In previous discusssions, we have determined the definitions of aesthetics, ethics, morality, goodness, evil, love, and sin. Let’s review those briefly, just for reference. Furthermore, I would respectuflly request that anyone incapable of accepting these definitions, if only for the sake of argument, please refrain from participation in this thread. The following terms are to be understood and used by all participants in accordance with how they’re defined here:
Aesthetics is the evaluation of worth.
Ethics is the external codification of rules of behavior among men
Morality is the internal codification of personal rules of behavior
Goodness is that which edifies, or increases aesthetical worth
Evil is that which obstructs goodness
Love is the means by which goodness is conveyed
Sin is the obstruction of love
So now, using those definitions, we’ll discuss the ontological and metaphysical qualities of goodness, evil, love, and sin. Do they exist? Are they real things?
Are there any helpful analogics for things like love? Is love, for example, like natural selection, in that natural selection is the (main) means by which evolution occurs. Is it reasonable to say that, in the same way that evolution provides for the possibility of an emergence of a creature who can contemplate things like aesthetics, so it is that love provides for the possibility of one moral agent edifying another?
I’m sure a better analogy can be found, but this’ll start us out, I think.
I often analogize love to a network or conduit. I often view it as a faciliation. Is there such thing? Is it the case that goodness begats goodness? Is goodness the most effective weapon against evil? Does love, in the end, heal? Can sin ever overcome love somehow?
The real metaphysical quesiton, as I see it, is whether there could exist a bizzaro world, in which evil is ubiuitously prevalent, while goodness is exceedingly rare. Would there be a tendency for such a world to self-destruct, since it is actually being “de-edified”, i.e., torn down? Would an evil entity consume itself?
I’d have to answer yes to all of these. IMO, of course, but then that should go without saying for the rest of these threads (unless I’m citing otherwise)
Unfortunately, I’m going to answer yes to this question too.
I’m sure we can all come up with examples, but I believe it is possible for the trauma of bad experiences to overwhelm the edification of love. And that’s just one way sin can counter love.
It would be a mistake to think that because love is the edifying force, evil is wholly and solely destructive. In the course of serving their own goals, evil wills can create as well as destroy. Of course, the ends to which their creations are put are often destructive, but that doesn’t diminish the creativity.
I view it as an energy thing. While love is a sustaining force, hate/sin can burn with an energy that sustains the hater, enabling action and reaction, just as love does. This is not a flame that burns off or cancels out love, but it can, in your own words, “overcome love” by overwhelming it.
I believe it is possible.
Not *necessarily *(again, I use that particular word deliberately). Many an evil man dies on his deathbed, old and unharmed.
The reason? While I agree that evil is not as constructive as love, it is not inherently *just *destructive, like I said. Also, I apply a physics model that tells me even things we believe should be unstable can exist as metastable systems. Without *enough *love to counteract things, or too much evil to tip the balance, such a state could last indefinitely. Many Sci-Fi dystopias come to mind, but the one I particularly think of is Brave New World. To me, a repellent and evil system, but a metastable one.
I’ll have to say yes, with a but. Yes in that it’s probably the most direct route, and though I wouldn’t compare it so much with natural selection as a process, but with the entire situation in which evolution occurs. Just as an arid situation might mean evolution will take a turn towards better means of water storage in creatures, a situation of love (as defined here) might well mean further acts of goodness in turn. Less of a conduit, per se, and more of a predisposition.
That said, i’m not sure to the extent we can say that love sets us up to further acts of goodness as opposed to sin. A lot of the greater acts of goodness in the world are in response to a similarily great sin - a sacrifice for a good cause requires that the situation warrant a sacrifice. In a sense, it could be the most effective weapon against evil is that evil itself.
I think i’d agree with MrDibble. It’s not necessarily the case, but it may well be more likely. For that matter, though, it’s quite possible for an ubiquitously good world to be unstable and self-destruct.
Edit: I would say that in terms of people, at least, love can be just as destructive as sin.
I realize this is an odd way to group your paragraphs, but I think something might have gotten lost in translation, and I want to avoid a situation of talking past one another. I do realize that evil is not wholly and soley destructive in the sense (and only in the sense) that doing nothing can be evil. In fact, I said so. I also do realize that a person can set out to do evil, and his evil can be thwarted. I said that, too. I should also have acknowledged the opposite as well, which is that a person can set out to do good, and his goodness can be thwarted. I did not mean to set up ideals. I know that the real world can bite and bite hard.
But the notion that an evil will can create contradicts my definition of evil by going too far. I suppose if the term “create” is used in its very broadest sense, then one can say, for example, that an evil will can “create havoc.” Or an evil will can “create pain”. But this sort of — forgive me, I can only call it equivocation — confuses the issue, I think.
I don’t realy like (and be assured, I’m not saying you’re doing this at all) attempts at phrasing away meaning. In other words, it should be understood by this point of the witnessing (and I take the blame that it isn’t) that the net product of goodness is always edification, and the net product of evil is always destruction. When there is a conflict between the two; that is to say, when goodness meets evil, goodness always wins because even the evil itself is edified — made into something aestheically valuable. The crucifixion of Christ is probably the prime example of this.
But, one might argue, why can’t it be that evil destroys goodness just as much as goodness edifies evil? And the answer lies in the nature of the two phenomena. If the attempt is made to destroy edification, then edification, upon contact with the destructive potential edifies it. On the other hand, if the attempt is made to edify destruction, then the attempt is successful for the same reason: upon contact with the destructive potential, goodness will edify it.
That’s the part about the light vs. darkness analogy that, I believe, applies. No amount of darkness can stop an electomagnetic wave. On the other hand, a single candle in a dark room will give light. Maybe not enough to film a motion picture, but some light nontheless. It is same same with good and evil. Goodness will always trump evil.
Now, I do acknowledge that, on a micro scale, it can at the very least *seem *as though evil is winning out over goodness. But that’s similar to the thermodynamics argument that we have so often with young earth Creationists. They do not take into account that short term losses of energy (often they cite the life cycle as birth for the sake of death). They argue that entropy on earth ought to be increasing, but they are not taking into account the steady supply of energy from the sun. They forget that the earth is not a closed system.
Goodness is the same way. Love supplies it — or as I put it, facilitates it.
I think the metaphysical question regarding that aspect of things is whether love is a structure or a system. That question is important because of a point you raise later.
Because of my last comment, and your comment just above, we need to stop and consider whether love is a structure (and therefore vulnerable to metastability) or whether it is a system (and therefore vulnerable to hysteresis). It may be that certain clips of spacetime produce metstable states in spedific domains, but the hysteresis of a system will be the union of all domains, or of all metastable states.
Therefore, I think it is important that love, given its nature, be viewed as a system rathet than a structure. So when I describe love as a conduit or network, it is probably a poor definition because its facilitation of love is an active thing — scientifically speaking, it is a system. It seems we cannot help but delve into analogies, and in the sense that I’m speaking here, I see love somewhat as the neurological system in the brain. It is a structure, yes. But that’s not its function. Its function is not to provide mere gateways through which chemicals spew and synapses fire. Its function is to provide the spews and firings themselves.
Same same with love, as I define it. Love is a thing that produces goodness and sends it on its way to its target. It is systematic in nature, and not structural. It *facilitates *goodness.
Yes. I think you caught a weakness in my descripton of love. As I explained to Mr. Dibble above (whose contributions, by the way, have been extremely valuabled — you can even say that he has edified these discussions) I should not describe love in such a way that it leaves the impression of a set of pipes through which water flows. Love is both the pipes and the pump. But there’s another analogy, and in every analogy a fault can be found. But I’m not trying to make this all so esoteric that only we few can understand. I would like it to be generally understood that love facilitates goodness, or as other-wise put it, it conveys goodness. And as I was telling Mr. Dibble, I do not view it as a structure, but as a system
I don’t think that reflects reality. And since this topic is metaphysics, this is exactly the sort of thing we should be discussing. In any world (even modally speaking) where there is love, sin is defeated by virtue of the very nature of love. Just as in any world where there is light, light will always prevail over darkness.
Forgive me, but I believe that that’s stepping backwards, and bringing ethics to bear. Not to say that that’s the wrong thing to do, but I would like us to move foward. There is no need, metaphysically speaking, to assign to people the attribute of sources of goodness or even facilitators of goodness. It may well be done through them, or even despite them, with or without their knowledge (which we’ll discuss at length in Part IV, where we will deal etensively with epistemology.)
I think you need to rephrase or reword something there. To my way of thinking, *structure *is a subset of system. You can’t have a system without having structure also. What (it seems to me) you are trying to distinguish is between dynamic and fixed systems. You are saying love is a dynamic system. I can see that. But even dynamic systems can have pockets of stasis. It’s like the way you’re trying to distinguish hysteresis from metastability - but you can’t really do that, because hysteresis is just the aggregate of all the metastability in a system. In the case of good vs evil, that hysteresis can go either way - even if there is good in the system, the overall aggregate might still be evil. That is what I was trying to say before. You seem to be saying that the edifying force of good will “outbreed” the evil, ISTM. But evil, too, is reproductive. One only has to look at malicious gossip to see this. So the two can, in my view, exist in some dynamic equilibrium. We only need to look at the world we live in to see this. *Both *good and evil flourish, and *neither *has been eliminated in all of human experience.
I continue to disagree with the love=creative vs evil=destructive dichotomy you propose. But I’m still willing to let your definitions define this engagement, and so we’ll run with that. But…
…this is something I fundamentally disagree with. Goodness doesn’t always win. And I find the crucifixion a prime example. I would much rather have seen Christ (assuming he existed) live to continue edifying. All I see in Christ’s “sacrifice” is a waste and a tragedy. I like to compare Christ to Buddha in this regard. Buddha lived, and in living, edified. Christ died and left the completion of his legacy to people like Paul, who, while he *attempted *to edify, I believe got things hopelessly wrong. I don’t find sacrifice stories of the Dying God mode to be aesthetically valuable. They are intellectually interesting for what they tell us about the human psyche, but so are a lot of pathologies.
That’s fair enough. I would simply say that I am not entirely certain that, as a system, it is notable for conveying goodness as opposed to other systems. I’m not sure there’s a significant difference.
I’m afraid that I couldn’t disagree more. There’s no guarantee at all that sin will be defeated by love - otherwise, where would it come from? Beyond that, it’s perfectly possible for sin to be the source of love, and love of sin. Hear the story of a horrible tragedy, and people will likely be moved to give aid. Two people coming together in love can create spite in another who themselves loves one of them. Two opposing viewpoints (let’s take abortion), both motivated by love, can by their competition encourage sin in order to defeat the other. Look at those most famous for doing or being good - Mother Teresa, who worked with those dying. Gandhi, who worked against a despicable regime. The reality is that there are few situations where an act is purely of love or sin, and fewer still are those situations where acts can in turn cause only one of the two responses. And, in many cases, it is those situations which are the most affecting one way which can call forth the other in people.
Sorry for not posting before. I’m a bit busy these days, and would rather not post here than post in haste.
Given your definitions, what of the case in which good and evil co-exist in a person. We might increase the worth of a relationship or work to increase the worth of some thing or person, while also working to decrease the worth of another. I’m not considering hard choices, driven by reality here, I’m only considering what can only be called evil, in that there is no overriding reason to obstruct the good.
Is good and evil applied to a person or to an action? If the former, how, do we evaluate it? Is there some sum of good and evil where the overall goodness can be calculated? Or is it absolute.
Religions seem to treat this question in different ways. Christianity, as I understand it, seems to be absolute. Jesus was the only totally good person - everyone else’s sin component, no matter how small, makes them sinners in need of salvation. Other religions have different solutions to this problem. The Judaism I grew up with seemed to realize that we all committed infractions which we apologize for - but if I remember the prayers correctly, we are asking for atonement for the particular sins, not for ourselves as sinners, since there is no expectation that perfection is possible, and since we all wind up in the same place anyway. The people we look up to, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses and King David, all made mistakes and sinned.
Once we figure out the easier task of weighing good and evil in a person, we may need to weigh the good and evil inherent in almost any of our actions.
Thank God (no pun intended) for your participation in this thread. You’re really helping me sharpen my pencil, as they say. You’re absolutely right.
Okay, you know what? I need to stop now and list all the (pertinent) things I’ve defined, and contextualize them in accordance with my own metaphysics. Otherwise, it would be easy to mistake what I’m saying. And of course, at the root of it all I must keep in mind that I am witnessing about the Aesthetical Jesus, and not the Aesthetical Universe or anything like that. So here are the terms with my metaphysics attached. Please note that I am aware that many or all these comments are doxastic:
1) Goodness
It is not only the case that goodness edifies; it is the case that goodness must edify and cannot not edify. On a meta-level, goodness is itself edification. Goodness has no will. Goodness is a state (an aesthetic state). It is a state in which failure, pain, all that sort of hoo-hah is not possible. Goodness is, basically, a cleanser. And there is no dirt, no stain, no dried up burnt cheese that can withstand it.
2) Evil
Metaphysically speaking, evil is a state lacking in goodness. Completely lacking. It is an aesthetic void. It is a state of nothingness. It exists only in the sense that nothing exists. It is not analogous, perhaps, but it is reminiscent of the long-suffering explanations by athests that the “a” means simply without. It isn’t “anti”. It’s not that you believe in NoGod. It’s simply that there is no belief. For evil, same same. It’s not that evil is the wall that goodness cannot cross over. It is simply that wherever goodness is lacking, there is evil. Evil is just the absence of goodness.
(Please, let’s all keep in mind that we’re discussing ontology and metaphysics in here. Let’s not backtrack now on what we’ve agreed to in aesthetics, ethics, and morality)
3) Love
Unlike goodness, love has will. It is love’s voilition, in fact, that first creates goodness and then sends it on its way. It’s like a goodness factory and distribution system. Love is the only source of goodness. There is no other. It is also present wherever goodness is, much in the since that positive and negative ions are present wherever electricity is. (Or if I’ve technically mutilated that. please take the heart of the analogy.) It is like wind. It bestows its goodness irrespective of person. In other words, irrespective of who is deserving, or meritorious, or due. It is like rain, in that it rains on the good man and the evil man alike. You can almost look at love as some kind of signaling device, and goodness as the waves that eminate from it. It is critical to remember, though, that there is no obstacle that can stop these waves from eminating. To be clear, there may be obstacles, but not obstacles that cannot be overcome. Love can run the obstacle course.
3) Sin
Like evil, sin is in metphysical places that are untouched by goodness. Much like dark matter is in physical places untouched by light. Sin is the absence of love, much like evil is the absence of goodness. Sin is not a thing that is created; it is simply a thing (a necessary thing) that gives meaning to love. Just as there is no comprehension of happiness without a comprehension of sadness (and vice-versa), there is no comprehension of love without a comprehension of sin. Sin is an obstacle to love only in the sense that a free moral agent removes from some other free moral agent the ability to “connect” to goodness. I quotated “connect” because I haven’t defined it, but I believe you should get the sense of it from context.
Now, hopefully, you can see how my model of Jesus concerns aesthetics rather than morality. Goodness increases value. It doesn’t create some kind of merit. In other words, one does good because one is in a state of goodness (or has a state of goodness — *that *could all be argued in a semantics thread), and not because one is good hearted (in the vulgar, or common, sense).
Remember, love does not choose one agent over another. Its waves go out to any radio in its domain (which is infinite). Radios that are turned off are sinful. That, of course, was a metaphor. I am not crossing over into a discussion about the morality of radios.
Well, I’m seriously thinking about, after the final thread (espistemology), opening a thread to debate all this.
We can then give our interpretations of Christ Himself, or whatever. But for the moment, suffice it to say that from my viewpoint, it is my witness that the whole point of the Crucifixion is the Resurrection. I am operating from the premise that Christ is still alvie. That Paul was only one of many who “knew” him. (Leaving epistemology for the future). Obviously, that is something about which we would disagree, and in a debate thread, we would argue the point. For you, His death was His end. For me, His death was what enabled His resurrection. I accept full blame for having raised it as the ultimate example of goodness (or love). I should have known it would be highly controversial.
And so that is (partly) why I say above that goodness does always win, whatever appearances there may be to the contrary. Death is not an end to anything but biological “life” (whatever that may be). But for the spirit, death is freedom.
Now, we’ve pretty much both had our say about that sort of matter. If you would please continue your excellent and patient indulgence, see things from my perspective and use the key words with my meanings, so that my witnessing makes sense to you.
Please see above. There is no source of goodness other than love.
I respect your disagreement, but the point of this series of threads is so that I can explain my beliefs to you. If I may gently say, disagreements whether from you or from Mr. Dibble or anyone else are not really relevant. As I’ve said before, I will happily participate in someone else’s witnessing thread.
But since you’ve bothered to type out your concerns, I’ll address them. (Hopefully, this sort of thing will fade away, and we’ll return to the sort of posts we had in the other threads, where there were more questions than challenges.) Sin will be defeated by love simply by the fact that love is noumenal. Sin is in fact already defeated, since it does not exit in an ontological sense. (Recall that it is nothingness)
I’m glad you returned.
Well, see. all that would mean in my model is that the person is not perfectly good. There are states within (or intrinsic to or again, the semantics are not important) such a person that are lacking goodness. It is by these states that goodness is opposed. Goodness is opposed because the state of nothingness lacks even the potential for goodness. (It also lacks the potential for moral evil.) And it lacks aesthetical worth or value (as well as th potential for it).
I don’t believe it can be called “good” to edify one free moral agent at the expense of another, mainly because it is antithetical to how love works. See above for how I’ve explaind that love is like waves, going out in all directions and reaching all places. Or like rain, raining on the good man and the evil man alike.
It is definitely applied to a person. We cannot evaluate a person’s morality; we can only choose to love or not love. Put another way, we can only choose to increse or decrease (or leave unchanged) the person’s aesthetic value. This might lead to the question, “But how do we know whether we have increased or decresed their aesthetic worth.” And the answer is that you don’t, but THEY do. And that’s the whole point. One does good things because one is good (or metaphysically) is in (or has) at least one good state. It is not possible for a good state to do evil. And it is not possible for evil to do anything. It has been defeated with the resurrection of Christ.
I think a discussion about comparative religion really would be interesting at some point.
I don’t believe that it is possible to weigh the good and evil in a person. That would be a moral judgment, and moral judgments are worthless. (As we established in Part III.) The question for you is not whether the other person is good or evil, but whether YOU are. Just as the question for me is not whether you are good or evil, but whether I am. I am not qualified to judge your morality because I am not omniscient. For you, same same.
However, what we can do is edify one another as much as possible. We both know that goodness begats goodness and that, by loving one another, we will both be better men morally. That does not require a judgment, but merely logic.
I took this from it right away: Lang Lang was in love with the piece. I took your advice and listened to the same piece by others. They were not in love with the piece.
It’s sooo interesting that the issue comes down to the performance! I think so too, I’m not trying to start something.
I’m glad you liked it; I only wanted to help. I think, unless you’re a professional (I’m not), you need several performances to get a bead on what the text of the piece must be- and the text is quite an achievement of expression IMHO. But without passion in the performance, it’s not there. Neat!
I’m still following along. As long as you don’t mind my occasional interjections (which will, I think make any post-witnessing-discussion a bit smoother), I’m good with your definitions as laid out.
Oh, and thanks for reminding me of doxastics. Been a while since I encountered it (symbolic logic course at Varsity, IIRC,) so relooking at it has been fascinating. Loving refreshing myself on the different categorizations of “reasoner”, for instance.
I wish you had been around for the aesthetics thread. It is clear that many people were edified by Lang Lang that night. Beauty can lift the soul, and leave one feeling more valuable than before. For me that’s beauty’s contribution to aesthetics. Whereas Ayn Rand would think one should appreciate the beauty of Lang Lang’s performance, and Schopenhauer would think one should escape or lose himself in Lang Lang’s performance — and I don’t disagree with either of them necessarily; I just think they miss the point of aesthetics — I would say that one shoud be edified by Lang Lang’s performance. I know I was.
(But henceforth, only metaphysical questions and comments please. And welcome to the discusion!)
Very good. I’m glad that, for a change, I was able to edify you, rather than always the other way around.
Okay then, I’ll hold off for a bit more discussion, maybe comments or questions, and then we can move on. I have to say I’m mildly surprised. I thought questions about the reality and existence of love and goodness and such would be much more controversial, thus raising more questions.
I guess it might be helpful if I briefly spell out some of the things I am NOT saying. Sometimes, that’s as helpful as a definition. I’m not saying that love is a force or an energy or even anything phsycial at all. I’m saying that it is a will (or has a will).
I’m not saying that goodness is a force against evil. I’m saying that goodness is an aesthetical state. It is edifying everything it “touches” because it cannot do otherwise. Even evil itself is edified by goodness, just as a dark room becomes lit up as soon as the light is turned on.
I’m not saying that evil is a force fighting goodness. I’m saying that evil is an aesthetical state — one of emptiness. It edifies nothing simply because it cannot.
And I’m not saying that sin is some sort of disobedience of rules. It is merely the failure to love.
Love and goodness are real. They exist. Sin and evil are not real. They do not exist, both having been rendered irrelevant by the resurrection of Christ.
Sorry, all… I’ve been way busier this week than I had expected, and haven’t been able to get back to the discussion. Lib, I’m glad you’re holding off a bit before moving on. After reading through the posts I missed, my skull is spilling over with questions, most of them inchoate at this point.
To follow your analogy, I’ll start with the fact that the only way to achieve your creature is via evolution. Evolution is essential.
Given your definition of morality, which appears independant of goodness or evil, it would appear to me that hate( perhaps you could define it) could provide for one moral agent edifying another moral agent as well. That would mean that love is not essential. And there’s selfishness too. Lots of people have a moral code based on selfishness.
