: -just a few thoughts, and sorry if this was long,
: unorganized, and essayish... most people dont want to
: talk about philosophy with me because i dont stop ;)
No no, that's all great stuff; I love philosophy. The only drawback is just capitalization and minor stuff like that; otherwise, very intelligent and very well-constructed, friend. :-)
: i've actually thought about this quite a lot before.
: personally, i feel that good and evil are not entirly
: seperate entities, of which hold sway over the happens
: of the mundane (or even the other way around), but
: rather manifest appellations which are defined by are
: social moralities (of which religion and law are taken
: into account, but that's a whole different
: discussion).
Right, that what is right and what is wrong is determined by society; Relativism. Sophistry is just wholly unappealing to me...
: if you think about it, what is truly
: evil? is murder? animals kill without so much of a
: thought ot regret.
Exactly, they are animals; they are completely innocent, acting on instinct. And humans have instincts too. But, when we allow our instincts to override our inherent logic and reasonable judgement, or even our internal emotional response to doing ill to others, we make ourselves primal and savage. This is not a good thing, and is completely inhuman; it is bestial, and what separates us from the other creatures of this world.
: avarice? (from the saying that
: 'avarice is the root of all evil') no one in the
: history of the world has even publicly stated, I AM
: EVIL.
Plenty of nutcases, but yeah, most are self-righteous, at least outwardly.
: All have swarn to the greater good. Hitler,
: Napolean, who only conquered to quench his own
: horendous appitite and the French still revere his as
: a hero, Stalin, etc are all examples, to much varying
: degrees. while many believe that this isnt the case,
: and that humans are inbued with an inherent quality to
: be either good or evil, eg. look at early Chinese
: philosophers such as Confucius and Mencius, who
: thought humans are born 'good', and Xun-zi, who
: thought humans would indellibly look out for
: themselves first (hence being evil).
Yes, Hobbes and Locke would be the Western counterparts; and people are inherently good, inherently required to live together in a society, coexist happily and peacefully. However, if times are rough in the earlier stages for a person (very young), before his natural moral foundations are fortified, he will revert back to a primal nature in order to keep himself alive. This is the explanation, but far from a justification.
: one thing i keep going back to that i havent quite put my
: finger on, is Xun-zi's idea that humans look out for
: themselves first. i dont know if this is the case, or
: if its even evil.
It's not really true, I'd say, actually; it depends. Humans are by nature logical and rational; so if given the choice, such naturally inclined and practised people will do the right thing, and think of others; in human society, others are as important to the individual as the individual himself.
: i still feel that when it comes to human nature, its a
: mixed bag. that we are the ones who decide the nature
: of good and evil, and that we are the ones who
: determine our own fate.
Very interesting.
