good and evil, what is greater?

[MerakSpielman]

And evil is easy. Often, all it takes to do evil is do the easiest thing or do nothing at all. It is good that is hard. That's why there are so few saints.

Interesting. For a contrasting belief:

Taoism teaches that there is a greater order underlying all of reality. Things flow naturally from one condition to another, and the natural course of events is the one that promotes peace and harmony. To act outside the Tao - to try to make things happen that would not otherwise happen - is to invite chaos and confusion, regardless of intent. This is not to say one should do nothing - it is to do what feels right, natural, and simple. It is to not seek out confrontations, but to bypass them with the ease that rivers bypass mountains. Effortless. That which is good is that which goes with the Tao. That which is bad (or "evil" if you like) is that which goes against the Tao.

 

[diaglo]

That which is bad (or "evil" if you like) is that which goes against the Tao.

is the Tao of Merak?

i like the Tao of Poo better myself. makes for fun bedtime reading.

 

[MerakSpielman]

The Tao of Pooh is widely acknowledged in China as the finest work on Taoism produced by the western world (or so my philosophy teacher in college told me).

I'm not sure "is the Tao of Merak" is a sentence that works gramatically. But if you're asking if I'm Taoist, I would respond: "A little bit."
I seriously doubt anybody here could pinpoint my religious/philosophical beliefs. I know what I say when people ask, but they usually just walk away muttering.


edit: corrected a misspelling that was bothering me.

 

[Mark Chance]

Interesting. For a contrasting belief:

*snip!*

Not really as big a contrast as many would maintain. Sensible Western philosophy (read: that which is grounded in metaphysical realism and a teleological concept of natural law) agrees with the basic sentiment behind Taoism, only rather than the Tao, the terms are natural law and reason (based on an Aristotle's use of the term "reason").

My point that good is not easy also holds true in Taoism. Taoism also has its "saints," and living in accordance with the Tao requires discipline and wisdom (based on the classical definition of "wisdom," which is distinguishing between that which is right and that which is wrong).

To paraphrase a former President, it all depends on what your definition of "easy" is. Taoism is not easy in the sense that it requires no effort. It requires effort, even great effort. This same idea is also found in, for example, the writings of Jesuit Jean-Pierre de Caussade, who opined that living a virtuous life is the simplest thing in the world to do: all one has to do is completely surrender to "the Way" (to mix my metaphors).

Now, of course, there are great differences between sensible Western philosophy and Taoism (especially in terms of metaphysics [including the philosophy of time] and philosophical anthropology), but the core ethical teachings are remarkably similar. For another example, there is an unfortunately neglected "strand" in Western philosophy that exalted apatheia (IIRC my Greek correctly) as the pre-eminent state of mind necessary to achieve wisdom (or, if you like, enlightenment). This idea (prominent in some of the early Christian Desert Fathers, for example) is remarkably akin to Eastern notions of detachment from material things.

All of which, of course, only reinforces my central point: Truth is universal and objective (meaning existent apart from perception and opinion), and in most times and most places, there is remarkable agreement about the details of what is true and what is false.

What KM is referring to (if I understand the thought correctly) is indeed true and is an accepted part of physics. Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principle and his latter works address that the state of an object is affected by the observer of the object and his/her perceptions. In a universe ruled by probability and possibility (usually refered to oddly as Space and Time) there exists an equally valid approach to any matter in which "truth" is insisted upon.

My point still stands. Heisenberg was a brilliant physicist, but he was a lousy philosopher and ethicist. He and others like him that equate phenomena verifiable at the quantum level of matter with morality make an egregious category error. Mathematics is not ethics, nor vice versa, and mixing Vedic or Advaita Vedanta mysticism doesn't bolster the case, but rather further weakens it.

As often as not, Western would-be Eastern mystics have, at best, a very shoddy understanding of the material they repeat. For example, Shankara in his Crest Jewel of Discrimination waxes at great length about the "illusory" world of sense perception. What is often missed in translation is this: The world of sense perception is illusory in comparison to the ultimate ground of reality, which is not quantifiable in any terms whatsoever, whether those terms be mathematical, linguistic, et cetera.

Einstein, no slouch in the physics department himself, was quick to recognize the posturing of physicists-as-philosophers for what it is almost always is: posturing. Stanley Jaki, also no slouch in both physics and history, is an informative source for how people with specific (usually anti-Christian) agendas exploited the philosophical naivete of people like Heisenberg.

 

[MerakSpielman]

True. To practice "Wu-Wei" (efforless effort) properly requires a great deal of practice and discipline. It's sometimes very hard to do things the easy way.

It's getting increasingly difficult to argue against myself, especially since my Western philosophy is pretty rusty. I guess I'll bring up something on the "truth is universal and independant of observation" topic.

Interestingly, it is impossible to prove that assertation. There are people on this earth who percieve things the rest of us do not. There is a remote chance that one of these people, labeled "insane" by the rest of us, actually percieves reality as it truly is, and the rest of us are living in some sort of mass delusion. Logic and science can wear themselves out futily trying to prove otherwise, but all they can do is calculate the enormous odds against the scenario; they cannot dismiss it entirely. (see? I used a semicolon. I must know what I'm talking about!)

It is also possible (though improbable) that a single person got it right - understood the true nature of Truth and the Universe and nobody believed him. The knowledge of the true nature of existance might have been lost centuries ago, never to be recovered.

I've heard (and never been able to verify. If somebody could provide some links it would be greatly appreciated) that results of experiments on the behavior of certain subatomic particles have varied based on the expectations of the scientists performing them. If they truly believed a result was going to happen, it did, while other scientists performing the same experiment but expecting a different result got the result they expected. The experiments and conditions were, as far as anybody can tell, identical except for the expectations of the scientists.

Science/logic (and to some extent philosophy) has one major flaw: it cannot prove the existance of something that is not logical. If there were a phenominon that operated and didn't behave a predicible, repeatable, observable fashion, science would not acknowedge it's existence. Examples of such things are the existance of God (or any other diety) or ghosts, the effectiveness of prayer or ritual magic, etc... All of these would involve independent dieties/agents/spirits/whatever of one sort or another who either choose to reveal themselves or obey your requests or they choose otherwise. No amount of scientific, double-blind studies can prove whether these things exist or operate since nowhere is it said they operate consistantly, or the diety/agent/spirit/whatever might object to being trifled with in such a petty manner and produce trash results. Yet billions of people believe such things can exist.

You know, I'm starting to ramble and I'm not sure if I'm making much sense, or even if I'm sticking to what I'm trying to argue, so I'll just hit post and see what people say.

 

[kirinke]

*mouth twitches
guys. this is devolving into a comparitive religion discussion. let's keep it to the good-vs evil and demon-stomping tendencies of our characters kay? otherwise, we're looking at the dreaded thread closure.......

 

[MerakSpielman]

But we're keeping it civil!

Oh, to keep it on-topic, neutrality rules! Good and Evil never get anything accomplished! Go neutrality!

 

[Mercule]

It's sometimes very hard to do things the easy way.

To paraphrase something once said to me: "I said it was simple I never said it was easy."

There is a thought in some Christian circles similar to the Taoist idea above. Basically, God has a plan and it is Good to submit to to His will (and Evil to fight it). Simple, but not easy.

Here's a more on-topic question: Assume that this whole submission/acceptance = Good thing is true. Is this a Lawful or Chaotic viewpoint? What about in a modern Western society where the legal structure is set up to avoid enforcing submission?

 

[MerakSpielman]

To personally subscribe to a submission/acceptance paradigm totally and completely renders you True Neutral. No matter how hideous things get, you don't interfere, and no matter how good they get, you don't celebrate. It's all the same to you - just part of the big plan.

I don't think societies or governments can subscribe to this outlook. Other societies/governments would take advantage of their non-proactive nature and exploit them.

 

[diaglo]

I don't think societies or governments can subscribe to this outlook. Other societies/governments would take advantage of their non-proactive nature and exploit them.

yeah, i've read in d20Modern Switzerland everyone carries a gun.