Mindmap - Good and Evil

[Principium Nexus]

I really like this way of creating mind-maps and schematically ordering thought. In this mind-map I look what "Good" and "Evil" are and what their relationship is.

[Enizeo]

Neat, what did you use to make it?

[Principium Nexus]

@Enizeo XMind Zen, free program for Mac/Win/Linux

[Leo Gura]

@Principium Nexus Rather than doing this sort of mapping you would learn a lot more about "good" and "evil" if you sat down and actually tried to directly experience what the words "good" and "evil" refer to in your direct experience.

What are you really talking about when you say those words? Anything real? Anything actual? Or illusions in the mind?

Try to point to one ACTUAL good thing.

Try to point to one ACTUAL evil thing.

Mapping stuff seems cool, but it is conceptual, not ACTUAL, and will likely lead you into self-deception. EVERY concept must be grounded in ACTUALITY if you wish to get closer to truth. It's way too easy for the mind to make shit up. So watch out.

[Principium Nexus]

@Leo Gura I understand what you mean Leo and what you say is also required to gather insight/reflect/contemplate/experience, on this forum however we can ONLY conceptualize through words. What I try to do after my personal experiences with what I think is "Good" or "Evil" is by replacing the ACTUAL experience here with a variable that should always result in a "Good" or "Evil" value after that experience has finished. I'm looking for the conditions that make me perceive something to be "Good" or "Evil" not only NOW but ALWAYS everywhere.

Oh and I do understand that "Good" and "Evil" do not exist outside from Subjective interpretation.

To me there is no Evil, anyone who hurts me (intentionally or unintentionally) does this because they are unable to do good and that causes them to suffer. I cannot blame someone who suffers for doing "evil" things, only forgive and try to give love back what they so desperately need.

Edited November 22, 2018 by Principium Nexus

[Forestluv]

6 hours ago, Principium Nexus said:

 

To me there is no Evil, anyone who hurts me (intentionally or unintentionally) does this because they are unable to do good and that causes them to suffer. I cannot blame someone who suffers for doing "evil" things, only forgive and try to give love back what they so desperately need.

What is intentionality? From where does intentionality arise? Who is it that intends? Who is it that is unable to do good? 

Your conceptual framework seems to be based on fundamental assumptions. If you inquire deeply about these assumptions, the old map may unravel and a new map may arise.

[RichardY]

@Principium Nexus You can't make a concept out of Evil. I'm not saying Evil, does not exist. "Those who understand Evil pardon it." - George Bernard Shaw.

Good you can make a concept or concepts out of.

10 hours ago, Principium Nexus said:

Oh and I do understand that "Good" and "Evil" do not exist outside from Subjective interpretation.

In which case, you have no recourse against anything. Adding Fuel to the fire. As Evil is not a concept, it's not objective either.

 

 

 

[Emerald]

13 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

@Principium Nexus Rather than doing this sort of mapping you would learn a lot more about "good" and "evil" if you sat down and actually tried to directly experience what the words "good" and "evil" refer to in your direct experience.

What are you really talking about when you say those words? Anything real? Anything actual? Or illusions in the mind?

Try to point to one ACTUAL good thing.

Try to point to one ACTUAL evil thing.

Mapping stuff seems cool, but it is conceptual, not ACTUAL, and will likely lead you into self-deception. EVERY concept must be grounded in ACTUALITY if you wish to get closer to truth. It's way too easy for the mind to make shit up. So watch out.

I have observed that "good" and "evil" are noticeable forces in the internal landscape.

So, even if there are no good and evil things out in reality, there are two warring drives that exist in the wilderness of the internal experience. And the friction between the two drives creates a lot of chaotic energy. 

It is only in being able to detach from identification with these drives in full, both good and evil, that we can zoom out and see how they interact together. 

So, good and evil both do and do not exist. They don't from the objective labeling perspective. There is nothing about reality that is good or evil... not even the drives of good and evil. The drives of good and evil are both morally neutral. 

But they do exist phenomenologically as drives that have real and tangible effects on our attitudes and behaviors. They are there. 

[Sockrattes]

"A good will is good not because of what it effects, or accomplishes, not because of its fitness to attain some intended end, but good just by its willing, i.e. in itself; and, considered by itself, it is to be esteemed beyond compare much higher than anything that could ever be brought about by it in favor of some inclinations, and indeed, if you will, the sum of all inclinations. Even if by some particular disfavor of fate, or by the scanty endowment of a stepmotherly nature, this will should entirely lack the capacity to carry through its purpose; if despite its greatest striving it should still accomplish nothing, and only the good will were to remain (not of course, as a mere wish, but as the summoning of all means that are within our control); then, like a jewel, it would still shine by itself, as something that has full worth in itself."

Immanuel Kant

 

This guy knows who to write sentences.^^

[RichardY]

@Sockrattes

The thing with Kant is that would be a kind of rationalism, where Evil people are Evil because they are Evil, or Good because Good. He doesn't deal with the issue of good and evil. Instead he makes up an a priori realm, to justify his duty ethics. 

 

36 minutes ago, Emerald said:

I have observed that "good" and "evil" are noticeable forces in the internal landscape.

So, even if there are no good and evil things out in reality, there are two warring drives that exist in the wilderness of the internal experience. And the friction between the two drives creates a lot of chaotic energy. 

It is only in being able to detach from identification with these drives in full, both good and evil, that we can zoom out and see how they interact together. 

So, good and evil both do and do not exist. They don't from the objective labeling perspective. There is nothing about reality that is good or evil... not even the drives of good and evil. The drives of good and evil are both morally neutral. 

But they do exist phenomenologically as drives that have real and tangible effects on our attitudes and behaviors. They are there. 

So giving someone an equal amount of poison, as of medicine, would be the most sensible way to go?

[Sockrattes]

17 minutes ago, RichardY said:

@Sockrattes

The thing with Kant is that would be a kind of rationalism, where Evil people are Evil because they are Evil, or Good because Good. He doesn't deal with the issue of good and evil. Instead he makes up an a priori realm, to justify his duty ethics. 

I get where you are coming from, but is that even true though?

I think his categorical imperative is not bound to circular reasoning. At least i can't see how.

[RichardY]

@Sockrattes

Something  like "Act according to the maxim that which you will, should become a universal law."

I think some people can understand that you can't make stealing a moral good, without in turn being stolen from. Or simultaneously occupy the same space at the same time, without in someway cancelling out. Transcendental Morality ( I remember Leo mentioning it was the most advanced). The Transcendental principle to Kant, being God.

The issue is then, why would you follow the imperative? You may after all, only follow it, out of fear of punishment. In which case you're not really good just following the rules, which you break at your peril. As to do so would basically fracture your psyche. You may after all have malevolent intent. 

There is a modern reworking of the imperative termed UPB, which is a rehash of Kant. My issue is that while empirical, it depends on narrative, and so is not fundamentally different from Nietzsche in my humble opinion.

As a basic rule, I like the silver rule of do not do unto other as you would not have them do unto you. a double negative.

Personally I think Leibniz or Thomas Aquinas, might be more correct with Evil being a deprivation of Good , it's either them or Nietzsche in my opinion, I'm not sure which troubles me more.

Anyway bit of entertainment, if I were certain I would not be here.

Edited November 23, 2018 by RichardY

[Sockrattes]

@RichardY I'm not entirely sure, but it sounds like, you are looking for a teleological explanation in a deontological concept.

You are looking for a product which you can label as good or bad, rather than a process, which leads to a result which is morally right.

Kant doesn't say you should do this or that, but he says, how your thoughtprocess must be structured to get the result you are looking for without contradicting yourself.

The question wether something can be good, he did in fact answer. It took me a while, i've found a english version:

"There is nothing it is possible to think of anywhere in the world, or indeed anything at all outside it, that can be held to be good without limitation, excepting only a good will"

That's actually the first sentence, and then he goes on and explains why.^^

http://www.inp.uw.edu.pl/mdsie/Political_Thought/Kant - groundwork for the metaphysics of morals with essays.pdf

[Principium Nexus]

I think there has already been this discussion before about which layer of reality we are talking about.

#1 Fundamentally you could reason nothing exists, non-dual, basically talking about any concept is illusionary in its nature so why even bother coming to a forum if you embrace this as the ultimate answer for everything.

#2 Reality is empty in nature, however, the illusionary world of concepts has created its own practical part and contemplating how and why these exist can give interesting insights of practical nature, even though these answers will ultimately also be illusionary in nature.

My take on this good and evil debate is what it personally means to me how we "could" categorize these concepts and which may result in some practical insights

[Emerald]

2 hours ago, RichardY said:

So giving someone an equal amount of poison, as of medicine, would be the most sensible way to go?

No. There is no action justification in this perspective, as this is an existential perspective and not a practical perspective.

It is simply noticing what is, and then accepting that what is, is valid to be there. And the recognition that human concepts of good and evil (as implying valid and invalid) have no realness to them. So, if we see a person as "evil" and we label them that, it can only mean something on the practical level. There is no "evil" to them as an existential qualifier, other than when other human beings label them as such. So, the label "good" and the label "evil" have no existential reality to them... only practical reaity

That said, it would be foolish to look from the existential perspective to justify doing harmful things. There are still consequences for destructive actions. And if we live by the Golden Rule of doing unto others what we would like done unto us, then engaging in destructive and harmful actions toward another person deviates from that goal. And if we realize that "all is one" and that there is no delineation between self and other, then it makes absolutely no sense to harm anyone at all. 

But in the human internal experience, there are two warring drives. One is compassionate and wants all things positive for everyone and everything. The other is destructive and sadistic and wants everything to burn to the ground in a huge heap of pain and suffering. And these aspects of the internal landscape are an aspect of the collective unconscious and have influence on every single person.

This is why there is so much reference to the dichotomy of good and evil in myths, despite the fact that good and evil can't be found as an existential reality... even if it's applied as a lens directly to those two drives. The existence of those two drive is simply the case. All things in reality are morally neutral on the existential level. So, even if we have a terrible drive and a good drive, the existence of these drives is neither good nor bad. Their existence simply is, and as such is valid in the eyes of the creator. 

But these warring drives do have practical effects on the workings of individuals, and what they are willing to do. And if the evil drive is unconscious, it can more easily slip into the driver seat without the individual realizing. This is how the people who create the most destruction, believe themselves to be the most righteous. They are identified so much with the good drive that they don't even question that they could be influenced by evil. And so, evil sneaks right in and takes control, as all shadow material does. 

This is how we get Hitlers who believe themselves to be so righteous in their cause, that they don't even see the massive destruction that they create as negative. 

So, realizing these drives exist and integrating them into our consciousness without identifying with them is key to being able to see what is influencing our actions. And when we integrate and zoom out from both the good and evil drive without identifying with either one, we can then hear a much subtler voice... the voice of divine wisdom. 

[tecladocasio]

The Evil is in the belief that you can discern what is evil and what is not . Evil is in the discrimination of good and bad as a justification of some kind of activity...

[RichardY]

14 hours ago, Sockrattes said:

@RichardY I'm not entirely sure, but it sounds like, you are looking for a teleological explanation in a deontological concept.

You are looking for a product which you can label as good or bad, rather than a process, which leads to a result which is morally right.

Yes you are correct.

Not so much good or bad, more like how a gamer or film lover may say this game or sequel, in this particular genre of film is better. But ultimately yes, a product.

I do consider something like "The Book of Knowing" to be a good book. "Mastery" a bad book, even if right. "The Ethics" a Good book even if wrong.

Quote

With the highest respect, I exclude the name of Heraclitus.     When the rest of the philosophic crowd rejected the testimony of the senses because it showed multiplicity and change, he rejected their testimony because it represented things as if they had permanence and unity.  Heraclitus too did the senses an injustice.  They lie neither in the way the Eleatics believed, nor as he believed — they do not lie at all.  What we make of their testimony, that alone introduces lies; for example, the lie of unity, the lie of thinghood, of substance, of permanence.  "Reason" is the reason we falsify the testimony of the senses.  Insofar as the senses show becoming, passing away, and change, they do not lie.  But Heraclitus will remain eternally right with his assertion that being is an empty fiction.  The "apparent" world is the only one: the "true" world is merely added by a lie.  - Nietzsche Twilight of the Idols.

15 hours ago, Sockrattes said:

Kant doesn't say you should do this or that, but he says, how your thoughtprocess must be structured to get the result you are looking for without contradicting yourself.

The question wether something can be good, he did in fact answer. It took me a while, i've found a english version:

"There is nothing it is possible to think of anywhere in the world, or indeed anything at all outside it, that can be held to be good without limitation, excepting only a good will"

That's actually the first sentence, and then he goes on and explains why.^^

http://www.inp.uw.edu.pl/mdsie/Political_Thought/Kant - groundwork for the metaphysics of morals with essays.pdf

Yes I've noticed too much double-think(contradiction), originally I thought maybe people, are nearly all consciously lying as part of some sick joke, but after reading "1984", & Spinoza's "The Ethics", seeing it in my travels. It's a habituated to the point people can't tell the difference. I think highly functional people are also dysfunctional, or broken, Actors as a public example. I guess being functional is not good. Spinoza seemed to be totally dependent on his emotion.

Skimming the introduction, I like how Kant is saying that without a Goodwill, philosophy makes a person worse, super villain warning, almost like advertising it.

A Goodwill(soul), one of the things I'm biased by, is Nietzsche's critique of Kant, not explaining what a goodwill actually is, calls Kant a Theologian of old or something. The only substitute that I think would suffice is the idea of Emergentism in contrast to a soul, emergent properties say as heat is the result of friction. Not like some new matrix, but difference. The problem is, if a person's character goodwill is highly influenced by their genetics and upbringing, then to what extent can a person choose, or even want to be good? Well that really sucks. If I have freewill, why can't I choose to have a Goodwill, on the condition it is superior to Evil.

Thank you for the link, I haven't really given Kant enough credit, book is pretty short, so I'll give it a listen on Scribd, I had listened to some of his "Critique of Pure Reason". The Categorical Imperative, quotes and things online.

 

[RichardY]

17 hours ago, Principium Nexus said:

I think there has already been this discussion before about which layer of reality we are talking about.

#1 Fundamentally you could reason nothing exists, non-dual, basically talking about any concept is illusionary in its nature so why even bother coming to a forum if you embrace this as the ultimate answer for everything.

#2 Reality is empty in nature, however, the illusionary world of concepts has created its own practical part and contemplating how and why these exist can give interesting insights of practical nature, even though these answers will ultimately also be illusionary in nature.

My take on this good and evil debate is what it personally means to me how we "could" categorize these concepts and which may result in some practical insights

You could look at John Stuart Mill, a utilitarian & collectivist, I think he's wrong. But looks similar to some of the ideas you're thinking of.

[RichardY]

17 hours ago, Emerald said:

No. There is no action justification in this perspective, as this is an existential perspective and not a practical perspective.

It is simply noticing what is, and then accepting that what is, is valid to be there. And the recognition that human concepts of good and evil (as implying valid and invalid) have no realness to them. So, if we see a person as "evil" and we label them that, it can only mean something on the practical level. There is no "evil" to them as an existential qualifier, other than when other human beings label them as such. So, the label "good" and the label "evil" have no existential reality to them... only practical reaity

That said, it would be foolish to look from the existential perspective to justify doing harmful things. There are still consequences for destructive actions. And if we live by the Golden Rule of doing unto others what we would like done unto us, then engaging in destructive and harmful actions toward another person deviates from that goal. And if we realize that "all is one" and that there is no delineation between self and other, then it makes absolutely no sense to harm anyone at all. 

But in the human internal experience, there are two warring drives. One is compassionate and wants all things positive for everyone and everything. The other is destructive and sadistic and wants everything to burn to the ground in a huge heap of pain and suffering. And these aspects of the internal landscape are an aspect of the collective unconscious and have influence on every single person.

This is why there is so much reference to the dichotomy of good and evil in myths, despite the fact that good and evil can't be found as an existential reality... even if it's applied as a lens directly to those two drives. The existence of those two drive is simply the case. All things in reality are morally neutral on the existential level. So, even if we have a terrible drive and a good drive, the existence of these drives is neither good nor bad. Their existence simply is, and as such is valid in the eyes of the creator. 

But these warring drives do have practical effects on the workings of individuals, and what they are willing to do. And if the evil drive is unconscious, it can more easily slip into the driver seat without the individual realizing. This is how the people who create the most destruction, believe themselves to be the most righteous. They are identified so much with the good drive that they don't even question that they could be influenced by evil. And so, evil sneaks right in and takes control, as all shadow material does. 

This is how we get Hitlers who believe themselves to be so righteous in their cause, that they don't even see the massive destruction that they create as negative. 

So, realizing these drives exist and integrating them into our consciousness without identifying with them is key to being able to see what is influencing our actions. And when we integrate and zoom out from both the good and evil drive without identifying with either one, we can then hear a much subtler voice... the voice of divine wisdom. 

Practical Evil is in effect moral relativism. Which I think is wrong.

Either Evil exists existentially or it does not. If it does not, then talking about good and evil drives is nonsense, unless you're a moral relativist. I fully accept the idea of an unconscious, if it helps to conceptualise, with a Freudian, Thanatos, and Eros so be it. The drawback I see with Jungian Archetypes, is the possibility to multiply to absurdity.

The golden rule fails imho, a person maybe a sadomasochist. I prefer the Silver Rule, of not doing unto others, as you would not have them do unto you. 

[Emerald]

47 minutes ago, RichardY said:

Practical Evil is in effect moral relativism. Which I think is wrong.

Either Evil exists existentially or it does not. If it does not, then talking about good and evil drives is nonsense, unless you're a moral relativist. I fully accept the idea of an unconscious, if it helps to conceptualise, with a Freudian, Thanatos, and Eros so be it. The drawback I see with Jungian Archetypes, is the possibility to multiply to absurdity.

The golden rule fails imho, a person maybe a sadomasochist. I prefer the Silver Rule, of not doing unto others, as you would not have them do unto you. 

Evil doesn't exist existentially. So, all morality is inherently relativistic on the existential level. Reality, on the absolute level, is empty of both good and evil. All things are perfect, as they are manifestations of an all-loving and perfect creator, regardless of how natural the tendency of human beings to label something evil is. So, good and evil come down to human interpretations and labels of events and realities that are beyond the human concept of good and evil or the human mind's ability to conceptualize in general.

An example would be that a murderer is someone that people would label evil because they cause pain and suffering for their own reason without regard for the pain and suffering they cause. So, on the relative level of practical human functioning, they cause a lot of problems for people. But the murderer, on the absolute level, is empty of evil as it is part of the grand play that God creates from itself and for itself. So, the murderer is just another indistinguishable aspect of the field of consciousness which is divine and perfect as it is God.

Just as in a painting of a murderer murdering someone, on the existential level all it is paint on a canvas. There is nothing evil about the paint that is used to paint the murderer in the painting relative to the paint used to create the victim or the background. It is only the human ability to conceptualize of an interpretation of the painting that makes us supply a meaning for it. It's an illusion painted by its creator and all of the creation is inseparable from the rest of the creation. And like the painting, on the existential level, all is an illusion.

However, on the level of duality, there is such a thing as healthy and unhealthy. There is also such a thing as functional and dysfunctional. There is also such a thing as building up and breaking down. And there is such a thing as something that's constructive versus being destructive. There at also actions that produce pain and suffering and actions that don't produce pain and suffering. And human beings will often categorize this dichotomy by labeling it good and evil.... and may think there is even an existential reality to those labels, when they really only exist as practical labels. So, these dichotomies are all relative truths within the field of duality. But on the level of the non-dual, there is no dichotomies including the dichotomy of good and evil... there is only one which is also nothingness. 

For example, there is nothing inherently and existentially invalid about eating a diet consisting of only donuts. But objectively speaking, if your goal is health, then an all-donut diet is not conducive to the goal of health. But there is nothing existentially more valid about being healthy relative to being unhealthy. God loves both the healthy and unhealthy unconditionally and abhors nothing and no one. That said, on the human practical level, it is a mostly universal human preference to desire health and not desire illness. But God has no such prejudice. It loves all regardless of how beneficial or detrimental it is to human beings or other sentient beings in general.

So, if we label something practically "evil" as being influenced by the destructive drive, then the practical term has the most efficacy in describing a situation that is unhealthy, dysfunctional, and focus toward creating suffering and breaking down. Evil is something that goes against harmonious human functioning. And on the practical human level we recognize that these practically "evil" situations cause us or others suffering, then it makes sense to avoid participating in and perpetuating these patterns. This is especially true if we realize the inherent oneness of reality and how others' pain is our own pain.

But within the field of duality, there is a destructive drive and a constructive drive that can be noticed as phenomenological realities. They are there, and they can be observed as the fodder of the internal landscape. And they influence human thought and action. But there is nothing inherently good or evil about those two drives, as they too are just part of God's perfect creation and God loves them both. God doesn't abhor the destructive drive... it created it. And so, counterintuitively, the drives of both good and evil are empty of good and evil on the existential level just like everything else is. 

Edited November 23, 2018 by Emerald