Posts from philosophy

The only biblical principle that I fully acknowledge is "Do not judge, and you will not be judged." You cannot impose your own notions of good and evil on others, no matter how correct they may seem. The best thing is to live according to your own conscience and be accountable to it. The main thing is not to betray yourself.

My father taught philosophy at a university for over 20 years, and then he went into politics. But I can only argue one point: a person who isn't interested won't pay attention.

There are 3 foundations of philosophy:
1-European: black is black, white is white (by the way, the most primitive)
2-Chinese: black will become white, white will become black;
3-Indian: there is neither black nor white.

These are three branches, but there are many foundations: religious, scientific... and so on.;) Maybe for a merchant, this is evil, maybe he was fired for it, and his children have already died of hunger. Look at it from a broader perspective.

From this, it follows that good is when everyone is happy. Again, no propaganda, but try to imagine a world exactly like the one we live in. The same people, each with their own views and interests... with one exception: all people live according to 11 commandments. Ah... dreams...:)

This implies that good is when everyone is happy. ...

If the whole world is filled with pure good, it will turn into a gray utopia where there will only be smiles and idiotic laughter. Balance is where the strength lies!

Why specifically a gray utopia? People will live just as they always have, only a little better. Read the commandments; nowhere does it say, "smile like an idiot and laugh like you're high." What I said is precisely what balance is.

If the whole world were filled with pure goodness, it would turn into a gray utopia, where there would only be smiles from ear to ear and idiotic laughter. Balance is where the strength lies!

If there was goodness everywhere, the world would be a much better place.

If there was peace and harmony everywhere, the world would be a much better place.

But there would be a concentration camp filled with morally depraved people. Because if there is no evil, then there is nothing to compare good to... and consequently, good itself would not exist. And you would end up with a gray mass that has lost its bearings in life and only eats and reproduces. I've already written that good and evil are the same thing... it's just that there are different situations and people who evaluate them.

Folks, you are arguing over one of the most fundamental philosophical and ethical themes. Over thousands of years, all sorts of views have emerged; although, of course, this doesn't mean we can't come up with something new now—it just significantly lowers the probability of coming up with that very same "new" thing.
Personally, I agree most with Nowizard. As for the thought that darkness is necessary—in my view, that is also correct; for if there were no evil, good would lose all value and cease to be a free choice for everyone—and along with it, goodness itself.

Added after 24 minutes
there are 3 foundations of philosophy
1-European: black is black, white is white (by the way, the most primitive)"
2-Chinese: black will become white, white will become black;
3-Indian: there is neither white nor black.
Now this—this is what's called total nonsense:mad: . Firstly, these aren same foundations, but approaches. Secondly, many philosophers (for example, Husserl) didn't recognize Chinese and Indian philosophy at all (I don't think so :D ). Thirdly, one must understand that beneath each of these types of philosophy—European, Chinese, and Indian—lies a specific religious system. Beneath European philosophy (I am not talking about ancient philosophy now) lies Christianity, and no matter how hard various philosophers like Nietzsche tried to refute this, it is so: even in their own works—for example, in the works of that same Nietzsche—one can find a noticeable trace of Christianity. Christianity proceeds from the dichotomy of good and evil with !!the unlimited superiority of good!! — God is omnipotent, and God is goodness (and love :) ); it is not God who fights the devil, but Archangel Gabriel (I always confuse him with Michael, so I'm not exactly sure if it's Gabriel—may theologians and the archangels themselves forgive me :D ). And this is not only my view—Lewis expressed the same idea (the one who was friends with Tolkien and wrote The Chronicles of Narnia, not the one who wrote about Alice), and as far as I know, most modern Catholic and Orthodox theologians hold this same view. Only the Albigensian heresy spoke of the equality of these two principles. Evil in Christianity is only a byproduct of the higher good—free will—and it was created only so that there would be something to choose from.
The situation is different with China and India. At the core of all Chinese philosophy lies the I Ching, the Book of Changes; both Confucianism and Taoism are based on it. Buddhism is a religion external to China; as you all well know, it originated in India. I'm afraid yxShaitan was somewhat confused by the incredibly popular Yin-Yang image these days, which various ignorant people give incredibly loose interpretations to. In reality, Yin is not evil, and Yang is not good; goodness, according to Chinese philosophy, is in harmony, and evil is in disharmony (purely like those samey elves :D ); both Confucianism and Taoism are religions that tell you what to do to live this life well, that is, in harmony. They say nothing at all about the afterlife, and everything related to it is limited to the veneration of ancestral spirits. Chinese philosophy—unlike European and Indian—is a cheerful and life-loving philosophy.
Indian philosophy is generally an awful mess, but as far as I can understand, regarding good and evil, things there are also not as uхShaitan wrote—after all, after death you can be born as an insect, or as a human; you can be an Untouchable, or a Brahmin. There—again, as far as I've understood—everything is determined by how well you play the role given to you in your previous life. The highest reward is to be reborn as a deity. Buddhism, on the other hand, considers all of life—that is, all existence—to be evil, and sees good in the minimization of evil, that is, in reducing contact with life (and that's almost pure Necropolis :D ); the best state is Nirvana, which is, effectively, non-existence.
Whew, I really went off there:o

Added after 42 seconds
there are 3 foundations of philosophy
1-European: black is black, white is white (by the way, the most primitive)"
2-Chinese: black will become white, white will become black;
3-Indian: there is neither white nor black.
Now this—this is what's called total nonsense:mad: . Firstly, these aren same foundations, but approaches. Secondly, many philosophers (for example, Husserl) didn't recognize Chinese and Indian philosophy at all (I don't think so :D ). Thirdly, one must understand that beneath each of these types of philosophy—European, Chinese, and Indian—lies a specific religious system. Beneath European philosophy (I am not talking about ancient philosophy now) lies Christianity, and no matter how hard various philosophers like Nietzsche tried to refute this, it is so: even in their own works—for example, in the works of that same Nietzsche—one can find a noticeable trace of Christianity. Christianity proceeds from the dichotomy of good and evil with !!the unlimited superiority of good!! — God is omnipotent, and God is goodness (and love :) ); it is not God who fights the devil, but Archangel Gabriel (I always confuse him with Michael, so I'm not exactly sure if it's Gabriel—may theologians and the archangels themselves forgive me :D ). And this is not only my view—Lewis expressed the same idea (the one who was friends with Tolkien and wrote The Chronicles of Narnia, not the one who wrote about Alice), and as far as I know, most modern Catholic and Orthodox theologians hold this same view. Only the Albigensian heresy spoke of the equality of these two principles. Evil in Christianity is only a byproduct of the higher good—free will—and it was created only so that there would be something to choose from.
The situation is different with China and India. At the core of all Chinese philosophy lies the I Ching, the Book of Changes; both Confucianism and Taoism are based on it. Buddhism is a religion external to China; as you all well know, it originated in India. I'm afraid yxShaitan was somewhat confused by the incredibly popular Yin-Yang image these days, which various ignorant people give incredibly loose interpretations to. In reality, Yin is not evil, and Yang is not good; goodness, according to Chinese philosophy, is in harmony, and evil is in disharmony (purely like those samey elves :D ); both Confucianism and Taoism are religions that tell you what to do to live this life well, that is, in harmony. They say nothing at all about the afterlife, and everything related to it is limited to the veneration of ancestral spirits. Chinese philosophy—unlike European and Indian—is a cheerful and life-loving philosophy.
Indian philosophy is generally an awful mess, but as far as I can understand, regarding good and evil, things there are also not as uхShaitan wrote—after all, after death you can be born as an insect, or as a human; you can be an Untouchable, or a Brahmin. There—again, as far as I've understood—everything is determined by how well you play the role given to you in your previous life. The highest reward is to be reborn as a deity. Buddhism, on the other hand, considers all of life—that is, all existence—to be evil, and sees good in the minimization of evil, that is, in reducing contact with life (and that's almost pure Necropolis :D ); the best state is Nirvana, which is, effectively, non-existence.
Whew, I really went off there:o

Still, one cannot impose one's own ideas of good on anyone. Eleven commandments are wonderful, but only for Christians. For a Buddhist, there is only one commandment – to avoid suffering. For a Taoist, there are no commandments at all; their main principle is non-action. And all of this has not prevented people at different times from raising their commandments as a banner and going to fight those who disagree. If the world were governed by Christian commandments, it might turn out to be hell for Taoists or Muslims.

Yes, the fact that different religions have different values is definitely true. By the way, the Ten Commandments are actually Jewish, not Christian (although they are also revered by Christians); Jesus, if I'm not mistaken, named only two commandments: love your neighbor as yourself (by the way, note that it says "as yourself," not "more than yourself," which means you also need to love yourself :D) and love God... but I forgot how to love yourself or more than yourself:(
But still, I want to believe that there are some universal moral norms. For example, as far as I know, no society approves of its members killing other members (and here the degree of generalization is important – for example, Jews consider only Jews to be "their own," Muslims – only Muslims and to a lesser extent Christians and Jews, Christians – all people (and some, like Saint Francis, who preached to wolves, even animals:)), Buddhists – all living beings), except in specifically provided cases – for example, executions or sacrifices. And I definitely can't remember anyone approving of lying. But in general, I agree that most moral norms are very relative and change from society to society

Lying as a principle was observed in all anti-system movements: the Albigensians, the Bogomils, the Ismailis, and others. The fact that we consider it evil does not mean that it is absolute evil. For the adherents of these teachings, lying was a necessity for survival.
There are no absolute values and norms, nor can there be, because all norms are created by specific people belonging to specific societies and express the views of that society.
Therefore, as I believe, the main thing is not to compromise with one's conscience, but to evaluate everything oneself.

Actually, you're wrong about the Albigensians. You know, it was precisely through lies that this heresy was eradicated. For the Albigensians, the key element was the rite of consolation, coselamentum (if I spelled the Latin word correctly :D ), and those who underwent it became Perfects, who were absolutely forbidden from sinning—otherwise, they immediately ceased to be so. Consolation could only be performed by a Perfect (I wonder who the first Perfect was). The Inquisitors—by the way, they appeared specifically then and specifically to fight this heresy; they were Dominican monks—they simply approached every suspicious person and asked them, "Are you a Perfect?". If he lied, he ceased to be a Perfect; if he told the truth, he was burned. And very soon, all the Perfects were gone.
As for the Bogomils—they were the ancestors of the Albigensians; their views were quite strange overall—for example, they claimed that Evil resided in Constantinople and was embodied by the Byzantine Emperor. And, in any case, they did not lie to "their own." This is exactly what I meant regarding the degree of commonality.

The main principle of the Albigensians is that the world is evil. The entire world was created by the Devil, and everything material is evil. To be freed from matter, it is necessary to completely exhaust the flesh. This was done in two ways: asceticism or debauchery. In order not to stand out among people, the Albigensians and Bogomils could and should use lies in relation to those around them. But they were truly honest with their own.
Here is an example of an anti-system where good and evil exist, but their places have been switched.

I don't know... I haven't read anything about debauchery, but I won't deny anything outright. I'll just repeat what I know: the Perfect ones did not sin (nor lie!), and only they could perform the Consolation, which liberated the spirit and provided a path to paradise. You are absolutely right about matter, and half right about the world: the Albigensians believed that God created souls, and the devil (by the way, they called him Demiurge:D, which, if I'm not mistaken, means craftsman) created bodies and imprisoned souls in them. And it was necessary to completely free the soul from carnal desires.

Once again, we come to different interpretations of good and evil. If everything is reduced to one thing, the world will lose all the charm of diversity.