What are some other roots for the tree of evil?

[jimmie]

You seem to suggest that thought of self should have priority over thought of other.

Almost the exact opposite of that statement was what I intended to convey.

Basically, the thought of anything and the dwelling upon the thought of anything, prevents an individual from being free from their self.

While it was true that the thought of making other beings the priority existed, it was accepted and not maintained.

Nor was any thought of anything maintained.

The only way to successfully preserve that which I thought should be preserved was to not maintain thoughts about that which I thought should be preserved.

Billions of individuals have become extinct intending to preserve that which was not them.

pure thought

I recommend that you provide your definition of "pure thought" prior to your next insightful statement within your next post.

"Thought" must be put in its place.

 

[Rade]

To jimmie: As to thought: To hold as you do that thinking = evil, then we must hold that non-thinking = good. Now, since the root of all evil requires thinking about how to use others as a means to end, and thinking is evil, it follows that the root of all evil is, well, evil. Thank you for clarifying the relationship of thinking to evil.

 

[jimmie]

To jimmie: As to thought: To hold as you do that thinking = evil,

No. That is not right. You do not understand.

Now, since the root of all evil requires thinking about how to use others as a means to end, and thinking is evil, it follows that the root of all evil is, well, evil.

I do not believe that definition of "evil". You presume that 'thinking is evil'. I clearly presented my definition of "evil" earlier, and yet you insist that I "hold" that 'thinking is evil'.

I recommend you re-read and re-contemplate my earlier posts, so as to understand correctly what I understand and know.

Thank you for clarifying the relationship of thinking to evil.

Clearly, the relationship of 'thinking to evil' is not fully understood by you, yet. Don't thank me, yet.

 

[Rade]

No. That is not right. You do not understand...Clearly, the relationship of 'thinking to evil' is not fully understood by you, yet.

You are correct, I did not with my last post understand "your" relationship of thinking to evil. And it is good that you do not hold the root of all evil to be thinking in general, as such an axiom leads to very strange conclusions for humans--since rationality is what separates humans from the other primates, and if thinking in general is evil, then Homo sapiens as a species is evil from day one. So, I agree with you, only specific types of "thinking" (thoughts) are evil. Here are the quotes you provided so far on the topic:

I hold that the "root of all evil" (for humans) was want for any particular thing thought of outside the wanter's human body

So here, in your initial post, it seems clear that you hold "thinking of things outside body" and "want of things outside self" as causes of the "root of all evil" (for humans).

But then in another post you also conclude:

..The only "evil" there was, was an individual over-stepping the boundary of being, so as to do a particular action or set of actions either for the sake of doing a particular action or set of actions or to learn from the intended particular action or set of actions

And here we find a logical contradiction in your argument, e.g. first you equate evil with "thinking and wanting" of very specific things--those things that exist outside the self. But then, in the second statement, you equate evil (in fact, the "only evil") as taking "action(s)" in general (either within self or outside self) and even go so far as to equate "learning" (an internal action to the self) as being evil, which is very strange indeed.

Now it is clear that you directly equate thinking with action:

Thought is/was action

And you find a duality between non-action vs action, where you directly equate action being thought:

It's about establishing order in your head between not-action...and action, thought about that which was observed.

Now, since you equate action as also "the only evil there was", and not just any action, but any set of actions, and since by your definition above "thinking is/was action", then logically you hold that "thinking is the "only evil there was", and not just any thinking, but all sets of thinkings based on all sets of actions. And now then we see the basis of my misunderstanding, as you state, you do not hold that "all thinking is evil" but that "thinking is the only evil there was". But, since you agree that this final statement is logically false

...I do not believe that definition of "evil". You presume that 'thinking is evil'...

it would appear that we reach a point in the discussion where your definition of the root of all evil is logically falsified by your attempt to justify it. But I look forward to your clarification.

 

[jimmie]

I hold that the "root of all evil" (for humans) was want for any particular thing thought of outside the wanter's human body.

My original definition.

Let it be known: want is/was not thought.

Want motivated the body to do actions that the head knew were not right and were right, but never, only right.

To do actions that are only right required destruction of 'want' within the individual, that which was responsible for the development of the self.

Now then, Rade, the "root of all evil" being 'want'-the particular force inside each individual to do a particular action-for things that are outside the individual, do you understand that 'want' was prior to thought?

I am not against thought.

I am for only right thought, and only after it has been put in place by the point-of-reference.

"Want' provided a false point-of-reference for the observer.

 

[Rade]

Now then, Rade, the "root of all evil" being 'want'-the particular force inside each individual to do a particular action-for things that are outside the individual, do you understand that 'want' was prior to thought?

No jimmie, I do not understand how "want" as an action of the mind, takes primacy to "thought" (= thinking). You define "want" as "the particular force...to do a particular action". But what is this force -- it can only be conceived as being "thinking" (thought). There are of course many types of thoughts that humans have, and "wanting some thing" is a particular form of thinking, thus thinking is prior to wanting. To help me, please give one example of the force called "wanting" to do a particular action, that occurs outside "thinking" of the action. I would also like to know if such a force is part of the conscious or unconscious or both.

 

[metric]

This topic needs a fresh perspective:

First, I don't believe evil exists in the sense that it is a fundamental property of humanity or the universe for that matter, just as I don't believe in good.

We've stamped the word "evil" onto actions that put one's self and/or one's society at a disadvantage in life. Stealing is an easy example. The underlying reason we commit "evil" acts is to put ourselves at an advantage. I don't think it always has to involve "using others". Suicide, for instance, could be understood as a decision that it's more advantageous not to live, than to live in extreme pain. But I'm fairly certain it could be said that committing suicide is putting one's self at a disadvantage in life.

We've stamped the word "good" onto actions that put one's self AND one's society at an advantage. Learning and using a skill to increase your value to an organization and to increase that organizations value to society is an example. Public service is also a good example. Society values the firefighter and the police officer because they help lower risk for everyone, even the firefighters and policemen themselves. The skills necessary to perform those jobs are valuable to the individual because they get paid to do it. Life contains a certain amount of risk, and to avoid risks completely wouldn't leave a person many options in life. A beggar, in my opinion, could be construed as evil. Any kind of "leach" in society could be construed as evil, though society's reaction to such a person will not usually be very extreme.

Evil and good are subjective and measurable and I think that the values we hold today will, for the most part, be incomplete or invalid in the future. Actions in the short term are fairly easy to judge, but not always judged correctly. Long term effects must be considered in order for society to make better decisions and improve their thoughts and actions. Benefiting society is the key to self preservation.

So, in closing, I think that a society works to prevent itself from being put at any kind of perceived disadvantage. Likewise, it will always work to improve its position to a more advantageous state. I'm also aware that this issue isn't so black and white, that there are situations where people are put at a disadvantage while the rest of society seemingly benefits, like war, but this is a start at least.

 

[quantumcarl]

What does evil find evil?

 

[Rade]

This topic needs a fresh perspective

Thank you for adding to the discussion.

The underlying reason we commit "evil" acts is to put ourselves at an advantage.

But can we not also say that the underlying reason we commit "good" acts is to put ourself at an advantage--thus the pleasure I derive from a walk in the woods, to meditate, etc ? If so, then "putting self at advantage" cannot be used to differentiate the two acts of good and evil. Instead, I would suggest that the underlying reason we commit evil acts is because we decide to not put others at the same advantage as to life that we put ourselves.

So, in closing, I think that a society works to prevent itself from being put at any kind of perceived disadvantage. Likewise, it will always work to improve its position to a more advantageous state.

This is not clear to me at all--such logic applies to the bee hive, not the human hive. The Soviet Union was a society by any definition, and by adoption of Marxism, a logically and morally false form of economic government, most clearly did not work to prevent itself from being at a kind of perceived disadvantage as compared to other economic systems. Thus I hold that even a society (a human society) needs to conform to actions that negate the root of all evil, that is, society cannot use the other (e.g. individual human beings), by force, as a means to its (society) own ends. Therefore, the root of all good for a society is when it uses self (e.g., all individuals equally) as a means to its (society) own end.

 

[quantumcarl]

Thank you for adding to the discussion.

But can we not also say that the underlying reason we commit "good" acts is to put ourself at an advantage--thus the pleasure I derive from a walk in the woods, to meditate, etc ? If so, then "putting self at advantage" cannot be used to differentiate the two acts of good and evil. Instead, I would suggest that the underlying reason we commit evil acts is because we decide to not put others at the same advantage as to life that we put ourselves.

This is not clear to me at all--such logic applies to the bee hive, not the human hive. The Soviet Union was a society by any definition, and by adoption of Marxism, a logically and morally false form of economic government, most clearly did not work to prevent itself from being at a kind of perceived disadvantage as compared to other economic systems. Thus I hold that even a society (a human society) needs to conform to actions that negate the root of all evil, that is, society cannot use the other (e.g. individual human beings), by force, as a means to its (society) own ends. Therefore, the root of all good for a society is when it uses self (e.g., all individuals equally) as a means to its (society) own end.

So, by human standards and human perspective, evil is the person who believes that "All for one and all for one" is a good ethic... whereas good is the person who believes " all for one and one for all" is a good ethic.

You'll note that evil people have a concept of good... in fact they rely on the good things in life (good tires, good workmanship, good food, good cooking, good etc...) in fact they cannot exist without good, balanced mechanisms... evil mechanisms are weak, emotional, unstable and incapable of opening a can of breakfast drink.

I would guess that the evil person finds the idea of equal rights...evil. (To answer my own question.)

 

[Dmstifik8ion]

Evil is contempt for life, that which makes it possible and worthwhile. In the case of humanity this includes contempt for reason.

The root of evil is the person who has contempt for their own life. Such a person does not seek answers; they despise questions. They do not desire to know why; their desires are the only justification they require. They do not take responsibility for their own life and actions; they blame it/them on some one/thing else. The concept of good serves only one purpose for them, it is to prove that it (good) does not exist.

When an individual finds no joy or meaning in their existence, that is unfortunate. When they attempt to impose a lack of desire for life upon others and condemn them for seeking to obtain a justified happiness, whether by words or deeds, that is evil, pure and simple.

 

[metric]

Thank you for adding to the discussion.

But can we not also say that the underlying reason we commit "good" acts is to put ourself at an advantage--thus the pleasure I derive from a walk in the woods, to meditate, etc ? If so, then "putting self at advantage" cannot be used to differentiate the two acts of good and evil. Instead, I would suggest that the underlying reason we commit evil acts is because we decide to not put others at the same advantage as to life that we put ourselves.

Thanks for challenging me, Rade. Tell me if you think the following logic is an improvement: Advantage is always sought by humans, good or evil (assuming insanity and health aren't issues). The differentiation is that the acts of "good" will benefit self and usually society. Acts of "evil" are egocentric in nature and are detrimental to self and/or society.

This is not clear to me at all--such logic applies to the bee hive, not the human hive. The Soviet Union was a society by any definition, and by adoption of Marxism, a logically and morally false form of economic government, most clearly did not work to prevent itself from being at a kind of perceived disadvantage as compared to other economic systems. Thus I hold that even a society (a human society) needs to conform to actions that negate the root of all evil, that is, society cannot use the other (e.g. individual human beings), by force, as a means to its (society) own ends. Therefore, the root of all good for a society is when it uses self (e.g., all individuals equally) as a means to its (society) own end.

I agree with everything you say here, Rade, and I don't believe it conflicts with my beliefs at all. I probably haven't explained myself well enough. Instead of describing what we perceive as acts of evil and good, let me get back to the initial point of this discussion thread:

I believe that the root of all evil is egocentrism. An egocentric society is doomed to failure. The Roman Empire is the first thing that comes to mind. Is the U.S. egocentric?

 

[Rade]

Tell me if you think the following logic is an improvement: Advantage is always sought by humans, good or evil (assuming insanity and health aren't issues). The differentiation is that the acts of "good" will benefit self and usually society. Acts of "evil" are egocentric in nature and are detrimental to self and/or society.....I believe that the root of all evil is egocentrism. An egocentric society is doomed to failure. The Roman Empire is the first thing that comes to mind. Is the U.S. egocentric?

As to your first question, yes, I can agree with your statement, for it does appear that the good human does what ought to be done, and such acts are of advantage to both self and others, where the evil (or bad) human does what ought not to be done, perhaps to self advantage (but not always) and never to the advantage of others. Now, to your second question, you bring forth a new term to this thread "ecocentric", and you make the interesting statement that "the root of all evil is egocentrism". But of course I would need you to "define" (that is, in the context of this discussion) what you mean by egocentrism for me to understand how it differs from my current thinking that "the root of all evil is using others (by force) as a means to an end". Now, I can see where our concepts may be identical if we view the egocentric as dwelling on self to the exclusion of other (e.g., act to exclude other by choice). However, I also hold that one should not confuse this concept with the concept of self-love, because if all humans seeked actions that were of advantage to self, and such actions were at the same time "fine" actions and "pleasant", others would also view such actions as fine and pleasant and of advantage, and thus such actions would benefit both self and others. Now, since the term "ego" is also defined as the "self", and if we hold as argued above that self-love of the kind that is also fine and pleasant can be of advantage to both self and other equally, then I must conclude that your statement that "the root of all evil is egocentrism" cannot hold if the prefex term "ego" = "self", and by self you mean self-love that leads to actions that are fine, advantagous, and pleasant to self, and do not cause pain to others.


Finally, is it possible that a just and good human in fact gains no advantage from self-love actions that are good, if no share of gains is greater than the share received by any other ? And, further, if gains to all are proportional to effort of one, do not all benefit from self-love efforts of one if such effort is 100 X more than any other, and is not then such a person the "pure egoist", the person that seeks advantage to self first, but in the process also benefits the other ? Thus I find no evil in the "pure egoist", only good.

 

[quantumcarl]

Thats what the hell I just said. Anyways, if it needs this many opinions, then apparently it really is what quantumcarl and I just said.

Sorry, e-realmz dude. I did't see your post. Our opinion on it here seems to have matched up but it doesn't mean we're right. It is a logical conclusion, mind you, to say that the root of all evil is the concept of evil.

To say that an empire that didn't collapse for over 500 years, like Rome, is evil is a broad generalization. I'd say Rome went through good and evil incarnations (according to how these conditions are defined by homosapiens) during its reign of the middle east and northern parts.

You can tell where Rome reached a saturation of a critical pecentage of evil by the fact that it collapsed and was overrun by the very slaves and outcasts it created out of humanity. This only holds true if you subscribe to the idea that a state of evil = instability, imbalance and the inability to integrate, efficiently, with the rest of humanity.

 

[|Orion's Thought|]

Which is worse- One aggrovating another knowing the consequences, or the one who reacts to the other, also knowing the consequences of his/her actions?

 

[jimmie]

Which is worse- One aggrovating another knowing the consequences, or the one who reacts to the other, also knowing the consequences of his/her actions?

Neither.

The absolute worst was one always feeling compelled to do action so as to reciprocate the others' action within the co-dependent relationship that was based upon the thought that the relationship should be given priority.

Forget any thought about building any relationship with any thing at any point.

Develop the right you first, then only right relationships with all shall follow.

 

[Intuitive]

I hold that the "root of all evil" (for humans) is when a human uses another human as a means to an end, even if those being used agree. Comments -- other roots for the tree of evil ?

The Root of Evil is a Genetic disorder.

 

[Intuitive]

To eliminate all Evil one would have to elimate the entire Universe or all its Genetic disorders.

 

[clouded.perception]

The existence of 'evil' is an interesting concept in itself.
Taking advantage of others is a natural part of living in a society. A child (especially a very young one) has little choice but to take advantage of their parent's nurturing instincts (the parents, of course, agree to this, but by your defenition, Rade, this is still wrong). I take advantage of my friends' knowledge and experience all the time; in fact, I have been known to seek out people just because they have better qualities than me and I want to learn from them. They, of course, do the same to me.
Any degree of co-operation is, when you get down to it, mulually agreed-upon taking advantage of someone, to the benefit of one or more parties (or someone entirely different,i.e. charity.
I believe that it is perfectly okay to take advantage of someone, except in the following situations:

-They do not consent
-They do not have enough information to make an educated decision over their own consent
-They are forced into consent by unusual and desperate circumstances (eg, blackmail, or offering a person deeply in debt an extremely low price for something simply because they are desperate for the cash)
-They have somehow been tricked or forced into a spur-of-the-moment decision, even if they have all the information (eg, very good salespeople).

In short, I believe that if the person you are taking advantage of knows what you want of them, and isn't being pushed or forced into unreasonable decisions, there is no harm in taking advantage of them (if they don't mind). It's how our society functions.
If anyone thinks of anything I've left off my list, please post it for me.

 

[clouded.perception]

Intuitive,
Say goodbye to Earth. I'm preparing the doomsday weapon now...

 

[Rade]

The existence of 'evil' is an interesting concept in itself. Taking advantage of others is a natural part of living in a society. A child (especially a very young one) has little choice but to take advantage of their parent's nurturing instincts (the parents, of course, agree to this, but by your definition, Rade, this is still wrong).

Over the time of this thread, my initial definition was modified such that the condition you refer to was eliminated (the part where even if other agrees). Thus, your example of a child taking advantage of parents is not an example of evil, nor of taking advantage. To take advantage of someone one must impose on the other, and clearly a child does not impose on parents that love it. I agree with your statements about "taking advantage"--your examples define some of those conditions where "using" others as a means to end leads to evil outcome.