as people believe in good. As regards to human behaviour, and indicating what is beneficial and what is harmful, these are a useful set of labsls.

Otherwise, surely all behaviour would be acceptable and of equal worth?

 

[Mojotronica]

Originally posted by CruddyLeper


Personally, I lean more towards the bhuddist view that desire is the root of evil.

I see that many posters have indicated their belief that evil is a human concept, and should not be applied to non-human situations for instance, the male lion eating cubs and natural disasters like volcanoes and earthquakes.

But evil is real, in the sense that people believe in it, just as people believe in good. As regards to human behaviour, and indicating what is beneficial and what is harmful, these are a useful set of labsls.

Otherwise, surely all behaviour would be acceptable and of equal worth?

I think that the Buddhist definition of "evil" as DESIRE is compatiable w/ a pseudo x-tian definition of "evil" as lack of faith in God. Lack of faith is lack of obedience. Lack of odedience is driven by rampant ego. By ego I mean the elevation of our own petty individualist human concerns over piety. Through piety, the xtian attempts to rid his or her life of that which is not essential, living a simpler and more fulfilling life.

Similarly, Buddhsts seek to repress desire for petty individualist human concerns, in the process ridding themselves of that which is not essential, living a simpler and more fulfilling life.

It's the same quest, but it is "taught" differently, and of course the specific terms to describe the enlightenment reflect the culture in which the faith was spawned, so they are different.

 

[test_specimen]

I don't see a point in being pious (if you mean being gratefull for your creation and knowing your smallness in the context of big, universal schemes). If you accept a place in "the creation" that is lower than where you really might stand, you lose much more, than if you put yourself higher.

Egoism is, if applied for the human race as a whole, nothing evil or opposed to "enlightenment". It is only evil, if you underestimate the influence your environment has on you while you use it.

Obeing a higher being might lead to nothing but a miserable life. If I were you, I would take no chances. Why should someone create you, reveal himself through dubious sources, and demand that you refuse all fullfillment of desires?

Also, why should the same entity create other beings, that purely react on their desires (animals)? What is the gain for this entity? What use would a god see in his creation?

on a sidenote: The recent hype for buddhism really repulses me. Just because the Dalai Lama, a ruler chosen by a religious group and constituting a god-emperor like the pharaos has been thrown out of his country, there is no reason to support this religion. Off course I would see the Tibetans rather free than under Chinese communism, but instituting the Dalai Lama again would be a mistake.

 

[Mojotronica]

test --

The idea is that our ego -- or our desire -- is what prevents us from being happy, burdoning us. By becoming enlightened, one throws off the burden of want, and is happy.

It's anti-intellectual and opposed to "progress" in the Hegelian sense. But it's hard to refute. If you were complete you would desire nothing, and if you desired nothing you would be have nothing to be miserable about.

Animals apparently have not yet developed the intellect in the human sense to worry about their happiness.

Anyway, I think that it has relevance even in our complex modern world because if we can't attain pure happiness we can at least be happier. It's not all or nothing. By consciously deciding that you will be happy with less, you'll find yourself enlightened.

I can't really comment of the political problems of Tibet, or whether the Dalai Lama would make a better leader. Maybe so, maybe not. But that is a separate issue. It's like mixing xtianity in w/ political goals. Religion is intended for individuals -- national religious identity is more of a cultural/civlizational conflict.

The parallel w/ xtianity is that xtians should strive to unburdon themselves f/ their egos. That is, to live by principles of subservience to God, and in so doing unburdon themselves many or most of their trivial Earthly concerns. Then what REALLY matters to us will snap into focus.

The idea is sort of the opposite of our current consumerist culture -- it's all related.

The downside is that progress as measured in our ability to produce more food and essential goods w/ less labor, and to cure plagues and other ills apparently runs contrary to the idealogy as well... But perhaps the world is more complex than it needs to be while still reaping the benefits of progress.

 

[test_specimen]

On an individual level it is logical for a religion to oppose to egoism, since religion is/has been a source of law, and if you deny your wants/desires you are less likely to commit a crime.

Just because I say to myself, that I do not want someone else's wife (for example), it does not make it true, nor will this give me satisfaction. The desires that cannot be fulfilled have to be compensated otherwise, and religion gives you some tools for this.

And maybe you can make yourself believe in your happyness, but it won't be different from a consumer happiness, that you gain from buying the latest products. IMHO this happyness because of lack of desires is a substitute for consumerism (and the other way round), and therefore, just as you said, opposed to consumerism.

I don't think that you satisfied your desires by ignoring them, you just circumvented them. If this leads to enlightenment, why should consumerism not lead to enlightenment?

 

[Mojotronica]

test --

"Dreamin' is free." ~ Debbie Harry

Consumerism can be expensive. And when a desire is indulged is that the end of desire? No. Desire will be there whether it is satiated or not.

By recognizing that desire is the root of dissatisfaction is desire itself is one step in the path of enlightenment that I have found helpful. (Although I am far from enlightened -- deeply flawed and imperfect, in fact...)

I am not as familiar w/ Buddhism as I am w/ xtianity, but xtianity's quest to transcend the ego has parallels in the Buddhist quest to transcend desire.

 

[CruddyLeper]

Originally posted by test_specimen

....
on a sidenote: The recent hype for buddhism really repulses me. Just because the Dalai Lama, a ruler chosen by a religious group and constituting a god-emperor like the pharaos has been thrown out of his country, there is no reason to support this religion. Off course I would see the Tibetans rather free than under Chinese communism, but instituting the Dalai Lama again would be a mistake.

Bhuddism is a philosophy, not a religion. It has no form of worship and nothing to worship - how can it be a religion?

As for the Delai Lama and China thing - appeasement of aggressive invasion is not a good idea. The problem is that if the DL was not the head of state of an indepedant Tibet, he would remain as the "unofficial" leader to the majority of the population.

Shooting him wouldn't work either. He'd just reincarnate.

 

[Boba Fett]

Evil doesn't come from anywhere it is only someone's point of veiw that doesn't agree with others piont of view.

 

[smalltalk]

originally posted by test_specimen
But the world is not deterministic. According to Heisenberg ...

The quantum world is of course not deterministic, but do these effects propagate up to the macro-world of biology? I doubt it. Otherwise Roger Penrose (the one with the Penrose-Hawking Black Holes) presumes there are "microtubuli" in our brains working by quantum-effects. (and who I am to disagree ) So quantum effects might play a role in our brain, but this is not confirmed yet.

Is Quantum Mechanics Relevant To Understanding Consciousness?

Anyway, where's the difference? Determinism vs. Probabilistics: neither meets my idea of a free will. Say, I want to have ice cream. What will I take, vanilla, chocolate or walnut?

Free will: chocolate, cause I like it
determinism: chocolate, cause I'm determined to like it
probabilistic: one minute please, I will toss a coin or roll the dice to see, what I prefer ...

originally posted by mojotronica
...ultimately science and spirituality are different constructs, designed to answer different questions.

True by definition. But the borders are shifting. Science has answered an increasing number of questions, whereas religious questions are decreasing in numbers, maybe not in weight. Still the very last questions will always be matter of speculation and thus part of religion, methaphysics, superstition - whatever you call it.

Why not apply scientific metaphor to these topics? I guess I could find rational arguments for most of the ten commandments.

Here's an example: in physics and in chemistry a given system strives to be in the state with the least possible energy. The apple falls because it wants to get rid of its excess potential energy - vulgo height. This is why rivers run downwards, why proto-stellar matter has condensed into Earth, why the sun is aflame in thermonuclear fire. - just to reach a lower energetic state.

By metaphor, evil actions are the ones which hinder you to reach a more efficient state, you are uptight and not one with yourself. Good actions leave you with a clean, untroubled conciousness. Someone once said: "The advantage of telling the truth is that you don't have to remember your lies." This also implies that evil people cannot have peace-of-mind. (I'm not sure about this one, it might be wishful thinking.)

Another example is lightening a match. It will not set free its energy unless you invest a certain starter amount of friction energy into the process...

 

[Benderino]

Chocolate!

 

[CruddyLeper]

Originally posted by test_specimen
On an individual level it is logical for a religion to oppose to egoism, since religion is/has been a source of law, and if you deny your wants/desires you are less likely to commit a crime.

....
I don't think that you satisfied your desires by ignoring them, you just circumvented them. If this leads to enlightenment, why should consumerism not lead to enlightenment?

There's a difference to me between desire and appetite. If I can control my desires, I can control my behaviour.

I cannot control things like my hunger or desire for human companionship (or seeking approval or a host of others).

I would say that, in the majority of cases, consumerism does not lead to enlightenment or ultimate happiness, because there is always more to consume.

Some people reach a plateau witht their lives, where they manage to balance their appetites and the occasional desire with hard work. If you can manage this, well, I salute you.

For most people though, it doesn't happen.

I'm not advocating a "customer free" society. I just wish people would start less conversations with "I want this" or "I want that". It's not as if I'm in a position to help them get their material wants with a few horizontal exceptions.