Some thoughts about the obvious.
I'm going to try to say the obvious, because... have not you noticed? The wisdom lies in knowing how to say what everyone knows, even though I am not wise. Socrates said he was ignorant; Parmenides, that what exists, exists, and that what does not exist, does not exist; Plato said that all the words we use in our day to day, in effect refer to something. These men are, however, the brightest minds we have ever had. And although everyone knows what they say, I fear that few know what they say.
Although I will not talk about philosophy, and I will not repair using the correct words, because... what is the use of the correct words if the concept that is sought to be transmitted is not the correct one? We could suppress the word completely if we could only understand the message. Furthermore, if you understand what someone says even if they don't say it correctly, would you take it or ignore it? If you knew even if it was not said, would you pretend not to know?
But in the end it's confusing, because if you say the obvious, everyone already knows, and if you explain it, everyone gets complicated. Socrates was killed; Plato was forgotten for more than a thousand years to be remembered a couple of centuries ago, and even today it is difficult to say that it is understood; and Parmenides... well... do you even know who he was?
And that's the funny thing, because the only thing we want to know is the obvious, what can be useful in life, but the obvious is there all the time and we don't pay attention. Ah, but when you analyze for a moment the obvious, that what is on everyone's lips every day, then we realize and feel stupid for not seeing what everyone can see, although nobody really sees it.
I realized the great truism that all people are essentially the same. That's right, there is a kind of pattern that repeats itself perhaps in the minds of all people, because we all want the same things. You know, good, justice, happiness, and a long list of obvious things.
If we call all the people that exist and have existed and ask them; "do you think sir, that although your opinions are not always true, you always consider the truth as something desirable in them?"; "do you think madam, that although your actions are not always good or just, you always consider good and justice as something desirable in them?"
I don't believe that anyone in the world opposes, or has opposed, such values. Yes, I don't believe there are the "bad guys", the "unjust ones" or the others. The "bad" and the "unjust" is always another that is being pointed with a finger. From there it turns out that we have millions and millions of people, all looking for a heavenly world, maybe we are living in fact in the best possible world in which we can live.
Oh, I don't deny that there is evil or injustice, or all these negative things, but I deny that such things are done by "bad" or "unjust" people, they are made by you and me, by no one else. Because you know one thing, evil is simply what appears to be good, that's right, in the eyes of someone that was good. And injustice is only what appears to be just.
Any narrative that says; we are the good ones, those are the bad ones, it is a vitiated narrative.
If we put ourselves in the shoes of the fool, of the bad, of the unjust, of the stupid, of the subject who says things when he should not say them or who does not know how to shut up, of the uncomfortable, of the one who bothers us all the time, of the people who fill our time asking for favors, of the person who looks at us badly, or of the people who are angry all the time, in short, if we see from their eyes, we would notice because they do what they do.
But I don't justify them, don't get confused. The unjust is unjustifiable. I'm just saying that they can judge our actions, but not our good intentions. Although I also say the obvious, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
People who do evil or who are unfair, hurt others, and that is why it is reprehensible, but they do more harm to themselves. Like the Marxists who are the archetype of moral decadence. Do you know why Stalin purged the communist party several times? why did he persecute his "comrades"? Because after lying so much, conspiring, being unscrupulous and crushing whoever got in his way, all this in the name of good of course, of material good, after doing all that, he knew that he was surrounded by similar people, and he should live in complete paranoia, fleeing from himself, until finally he was killed.
Because that is what we do, as we treat others we will be treated, as we judge we will be judged.
Sometimes such cases are truly regrettable things, and perhaps if we understood them we would not hate them but would feel compassion, because they have diligently built hell for themselves.
When we are confused we believe that moral good has nothing to do with practical good. It is not like that. The moral good is good precisely because it brings good results. And who is good, proceeds good, and their results are good. That is why Socrates believed that evil is the product of ignorance, because no one in his right mind who knows that he will have worse results acting badly would do so.
What I mean is (in fact nothing because this is simply a comment with introduction), that you have to be perceptive to differentiate between what it appears to be, and what it is, because it is very easy to get carried away by appearances and end up doing exactly the opposite of what was sought.
Image Source: 1
This is probably the most difficult part of distinguishing between appearance and what is. We seem to have more to do with ourselves than with others. My own mental condition often determines what intentions I attribute to others.
I think we agree that this is a lifelong task and practice to be aware of it and to keep a cool head and a loving heart at crucial moments.
Perceiving the obvious of a situation and then acting or not acting on it is only possible if I activate the inner willingness to always act at the least possible damage and to become the least of a nuisance to my fellow world.
The more alien and different I feel towards another, the less I will succeed. The more I am willing to accept similarities, the better I will succeed.
How difficult this practice is to implement, I notice again and again when I let self-doubt and anger win in weak moments. How much guilt I then carry around with me has to do with how heavy and big the bag of guilt has become. It is then very difficult to look into the eyes of others to whom I think I owe something. As far as they have withdrawn their trust in me, experienced me as incapable, the restoration is often something that seems insurmountable to me and yet it is probably the most worthwhile task I can pursue to find peace.
Should I say the obvious? Well... we are completely in agreement.
Bad guys definitely do exist. They must exist, because they are the antithesis of the good guys. Neither can exist without the other. It's like Newton's third law of motion. So by saying there are no bad guys, you must also acknowledge that there are no good guys either.
Who are the bad guys; those who do evil or those who want evil?
I think that for someone to be bad their intentions and actions must seek evil. In the same way for someone to be good, their intentions and actions should seek good. If someone does good or bad without wanting to, we can't say that it is good or bad, even if their actions are good or bad.
Since I don't think anyone is looking for evil, I don't think there are bad guys. Unless we call "bad guys" to the people who do evil looking for good, in that case, you and I, and everyone, has been these guys for moments.
"I don't think anyone is looking for evil"
That is where you are incorrect. Again, in order for someone to be looking for good, someone else must be looking for evil. Otherwise, it is not good. That would be just being human.
To your last point, I believe that actions are what defines us, not our intentions. That is what we can perceive; we cannot perceive intentions. So by calling "bad guys" those people who do evil looking for good, then I can truthfully say that we all have all been in that position.
I understand you, but do you think there are people with bad intentions? And with bad intentions I mean that they seek to do evil. You think there are?
Don't believe for a moment that I am being relativist. I'm just saying that people who do evil do it because, or think it's good, or are indifferent to good, but they don't look for bad results with this.
You are right, we don't perceive intentions, but that is not a reason to reduce the world to what we can perceive, so that we can validate our judgment.
The problem of denominating as bad guys those who act badly, is that we create a division between them and us, and we avoid understanding them, and if we don't understand them we can't eradicate that evil, since such people are not doing such evil by intention, but out of ignorance.
But it's okay, let's call him "bad guys", let's say that the good guy is the one who has knowledge of the good, and therefore, acts good, and his results are good, and that on the other hand, the bad guy is the one who ignores the good, and therefore, acts badly, and his results are bad. From this it follows that the bad is not bad for doing the bad, but for ignoring the good, so that you don't have to create a dichotomy between one and the other, because both are really looking for the same; the good, only that one ignores it and the other does not.
It is like the wise and the ignorant, both yearn for knowledge, only that the wise have it, and the ignorant think he has it. In the same way, the good and the bad yearn for good, only that one has it, so to speak, and the other does not.
Have I overlooked something?
Let's imagine a world where everyone is good and they do good acts. They are brave, save lives, give to charity etc. Now since all humans are not the same, it is only natural that some are better at these good acts than others. Maybe they are braver, stronger, faster, smarter than others.
Suppose you are one of the "others". That you are not good at being good. Thus you do not get the necessary positive feedback loop by doing these good acts. You are ignored. You become unfulfilled.
The point that I am making is that there isn't a place in the world for ALL of the good people, just the excellent ones.
So where does that leave you as one of the "others"? Should you continue your life as a non playable character doing and saying all of the right things, with none of the reward or maybe......you should stop trying to be good. Maybe it's time to be the bad guy with bad intentions.
This is where the seeds of evil are being planted.
See this scenefor a visual and similar story to the one that I have just conjured up.
In conclusion, yes there are bad people out there with bad intentions. They do it because the world has enough heroes. So being good will not give them the dopamine rush, the satisfaction, and the fulfillment they desire. They must seek evil.
Oh, yes, there are...
I think you are being too forgiving. They only create a hell if they have moral compass.
Try explaining that to a full blow psychopath. Zero compass..
Hell is an alien concept to them.
Feeling compassion for these people is like exposing your throat and inviting them to feed.
4% of people could fall into this category....4 in every hundred, my friend.
Compassion yes, but not for those built differently.
What is the right feeling towards those four percent you describe? If there is any?
A high state of wariness in their presence...lol
But, do you think they define themselves as the bad guys? I believe that they define themselves as "more intelligent", a lie that they like to believe, and as they define themselves in that way they think they know what is best for everyone.
They certainly don't know what the concept of "hell" means, and it is because they have always lived in it. It is precisely the fact that they "don't" have a moral compass that makes them be in hell.
no...
Not from their perspective it doesn't...(to be 'in hell', one must be suffering. External judgments on them are irrelevant)
They are quite happy living their reality.
Well, what is happiness? Don't you think it's the state in which the human does not want to change anything? We say, for example, that someone is happy because they are in the circumstances they want to be.
These people that you speak of, seem to be looking for something all the time, to always be going somewhere, and that is a symptom of deprivation, therefore, they don't have what they want.
Maybe, just maybe, they seem happy in our eyes, but "seem" is not the same as "being".
maybe being in that state is their happiness..?
No one knows another's heart, and to project and define it by your own terms, is destined to fail..
Of course, this is a Byzantine discussion.
Not really, I've thought for many years, that someway of identifying these types of people would be great step forward for humanity..
(universal psychological monitoring up to 16 would identify 70% of these personality types, emerging into adulthood..)
Very 'big brother' though, I admit! (worryingly so).
Surely, although that cure is potentially more dangerous than beneficial.
Who or what defines "good" or "evil"? We must first define "good," in order to intend it and define "evil," in order to avoid it. Is good mere self-preservation instinct? Is good merely an untilitarian accounting of which side has more meatbags that benefit? Is "good" common consensus, or does it derive from something beyond man? If good is mere consensus, then isn't such definition meaningless? If it derives from beyond man, then how did man acquire such knowledge?
Maybe I'm being reductionist here, but the good can very well be that thing that gives us the result we want. If you want to accumulate wealth, for example, the good is the useful. If you want any desire, in fact, the good is what can fill that desire.
But people who seek wealth, or who seek anything else, do so to finally get some feeling of happiness. So the supreme good is that which achieves such a result, and that is, of course, the moral good, from there to happiness consists in the practice of virtue, as the Aristotelians say.
The evil is therefore, what appears to be good, all those good that are not the supreme good, why? because they don't satisfy the final objective that they are supposed to satisfy; happiness.
What do you think of this definition?
We can intuit the good, although we can also rationalize it to understand it, as I have done.
"Good" then is not a moral question but rather a functional one. The common denominator for all loving beings would be death, and the instinct towards survival and propagation of one's genetic information would be the highest functuonal purpose of any living creature. Happiness is transient, neurochemical reward mechanism that serves, hopefully, to enhance the survival mechanism of creatures. In nature, eusocialist creatures dominate the ecosphere, due to the superior survival characteristic of such communal organization in gene propagation and preservation.
In human history, those societies that were able to achieve hierarchal patterns closest to eusocialism have passed on their legacies. The patronage system of Rome, Confucian social harmony of the Middle Kingdoms, feudal liege-vassal hierarchy of post-Charlemagn Europe, Aztec and Incan imperial hegemony, etc. Those social organization that deviate the most from eusocialist model seem to be the forgotten and enslaved societies. Individuality and self-determinism appear to benefit gene propagation, but in actuality, conformist eusocialist model have increased probability of gene propagation for a given group.
In order to truly live a good life, a man must deny his individuality and embrace the self of the group. When the goals and preservation of his group becomes his transcendent priority, such a man has reached enlightenment.
If the human's goal is survival, then yes, what you say is true. But what happens after we survive? What do we want to survive for?
Do you think that surviving is a goal in itself, or on the contrary, do we survive for something else?
We survive, of course, to live, and what do we live for? Here we return to what I said in the previous comment. Don't you think?
Definition, again, clouds the topic of discussion. Is "happiness" a true good or apparent good that misleads? What is the purpose of life: existence or happiness? If man fails to propagate his (and his group's) genetic information, as well as risking his survivability, in pursuit of happiness, is the resulting effect evil or good? Is an addict's slow suicide a good (pursuing happiness) or evil (decrease in survivability)?
I already expected you to mention that, because I am not either of the belief that the purpose of life is happiness, nor do I believe that happiness can be pursued, and perhaps what I have said may be misinterpreted.
Although let's avoid talking about the purpose of life, which can encompass many other things, but the purpose of man, which is, in my opinion, that man puts himself. Each man chooses his purpose, as does each civilization.
The goal of man, whatever he puts himself, is "the good", whether he believes that the good is the accumulation of capital, whether he believes survival is the good, or any other thing. And when man gets such good, he feels happiness, although the goal is not happiness, but happiness is the result of his goal.
He who pursues happiness in itself will be deprived of obtaining it then for what has been said.
There are, in fact, moments in which happiness is not a positive thing, as in the case you pose. The addict believes, because of his ignorance, that what he does is good, because he gets the result he wants in this way.
The problem is precisely that what men want, is not happiness like that, because that is a passing happiness, and the human wants, as far as possible, a lasting happiness, eternal if possible.
Then, reformulating, many things give us happiness, in general, the obtaining of anything perceived as good gives us happiness, however, the one that gives us a more lasting happiness is the practice of virtue, the moral good. Because... what is happiness? You have defined happiness as emotion, but not as feeling.
The feeling of happiness is that we have when we feel we have what we want, when we don't want to change things because we are satisfied with them.
The ideal purpose of man would be, therefore, the moral good.
If each man defines his purpose, and therefore the "good," then would this not effectively indicate that "good" has no definition and man is purposeless? Without a constant reference, everything is subjective and relative. Absolute concepts like "good," "evil," "purpose" have no place in a relativistic universe of no center and all periphery. In such a universe, addicts are actually the wisest of all men, since they correctly recognize the ultimate meaninglessness of life and their place, or non-place, in an amoral universe.
No, because what they think is good is not really good, it's just that they perceive it in that way, it seems to be good but it is not, that's why I said that evil is what appears to be good.