Does humanity exist? Does love? Does the universe? Does truth? Does any universal exist in itself? No. Descriptions referencing reality using definite words allows us to express meaning and enhance understanding of reality through abstracted concepts. Nothing that isn't a thing in itself exists, yet we can still refer to aspects of reality through these words and understand what we are talking about in reality. To say humanity, universe, reality, truth, love or good doesn't exist, is to just point out a literal meaning of things existing in themselves, not a philosophical meaning. Just because something isn't physical in itself doesn't make the meta-physical after-physical aspects of human life non-existent. Color doesn't exist in itself, it's a universal grouping category for colors we do see, green, red, etc. Color still exists.
I agree, and I wasn't saying that good doesn't exist because it is not a physical object, or else I would have to say that bad doesn't exist either. My point is that you can make a scale of bad, from zero bad to infinite bad, but you can't make the same scale with good. There is no situation that is zero good or any higher number of good, Good seems to be simply the absence of Bad.
Sorry then hehe. I agree, it's a scale, but for both. You even admit so in your own words. Follow through with me. You make the case for dualities requiring comparison. Indeed, for comparison to work, you need two things, hence why it's called a duality. The scale does not work any other way. More of one, is less than the other, no matter which way you go on the scale.
One side is the "polar", "absolute", "infinite", "pure" good and the other the same for evil. These are ideal extremes that can never be attained. They are direction to head towards on a path. More in one, less in the other, vice versa.
To argue one alone exists, and the other does not, can be made for the side of good as well, and more strongly. Darkness is simply nothing. What 'is', is light, the something. That is what exists. Darkness therefore, is the absence of light. Cold, is the absence of heat. Evil, is the absence of good. The case for good being what actually exists, is stronger and is more of a directly referenced analogous reality, if one wants to make that case.
Well, yes, dark is the absence of light, but that's the comparative term, it refers to the level of light. Light, however, is not the absence of dark, because light is the referential term. There is something that is light that is real, and when we don't have it we can make up a name for not having it (dark), but it's a reference to the amount of light. The absence of a thing is not a thing.
I encourage you to make an argument for the presence of good as a thing to which bad is the reference.
I agree on your last statement. Apophatic inquiry is more powerful, and demonstrates the power of the negative, which I have posted about before:
Shatter, Destroy and Stop the Falsity
One drop of evil, one falsity, will ruin the integrity of an argument or anything else. Logic is fun. To resolve the issue of falsity, immorality or evil, indeed, a removal of that polarity must take place, not an addition of the other polarity to attempt to "even" it out. This doesn't demonstrate one is more real than the other due to this aspect of how one is created compared to the other or how one is removed compared to other. They don't have to operate in an identical fashion to validate the existence or non existence of one relative to the other.
"absence of a thing is not a thing"
Exactly. Recall, my argument was to juxtapose your polarized argument that it can only apply towards bad as a thing, where good is the absence of the bad. I argued the opposite.
My point is that you can make an analogy to support either argument, and within that context, it illicit a particular understanding that is accurate from that perspective. Both perspectives can't be had at the same time. In this case, they both require a different position to look from. Analogy, allegory, symbolism, metaphor, is loose and colorful, One analogy or metaphor can't always be logically united with another in non-contradiction.
I accept that it may be possible to make the contrary argument. But I was unable to do so, as I demonstrated in my essay. I would be happy to see someone demonstrate that they can make such a complementary argument.
I can easily point to things which are bad, and which can be corrected by removing the bad, but which are not corrected by adding good. No amount of making the trains run on time can make Hitler "not bad". You have to remove the killing of millions of people to make it not bad. But take any "good", like planting flowers, and add some bad, like planting them on the bodies of your torture victims, and you make it all bad.