People tend to throw around the words good and bad a lot. Most assume that there is some definate line between the two, and that people who cross it are wicked. I think that the only difference between good and bad, in the third person sense, is perspective. take forest fires. to the people, animals, and plants being burned alive they seem like a pretty bad thing, however, to the seed of sequoia trees they're the oppurtunity to grow into the largest life forms on earth. world war II destroyed most of europe and killed millions. it also catapulted america into a military and economic superpower, the benefits of which we're using today (the net). of course there is 'bad for me' and 'good for me'. that which i believe will be good or bad for me in the near future. stepping in front of a bus is 'bad for me', eating an apple is 'good for me'. global warming is 'bad for me', while owning a fuel efficient vehicle is 'good for me.'
The concept of good and bad is subjective, I think most people know that really, it's just an easy thing to forget when you're going about everyday life. The brain is built to simplify the world around us so that we can make sense of it and understand it more easily, the problem with that process is that we end up seeing many situations in black and white when there are usually many shades. Dividing the world into good/bad or good/evil is never right. That's what religions do and it causes no end of problems.
there is one universal bad, and that, unless you're a masochist, is whatever brings about or contributes to brining about, suffering. the rest of it, (of all the endless words, spoken about the subject, my own or anybody else's) is indeed, self serving mumbo jumbo. =^^= .../\...
ah, but even suffering can be good. i suffer when i go to the dentist. but i suffer more from an infected tooth. billions of people suffered because of world war II, but because of it we have an economic state never seen before. the cold war caused suffering, but gave us the internet. i maintain that the only difference between good and bad (in the objective sense) is a matter of persepective and time scale.
... Here we go again ... The Nikalaus having to make Einstein enter the debate. Enter Mr. Albert Einstein: "The professor of a university challenged his students with this question. "Did God create everything that exists?" A student answered bravely, "Yes, he did". The professor then asked, "If God created everything, then he created evil. Since evil exists (as noticed by our own actions), so God is evil. The student couldn't respond to that statement causing the professor to conclude that he had "proved" that "belief in God" was a fairy tale, and therefore worthless. Another student raised his hand and asked the professor, "May I pose a question? " "Of course" answered the professor. The young student stood up and asked : "Professor does Cold exists?" The professor answered, "What kind of question is that?...Of course the cold exists... haven't you ever been cold?" The young student answered, "In fact sir, Cold does not exist. According to the laws of Physics, what we consider cold, in fact is the absence of heat. Anything is able to be studied as long as it transmits energy (heat). Absolute Zero is the total absence of heat, but cold does not exist. What we have done is create a term to describe how we feel if we don't have body heat or we are not hot." "And, does Dark exist?", he continued. The professor answered "Of course". This time the student responded, "Again you're wrong, Sir. Darkness does not exist either. Darkness is in fact simply the absence of light. Light can be studied, darkness can not. Darkness cannot be broken down. A simple ray of light tears the darkness and illuminates the surface where the! light beam finishes. Dark is a term that we humans have created to describe what happens when there's lack of light." Finally, the student asked the professor, "Sir, does evil exist?" The professor replied, "Of course it exists, as I mentioned at the beginning, we see violations, crimes and violence anywhere in the world, and those things are evil." The student responded, "Sir, Evil does not exist. Just as in the previous cases, Evil is a term which man has created to describe the result of the absence of God's presence in the hearts of man. After this, the professor bowed down his head, and didn't answer back. The young man's name was ALBERT EINSTEIN." ... ... ... You may read this article @: http://www.religioustolerance.org/culeins.htm MOST HISTORIANS KNOW THIS STORY I DIDN'T MAKE IT UP, NOR IS IT BULLSHIT PROPAGANDA. THIS DEBATE REALLY TOOK PLACE. EINSTIEN wasnt just a great mathematician, he was a fucking kick ass philosopher too. He figured out like I have that words are a package, that transmit thought, and thought are a package that transmit emotion. And human emotion my dear friends is also a measurable form of ENERGY! BLOODY BRILLIANT! This guy was not god, himself, but man, I like to see him as a saint!!!!
HEh, yeah, society tends to move forth through conflict, NO DOUBT... When we fuck up gods plans of course it has repercussions throught out the world. But that's why when i studied sociology I focused more on the FUNCTIONALIST perspective. Basically this is the tradional pitfall and argument of the framework, if we all strive to be equal how to we move forth... Personally, I believe in a soul, and I believe that the products of the soul are the arts, and my friend at the HEART of any major change in society the arts have always been right there beside it. THINK OF THIS SITE RIGHT HERE. Think of the Hippie Era. I think the world can still foster change with the FUNCTIONALIST Framework, with PEACE at the root as long as we produce ART to foster change!
it is the ambient deffinician of "moving forth" that i most seriously question. nothing against fancy toys to explore and create with. i love them myself. but this so called moving forward so many worship at the feat of, i must be blind or ignorant, but i'm sorry, i just plain don't see it. =^^= .../\... i do have to aggree whole heartedly 100% with einstien about cold, darkness and 'evil' though. being not things but words for the abscence of things. though what i see evil as being the abscence of has nothing to do with belief, specificly or generally, nor abscence of it, but rather with the abscence of self restraint from contributing to the causes of suffering. =^^= .../\...
Dood, I love your posts LOL. You always seem to bring just one more grain of wisdom to the table! hehehe I kinda have to agree with you to, why the hell do we have to change? ... Why can't we all just be content with what the world is now? ... It would appear as the further we progress the dumber we get anyways... Seriously, for example, I don't think many people in my generation in North America know how to grow a garden. If all of a sudden the Grocery store would cease to exist we'd be fucked! And if the pattern of change continues heading in the direction it currently is the next generation even more so! But that subject is WAyyy off topic! LOL!
hate, killing = bad love, healing = good Obviously if we lived our lives in the light (and are conscious of it, lol) we wouldn’t do certain “bad” things. My beliefs are a mixture of many different things, and I consider myself spiritual. I tend to focus on all that good stuff like the wisdom of Buddha, Jesus, or even Martin Luther Kind JR. Love, peace, and all that good stuff. The way that I look at it, if the Will of the Cosmos does not allow it, then it won’t happen. Everything has a purpose/meaning and there is a greater good. But yeah, your right, the terms are used rather “loosely” at times.
killing, for predators, is natural, and 'good' (at least from their perspective). If it weren't for killing, we'd have a lot of old deer and wildebeasts all over the place. And the greeks thought love was a curse (being shot with an arrow isn't a quaint symbol, it fucking hurts). Love does blind you, moreso than hate does. people are willing to act quite irrationally because of love... your good and bad is not absolute. Einstein didn't say half the things he's said. He's become a cultural archetype for a very smart person, like bill gates is an archetype of a very rich person. He was also autistic, and didn't have a clue about human nature.
well some things happen more often when other things happen first and some things we'd like, and i'm not saying the same things for all of us, just whatever they may happen to be for each of us, to see happen more often then others. so it sort of makes some kind of sense i would think, to want to do the kinds of things the things we'd like to see happen happen more often when they happen first then the kind of things they are less likely to happen when they happen first. i think that's pretty much the good and the bad of it. for me, i think the avoidance of causing suffering, because i'd prefer to live in a world where fewer people did and all did so a LOT less often, is worth a hell of a lot more then the artificial reality created by symbolic value. but maybe that's just me. =^^= .../\...
To Eugene: Sorry, I was talking about people. Generally, you don’t see people committing horrible crimes, such as murder, everyday unless you watch the news. I have much more faith in people than that. If love blinds you, then you have problems, lol. I think some people confuse “love” with parts of the human ego that can corrupt the person even further….. But that’s just me, lol.
basically you're saying you believe the end justifies the means. who's ends would be interesting. and its obvious that whats bad for some people (the exterminations of millions of jews) are good for others (hitler) As for teh USA being an economic and powergiant inteh world. that in itself bring much good to teh people of that country but it also bring s a lot of bad to MANY people all across teh world. If you are a nihilist then thats fine but its not a popular theory for teh general population of teh world that figure if you're actively harming people and are aware of it then you're generally a bad person.
I don't think that i'm really attempting to justify anything. I really just wanted to point out that there is no absolute good or absolute bad, because even the most terrible things can result in positive actions, while the best bring out the worst in man. we, as such limited creatures who only see a small slice of the whole, seem incapable of discerning between the two.
I think most people know that good and bad stuff happens in the world and one can lead to the other. No one with any sense would argue with that. But the intention to cause harm or lack of care which causes serious damage is absolutely bad despite what good after effects come of it IMO. I know people disagree. i know people think chairman mao killing millions was worth it because look at china now! I'm just simply not one of those people.
ends and means are both capable of being unjustified. can choosing to remain ignorant of how to avoid causing suffering ever be? or refusing to restrain oneself accordingly? =^^= .../\...
... yeah ok it's a story, ... about how Einstein is a Philosophical genius. did you really read that. It's just plain common sense man. It doesnt prove, God or no God, it's just a very logical clear cut and dry way of looking at GOOD AND BAD. But of course this is a philosophical debate. You say tomehto, and I say tomahto.
