tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4306753589954666513.post9195171099208049577..comments2023-03-30T12:21:34.989+02:00Comments on Gyllene Gryningen: Radical ethics: Dualism and the Golden Dawn – Part ThreeSincerus Renatus...http://www.blogger.com/profile/16773943810683981054noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4306753589954666513.post-2282357374877985292012-03-31T19:58:18.475+02:002012-03-31T19:58:18.475+02:00Furthermore such a view inevitable implicates that...Furthermore such a view inevitable implicates that there is no real difference between 'good' and 'evil'. Imagine two sides of 'God', one that we call evil and one we call 'good', one side commands what the other forbids and vice versa. On what basis could we claim that one side is good and the other is evil, without assuming a third standard beyond 'God' by which we determine which side is good and which side is evil? Both sides are equally ultimate and make opposing regulations, there would be no criterion for claiming that one is 'evil' and the other 'good' without a third standard. <br /><br />Thus the very notions of good and evil collapses which means that an inevitable implications is that there are no difference between good and evil if your worldview is true. <br /><br />My twofold question is then, if the ultimate is both good and evil, then: (1) On which basis do we call on side 'good' and the other 'evil'?; (2) how can there be a real difference between good and evil? I would really like to hear your comments on this important issue.Ainigmahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12270776952749711216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4306753589954666513.post-65447675942895451812012-03-31T19:57:08.124+02:002012-03-31T19:57:08.124+02:00If there is a difference between good en evil whic...If there is a difference between good en evil which is presupposed in claiming that there are both good and evil in the world, or in God, what is this difference? What does it consists of? What makes the difference? The only answer I can see is that there is a standard of goodness and whatever is good conforms with this standard whereas whatever is evil fail to conform to it. There is a standard that defines what is good and evil and a standard that regulate the application of the definitions. <br /><br />The very analysis of normative concepts shows that what marks the difference between good and evil can neither be evil or indifferent (both good and evil). Evil= what should not in itself be; good= what should in itself be; Thus the standard that distinguish between good and evil regulates that x should not in itself be whereis y should in in itself be, would contradict itself if it regulated that itself should not be. To regulate that x should be in itself is to regulate that itself should be. If x should be in virtue of relating to the standard, then the standard in itself should be even more. If a good thing is good because it resemble the Good then the Good is even better then the good thing which only has goodness derivatively. Since the Good states that which is good, evil is thus a deviation from Goodness, and is therefore not really a thing in itself.<br /><br /> What follows from this is that goodness can exist without evil, but evil cannot exist without goodness. If evil, as it seems, is an "ought not," then it cannot exist without an "ought." It is possible for there to be an objective standard of goodness<br /> without any deviation from it, but it is not possible for there to be a deviation from goodness if the goodness itself is undefined or non-existent.<br /><br /> For example, it is conceivable to have a speed limit without anyone violating it, but it is impossible to violate the speed limit if there is no such thing. Likewise, it is only possible for there to be evil if there is good, but it is possible for there to be good without the existence of evil. Thus it appears as if it is metaphysically impossible that the Ultimate is both good and evil.Ainigmahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12270776952749711216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4306753589954666513.post-1291386441097909722012-01-29T01:42:01.295+01:002012-01-29T01:42:01.295+01:00Care DLM,
No I haven't read Miller, although ...Care DLM,<br /><br />No I haven't read Miller, although I have heard about her. As I recall she was very critical of Freud giving up his initial belief in actual incest for infantile sexual fantasies - i.e. the Oedipus complex. I will consider reading her. Thank's for the recommendation.<br /><br />In Licht, Leben und Liebe,<br />S:.R:.Sincerus Renatus...https://www.blogger.com/profile/16773943810683981054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4306753589954666513.post-9447816616692062242012-01-29T00:46:48.615+01:002012-01-29T00:46:48.615+01:00Dear Sincerus Renatus, have you read Alic Miller´s...Dear Sincerus Renatus, have you read Alic Miller´s book, "For Your Own Good"? In that book, Mrs. Miller outlines the psychology of Adolf Hitler, relying only on known facts and the little that is known of Hitlers family background and childhood. Highly interesting! I recommend it. Alice Miller is a famous psychologist, she is from a jewish background and she created much turmoil in the 1980´s by publishing such books as "The Drama of the Gifted Child", her best known writing<br />L.V.X., <br />DLMLDMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06833220225527296744noreply@blogger.com