Jump to content


Photo

Evil


  • Please log in to reply
48 replies to this topic

#21 Sasun

Sasun

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,533 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NJ, USA
  • Interests:Art, Yoga, Spirituality

Posted 16 December 2003 - 04:33 PM

QUOTE (Twilight Bark @ Dec 16 2003, 05:06 PM)
"Good" choices made in an "evil-free" context would keep the optimized level of freedom. "Bad" choices would lead to a reduction in the freedom level of the environment that allowed the choice to be made. Enough of these "bad" choices" could eventually make those choices themselves unavailable, or make them the "only choice" (which is of course not a choice anymore), which is a total lack of freedom.

I can't say that this is a clear definition. Optimizing the decisions could lead to maximal possible freedom. OK, that I understand. So what limits the freedom itself? Not optimizing (relatively speaking), or in other words bad choices. So bad choices are limiting our freedom and therefore are evil. That seems to be a definition of evil referring back to itself (bad=evil).

That's how I understood your explanation.

#22 Armen

Armen

    Veterinarian

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,456 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Yerevan

Posted 17 December 2003 - 01:32 AM

I tried to make a short summary of the discussion.
----------------------------------------------------------

1. The Definition of Evil

- Evil is lack of Good - Sasun
- Anything that reduces our freedom from its maximum possible level – Twilight Bark
- Evil is something that is against my will, going to harm me at the benefit of another… or various combinations of all - Stromy
-Evil for me is what is a threat to evolved species…something that could lead the destruction of humanity - Domino

2. Is there a struggle between Evil and Good?

- There is no struggle - God simply tolerates evil most of the time - Sasun

3. What would the world be like without Evil?

- A society with perfect order would be a nightmare… - Twilight Bark

4. Are God and Satan equal to Good and Evil?

N/A

#23 Armen

Armen

    Veterinarian

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,456 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Yerevan

Posted 17 December 2003 - 01:41 AM

I would also like to add that if there was no Evil we wouldn't know what the Good is.

#24 Twilight Bark

Twilight Bark

    Resigned

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,060 posts

Posted 17 December 2003 - 01:48 AM

QUOTE (Sasun @ Dec 16 2003, 02:33 PM)
I can't say that this is a clear definition. Optimizing the decisions could lead to maximal possible freedom. OK, that I understand. So what limits the freedom itself? Not optimizing (relatively speaking), or in other words bad choices. So bad choices are limiting our freedom and therefore are evil. That seems to be a definition of evil referring back to itself (bad=evil).

That's how I understood your explanation.

The only reason I wrote about choices is because you brought it up. I simply explained how the matter of choices would be handled as a consequence of my definition.

In that definition, the "good" exists independent of "evil". Absence of "evil" is a state where the optimal freedoms are enjoyed. You seem to miss the following points: maximum possible level of freedom is determined by a competition of conflicting freedoms. Individual freedoms cannot be arbitrarily maximized without reducing or eliminating other freedoms, and this has noting to do with choices or the presence of evil. The reductions in these unique, individual freedoms as a result of this balance do not constitute "evil", they constitute the "maximum possible" level of freedom. "Evil" comes into the picture when it reduces our freedom unnecessarily, say, in order to satisfy the whims of a tyrant, or in order to allow a lazy bum to be negligent of his or her responsibilities.

About intution: one cannot derive a tangible definition from intuition. One can come up with examples by intuition, and it can provide guidance. Most importantly, intuition provides constraints and "reality check" on our definitions concerning human nature. Intuition summarizes our psychological and social evolution.

As a fun exercise, try to redefine what you consider "good" or "evil" in terms of freedoms, and see if you are beginning to understand what I mean by my definition. Consider, for example, the need to be safe and secure, the right of privacy, and the tension between these two "needs". The need to be safe and secure can be seen as "the freedom to live one's life without being terrorized" and the right to privacy can be seen as "the freedom to keep personal information away from others". Those two freedoms cannot be maximized and enjoyed absolutely; they need to be balanced. So far so good. But if one of them is unnecessarily reduced so as to reduce the total freedom, something "bad" (or "evil" if the reduction is drastic) is introduced. Of course the freedoms need to be weighed according to the importance we assign to them. All these vary from individual to individual, so we are talking about averages so that the the total amount of freedom enjoyed by the society as a whole is optimized. Reducing that would be "bad" or "evil".

#25 Twilight Bark

Twilight Bark

    Resigned

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,060 posts

Posted 17 December 2003 - 01:53 AM

QUOTE (ArmenSarg @ Dec 16 2003, 11:41 PM)
I would also like to add that if there was no Evil we wouldn't know what the Good is.

Perhaps. But note that I can define "good" self-consistently without reference to evil. In that system, evil is defined in reference to "good". In other words, you can start with what you know to be good (i.e. what you want), and know also that the less of that you have, the more "bad" or "evil" the causes of that reduction are.

#26 Armen

Armen

    Veterinarian

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,456 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Yerevan

Posted 17 December 2003 - 01:59 AM

QUOTE (Twilight Bark @ Dec 17 2003, 01:53 AM)
Perhaps.  But note that I can define "good" self-consistently without reference to evil.  In that system, evil is defined in reference to "good".  In other words, you can start with what you know to be good (i.e. what you want), and know also that the less of that you have, the more "bad" or "evil" the causes of that reduction are.

I'm not trying to define Good in the system of my choices or my needs and Evil in relation to these needs, but rather a universal concept of Evil. In this case Good can never be understood without Evil being there.

Edited by ArmenSarg, 17 December 2003 - 02:02 AM.


#27 Twilight Bark

Twilight Bark

    Resigned

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,060 posts

Posted 17 December 2003 - 02:03 AM

QUOTE (ArmenSarg @ Dec 16 2003, 11:59 PM)
I not trying to define Good in the system of my choices or my needs and Evil in relation to these needs, but rather a universal concept of Evil. In this case Good can never be understood without Evil being there.

Good and evil can only exist in the context of self-aware beings and their aspirations. The extent of the "universality" we can assign the concept of good and evil is constrained by that. Inanimate objects on Venus should not come into the picture.

#28 Armen

Armen

    Veterinarian

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,456 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Yerevan

Posted 17 December 2003 - 02:06 AM

QUOTE (Twilight Bark @ Dec 17 2003, 02:03 AM)
Good and evil can only exist in the context of self-aware beings and their aspirations.

But if we wouldn't know what the War is we couldn't value the Peace. It would equate to be born blind.

Edited by ArmenSarg, 17 December 2003 - 02:12 AM.


#29 Twilight Bark

Twilight Bark

    Resigned

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,060 posts

Posted 17 December 2003 - 02:12 AM

QUOTE (ArmenSarg @ Dec 17 2003, 12:06 AM)
Nonetheless, if we wouldn't know what War is we couldn't value the Peace.

Oh I am sure you are right; I agree with that. The point I am trying to make is that war is lack of peace, rather than peace is lack of war.

Next, I will announce how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. wink.gif

#30 Armen

Armen

    Veterinarian

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,456 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Yerevan

Posted 17 December 2003 - 02:18 AM

QUOTE (Twilight Bark @ Dec 17 2003, 02:12 AM)
... peace is lack of war.


OK I got you. The part I qouted sounds like a new Bushism. lol.gif

Edited by ArmenSarg, 17 December 2003 - 02:21 AM.


#31 Sasun

Sasun

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,533 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NJ, USA
  • Interests:Art, Yoga, Spirituality

Posted 17 December 2003 - 10:56 AM

TB, you are saying that evil is what limits your freedom. Then you optimize (limit) a set of freedoms to achieve good. That is contradictory. I would rather call it limited freedom because in reality that's what optimization means.

All in all, I appreciate your mathematical definitition. I believe freedom and good are strongly correlated and closely linked but I think good (and evil as lack of it) is a more fundamental concept than freedom that we are talking about.

I will write more when I have a chance....

#32 DominO

DominO

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,455 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 17 December 2003 - 11:14 AM

Sasun, TB is not contradicting himself, both of you have a different conception of freedom, your view is that evil exist no matter if humanity exist or not, his conception is that Evil exist as a consequences of self-awarness...

His view of freedom is a limited freedom only when you consider that absolute freedom exist as a total and absolute freedom, this is a question of conceptions, he can replicate and answer you that absolute freedom can not exist. If we refer to Socrates, he believed that there was the devine truth and human truth, and it is the absolute human truth that we as humans shall achieve and not devine truth, because as humans we can never achieve it.

From what I understand from what he wrote, what he consider as absolute freedom is a maximization, an analogy in mathematic would be that you have x, y, z, lets suppose that x + y + z =< a(a being a constant) you want to find a value to those variables (x, y, z) that would give the highest results when you multiply those variables with eachothers(x*y*z) but you must respect the first equation which is that when adding those three variables(x+y+z) you can not obtain more than value "a"

This value "a" is the limit that we have as humans that could grow more and more we become evolved.

#33 DominO

DominO

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,455 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 17 December 2003 - 11:45 AM

I think this thread is hignly linked with this one. smile.gif

http://armenians.com...l=morality&st=0

#34 Sasun

Sasun

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,533 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NJ, USA
  • Interests:Art, Yoga, Spirituality

Posted 17 December 2003 - 11:49 AM

Domino, this is one of the few instances that I udnerstand all of your post tongue.gif

QUOTE
From what I understand from what he wrote, what he consider as absolute freedom is a maximization, an analogy in mathematic would be that you have x, y, z, lets suppose that x + y + z =< a(a being a constant) you want to find a value to those variables (x, y, z) that would give the highest results when you multiply those variables with eachothers(x*y*z) but you must respect the first equation which is that when adding those three variables(x+y+z) you can not obtain more than value "a"


That is the way I understood too. This only means relative freedom. If there is a, then that is not freedom for me. You are right, there could be difference in concpets. So what is freedom?

#35 Sasun

Sasun

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,533 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NJ, USA
  • Interests:Art, Yoga, Spirituality

Posted 17 December 2003 - 12:12 PM

By the way, how does this definition work for abortion?

#36 Armen

Armen

    Veterinarian

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,456 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Yerevan

Posted 16 January 2004 - 04:59 PM

Christ in Relation to Lucifer and Ahriman

A Lecture by
Rudolf Steiner
Linz, May 18, 1915
GA 159


INTRODUCTION

The Linz lecture, which is here translated, presents the group in a world-historical context and relates the significance of the Lucifer-Christ-Ahriman configuration to the events surrounding World War I. Steiner sees a parallel between Christ's central, but equalizing position and Central Europe's mission in World War I. He implies that Germany's and Austria's militarism and political intransigence alone did not lead to war against the world powers in the East (Russia) and the West (France, England and, since 1917, the United States). According to Steiner, World War I was the earthly expression of a struggle between luciferic forces in the East and ahrimanic forces in the West, and it was Central Europe's destiny to mediate between these forces.

The fundamental polarization of East and West that Rudolf Steiner saw emerging more than six decades ago is now a political reality. While most historians today concede that World War II was in part caused by the circumstances surrounding World War I, few would accept Rudolf Steiner's statement from his Linz lecture that World War I was “destined by the European karma” or, to state it more concretely, that it was unavoidable. If the war could not have been avoided, then the question of who was to blame or who caused it is, as Steiner says, irrelevant. Based on this position, Steiner suggests that only one question has relevancy: “Who could have prevented the war?” This question seems to contradict Steiner's statement that World War I was destined by the European karma. A quick glance at the historical record may help to clarify what Steiner meant.

In suggesting that the Russian government and possibly England, could have prevented the war, Steiner simply deals with possibilities outside the realm of what had to happen according to European karma. Russia's instigation of the two Peace Conferences in the Hague (1899 and 1907) was indeed self-serving and hypocritical, for it was Russia that, in 1914, mobilized its armed forces without considering British proposals for peace negotiations. Under these circumstances and considering the political immaturity of the German leadership, it was not surprising that the German Raiser and his generals over-reacted to the Russian mobilization and interpreted it as a declaration of war. Kaiser Wilhelm II and Czar Nicholas II, who were cousins, frantically exchanged telegrams in which one beseeched the other to preserve the peace, but to no avail. The war machinery was already overheated by the forces of chauvinism and materialism so that even from this vantage point Steiner was correct in maintaining that war was unavoidable.

Regarding the possibility of preventing the war, a glance at the major Western powers involved in the controversy, and at Germany, reveals the following historical facts. France, for thirty years an ally of Russia, did nothing to prevent the war because she did not attempt to delay the hasty Russian mobilization. Her representatives said later that France regretted the Russian action, but there seems little doubt that France was more interested in presenting herself as the innocent victim of an attack. On the other hand, England's foreign secretary, Sir Edward Grey, could have prevented the war if he had taken earlier measures to discourage Germany's militarists from asserting themselves in their country, but in view of the English tradition and the English Constitution, this was probably not possible. Finally, the confusion in Germany itself was caused by a lack of understanding of who had legitimate authority to make decisions. Eventually, the political decisions were made by generals who managed to spread the belief that the fatherland was in peril and that Germany herself was not the attacker, but the attacked. Thus, theoretically, any one of these three powers could have prevented the war but that, as Rudolf Steiner points out in the lecture, is not the real issue.

Furthermore, the war did not emerge out of a French or Russian moral conviction that was responsive to Germany militarism. Rather, the goal of crushing German militarism emerged well after the war had begun. The war could be interpreted, in this sense, to be inevitable because it was not generated from a goal, but exploded and then developed its goals. In this war of attrition, materialism camouflaged itself with nationalistic sentiment and strove for absolute expression and triumph.

It is against such a background of perplexity and misguided fervor that Rudolf Steiner's message to Central Europeans must be read. In rejecting the question of who had caused the war, Steiner dismissed as equally irrelevant the question of who was to blame for materialism. Materialism was there, as was Ahriman. Steiner admonished the Central Europeans to counterbalance materialism by adopting a spiritual perception of life and by striving for an encounter with the Christ.

This profound spiritual responsibility that Steiner put on the Germans in 1915 was disregarded and the challenge passed by. After World War I it was not the Christ, but Adolf Hitler who, under the guise of “savior,” emerged as Germany's Nemesis and was thus catapulted into a central position. When Hitler was finally destroyed, Central Europe broke up into two parts, one of which disappeared behind the Iron Curtain, while the other aligned with the West.

As it stands today, Rudolf Steiner's call to instate the Christ in His central position has yet to be fully received and responded to not only by the people living in what is left of Central Europe, but also in the rest of the world.

— Peter Mollenhauer

#37 Armen

Armen

    Veterinarian

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,456 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Yerevan

Posted 28 January 2004 - 02:44 AM

Luciferic Beings activate illusions in our thinking and emotions, which are strongly oriented to the past and which try to keep things as they are – reactivity, likes and dislikes etc.

Ahrimanic Beings activate soulless abstractions in our thinking, wanting to organise social life in the way you would build a machine – commands, rules and formalities.

The Luciferic-nature can only approach the blood, through the breath.
The Ahrimanic-nature, the nervous-system, through the senses.

#38 Armen

Armen

    Veterinarian

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,456 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Yerevan

Posted 04 August 2004 - 09:08 PM

The Ahrimanic Deception
A lecture by Rudolf Steiner
Zurich, October 27, 1919
GA 193

Excerpts

- Lucifer is the power that stirs up in man all fanatical, all falsely mystical forces, all that physiologically tends to bring the blood into disorder and so lift man above and outside himself.

- Ahriman is the power that makes man dry, prosaic, philistine — that ossifies him and brings him to the superstition of materialism.

- And the true nature and being of man is essentially the effort to hold the balance between the powers of Lucifer and Ahriman; the Christ Impulse helps present humanity to establish this equilibrium.

- Thus these two poles — the Luciferic and the Ahrimanic — are continuously present in man. Viewed historically, we find that the Luciferic preponderated in certain currents of cultural development of the pre-Christian age and continued into the first centuries of our era. On the other hand the Ahrimanic influence has been at work since the middle of the fifteenth century and will increase in strength until an actual incarnation of Ahriman takes place among Western humanity.

#39 Sasun

Sasun

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,533 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NJ, USA
  • Interests:Art, Yoga, Spirituality

Posted 04 August 2004 - 09:27 PM

There seem to be more evil beings besides Ahriman and Lucifer. There are tons of crooked gods, demons, etc. floating in the universe. According to Hinduism these were spiritually evolved men who were tempted in one way or another and became un-free yet powerful beings. I wonder if Steiner has studied them. Ahriman and Lucifer could be chief among them, perhaps they are known with other names as well.

#40 Armen

Armen

    Veterinarian

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,456 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Yerevan

Posted 05 August 2004 - 10:35 AM

Sasun, Lucifer and Ahriman have different names in other faiths but they are present in all religions. The important point is the description of their influence on human being. Steiner has lectures that cover the evolution of Evil in the history of humankind. However, his works on Luciferic and Ahrimanic creatures deal with their infulence on human being's present development.
To put it short, the validity all other creatures has expired smile.gif




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users