Ehh, it's a difficul point you are making. Theoretically, I'd say that you'd be right... in a very very idealistic version of the world: Good is Good, Bad is Bad, so it's Better if you can have all Good and no Bad.
But, you see, I read your point and the first thing I think of is the atomic bomb: a terrifying monstruoisty that should've never, ever, being invented. Also, the thing that -- de facto -- ended WWII, the bloodiest, more brutal conflict that ever torn humanity apart.
Good? Bad? Homicide is definitely bad. However, if someone showed up in the early '20s and shot Hitler in the face...
Today, we can discuss about this because of the terrible things that happened, analyze what 'good' and what 'evil' come of them and even go into "yeah, but maybe there was another way to stop WWII"
When it comes to 'good' and 'evil' is not just that we need one to understand the other (and do our individual best to avoid it): it's more that you can't have one without the other. Destruction is an inevitable part of every and any creative process. Flowers grow out of manure -- and so on and so forth, you get my point.
Yes. Death and destruction and bad luck are inevitable no matter what. They do bring suffering, yes.
But they're not evil. Evil is the conscious act that inflicts suffering on others.
Hayao Miyazaki has said that he believes in a world where good and evil coexist. That good does not try to eradicate evil, but let it be. I think Japan to this day is still subconsciously unable to forget those atom bombs, I notice it by the so many times the mushroom cloud shows up in animation, it's become a pretty common motif, even when in the story unrelated to atom bombs. Now Miyazaki made that good-evil-coexist comment in regards to the States warring Iraq. I think what he really meant was that even though Japan was wrong at the time, they didn't deserve this.
But I also think his theory is flawed if he says good should let bad be. If you let bad be, it continues on to inflict suffering on others. Bad must be contained/stopped. Just not at the cost of innocent lives. And bad doesn't need to be eradicated, just contained/stopped.
And I don't believe good can't exist without bad.
We just can't fathom it because in all our history it's always been with us and we've never seen an example otherwise.
By the way - your behaviour may be being controlled by your cat:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2082105-explosive-road-rage-like-anger-linked-to-parasite-spread-by-cats/
I knew it!! I just knew those furry little shits were up to something - the world's gone mad, I tell you, if one can't even trust his own cats not to slip some mind-controlling parasite from hell into one's brain!!! :-@
To hell with the horse - CAT is the white of the eyes, no doubt, and VERY dark within.
Stupid cats.(1)
😛
@Oyster Bells: The fact is, I think, that what is 'good' to someone may often time ("often times" as in "always") be considered 'bad' or 'evil' from someone else -- and vice versa, of course. Sometimes it's just enough to be born in a differnt time, place or culture and your paradigm of what's 'right' and what's 'wrong' can shift, dramatically.
Now, this is purely academic, of course, given that -- the moment we want to talk about something and even more if we want to tell a story about something, we have to assume a point of view, thus allowing ourself to deal in absolutes (like Sith! 😛 ) when it comes to "good/evil".
I guess that what I was trying to say with "you can't have good without evil" is that you can't have a coin with only one side - there will always be head and tail.
I love the idea of an "evil-free world" but I have a feeling that -- should such world come to be real -- it'd be a "Great Big White World, and we're drained of our colours", a world devoid of everything because anything can be both good AND bad just by shifting your point of view (or your given conditions).
Now, please mind it: nothing of this means that we shouldn't be free to determine what's "good" and what isn't and live our life accordingly -- the ability to tell right from wrong is one of the very things that make us humans. What also makes us human, though, is the empathy to understand that "right/wrong" is a point of view.
We have to live with the arbitrary nature of our truths.
@Caio Rocha: well, the nuke did, basically, end the Pacific side of the world conflict, thus defeating one of the Nazi's most valuable allies and -- way more importantly -- let everyone (foes and allies alike) know that the US were oh, so absolutely ready to bomb their opponents to smithereens.
As for ep. 8, the atom bomb was clearly (and rightully) showed to be the Epitome of Evil - it was also shown that direct, opposite reaction was the 'creation' (for lack of a better word other than "mind-puking by the Giant/?????) of something characterized as genuinely good (at least, going by the visuals, by Laura's face and the symbolic value given to gold, particularly in this season, why with Jacoby's shit-digging shovels and gold beads and whatnot).
@Sammy Weir: and here we go 😛
(1) I actually love cats and don't want to anger the feline deity with my silly words so here's a quote about those lovelies, from one of my favorite authors: "For the cat is cryptic, and close to Aegyptus, and bearer of tales from forgotten cities in Meroë and Ophir. He is the kin of the jungle's lords, and heir to the secrets of hoary and sinister Africa. The Sphinx is his cousin, and he speaks her language; but he is more ancient than the Sphinx, and remembers that which she hath forgotten." (H.P.L. - The Cats of Ulthar)
Re: Good and Evil, Pleasure and Suffering and all that malarkey...
Iain M Banks makes some very good points regarding these matters in his "Culture" novels, and how just about every oppressor/dictator/maniac everywhere has used the argument that without Evil there can be no Good, and nobody is complete without an understanding and some experience of both.
The main thrust of Banks' argument is that this is absolute tosh. There is no justification for evil and for causing suffering to others. None. I don't need to stick my hand into a fire to know it'd be a bad idea. Never felt the need to try it out; I'll take someone's word for it that it will hurt.
As for creatures such as Hitler and his bunch of maniacs, I'd say the removal of them was entirely right and proper. The fact it caused suffering to millions of people - many of them innocent - doesn't invalidate the argument; it just shows we need to try harder.
No right minded person will argue with you that ridding the world of people like Hitler was and is the right thing to do. The philosophical argument is that for there to be a balance good/bad, right/wrong will balance out so an ideal middle ground is what should be aimed for. As I posted before throughout history the best and worst of mankind has been shown and the question will be will nature, god or whatever balance out the good with bad. It's a question that's been asked from the dawn of time and is still asked today so I don't expect to live to see the answer.
And maybe a little Jungian Collective Subconscious as well. I definitely believe that TP deals a lot with the idea of a collective conscious/subconscious either in the actual narrative/plot or within the metaphorical subtext.
I've always been a bit sceptical of that theory by Jung due to it negating free will. I'm not a religious person for that very reason. I do believe in Newtons laws and I don't think it's that big a leap to apply them all to areas of life not just to motion.
No right minded person will argue with you that ridding the world of people like Hitler was and is the right thing to do. The philosophical argument is that for there to be a balance good/bad, right/wrong will balance out so an ideal middle ground is what should be aimed for. As I posted before throughout history the best and worst of mankind has been shown and the question will be will nature, god or whatever balance out the good with bad. It's a question that's been asked from the dawn of time and is still asked today so I don't expect to live to see the answer.
Purely in ideology (you're right, Häxan, we're talking about this as concepts, because implementation is difficult), why should we aim for the middle ground between good and evil, Sammy? Why is balance better than the lopsided good?
Ideologically yes, we as a species and as individuals should aim to be and do good however every time we see the best in people we always see the worst too. The question I've been bringing up is if its something that's out of our control i.e. if there is such a thing as karma does doing good need something equally bad to happen to bring balance. As I said previously this question has been asked for millenia, I don't think I'll ever know the answer but it's something I do enjoy pondering.
Ideologically yes, we as a species and as individuals should aim to be and do good however every time we see the best in people we always see the worst too. The question I've been bringing up is if its something that's out of our control i.e. if there is such a thing as karma does doing good need something equally bad to happen to bring balance. As I said previously this question has been asked for millenia, I don't think I'll ever know the answer but it's something I do enjoy pondering.
Wait, you got it the other way around : karma is doing bad and later getting something bad happen to you, doing good and later having good done to you. It's a payback automaton. So balance there doesn't mean good and bad in equal portions, but that debts are always paid.
What I mean to say with all this is removed from real life where we can't "weed out" evil urges from humans.
Hypothetically, in a fictional fantasy dimension, if we were given the mantle of creation, and if we then choose to create only good, do you think our creation would fail or at least be inferior to our real life Earth?
Häxan said he thought it would be a "white world drained of colors." I think he meant boring. Because for instance there are dubious qualities that are borderline bad, like lust, vanity, ambition, irreverence, but when present in individuals, though not used to harm others, would make very sexy, cool characters. Also if we look at the greatest love stories in our history, the sweetest love is distilled from the pain that circumstances and society inflict on the protagonists.
I've always been a bit sceptical of that theory by Jung due to it negating free will. I'm not a religious person for that very reason. I do believe in Newtons laws and I don't think it's that big a leap to apply them all to areas of life not just to motion.
Which part of Jung do you mean that negates free will, Sammy?
That we are all 1 giant collective, and in the end when we merge, we'll lose individuality and personality and identity?
Weeding out evil urges sounds a little sinister to me, this week marks the 50 anniversary of homosexuality being legalised in the UK which prior to that would have been seen as an evil urge so you can see my uncomfortably with a term like that but I understand where you are coming from.
I meant karma on a global scale, as in mankind, not individually which I think the show is doing. You create an evil weapon and you release an evil to the world on people who had nothing to do with the release.
What is seen to be good to one person can be seen as maybe not evil but bad to another so a world of "just good" theoretically can almost be impossible. The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs are the best examples of that and also the current nuclear deterrent we have.
I've brought up Newtons third law a few times and if you go as an example every action causing a reaction you go from the Nazis - bad, Allies defeat the Nazis - good, Allies then drop 2 nuclear bombs in Japan starting the nuclear weapons race - bad, peace through fear of nuclear attack - good, etc etc.
It's a vicious cycle which in both major as my example and minor ways throughout history show that a balance usually comes through.
- I do have faith that mankind as a whole can break the cycle but the fact history repeats itself doesn't help any arguments for this not being the natural order, if so trying to find a middle ground isn't that bad an idea.
Re: Jung, exactly that and the misuse of it as an excuse for personal accountability.
Re: Jung, exactly that and the misuse of it as an excuse for personal accountability.
I totally agree with you on Jung. I think proponents of that everyone-becomes-one-with-the-universal-force-in-the-end theory think it's good because, well, what we discuss here exactly : it's the only way for a final, eternal bliss, free of suffering. Like Buddhism, like Nirvana. Because they think suffering can't be sifted out of life.
The thought of ending up as some God particles, floating allover the universe, is unappealing to me.
Weeding out evil urges sounds a little sinister to me, this week marks the 50 anniversary of homosexuality being legalised in the UK which prior to that would have been seen as an evil urge so you can see my uncomfortably with a term like that but I understand where you are coming from.
I meant karma on a global scale, as in mankind, not individually which I think the show is doing. You create an evil weapon and you release an evil to the world on people who had nothing to do with the release.
What is seen to be good to one person can be seen as maybe not evil but bad to another so a world of "just good" theoretically can almost be impossible. The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs are the best examples of that and also the current nuclear deterrent we have.
I've brought up Newtons third law a few times and if you go as an example every action causing a reaction you go from the Nazis - bad, Allies defeat the Nazis - good, Allies then drop 2 nuclear bombs in Japan starting the nuclear weapons race - bad, peace through fear of nuclear attack - good, etc etc.
It's a vicious cycle which in both major as my example and minor ways throughout history show that a balance usually comes through.
- I do have faith that mankind as a whole can break the cycle but the fact history repeats itself doesn't help any arguments for this not being the natural order, if so trying to find a middle ground isn't that bad an idea.
About the subjectivity of evil, let's just agree on the semantics : if I make a scientific invention with no desire or knowledge that it will be used for evil, I've done no evil. If the government takes that invention to use it to fight a destructive enemy, while of course knowing it will obliterate innocents along, then all in the government who have a hand in deciding and executing it, in varying degrees, have done evil. There are after all people who don't wanna partake in their bosses' corrupt decisions and, since they can't stop it either, quit. Well if the boss puts a gun to your head telling you to enter launch codes, I guess you can be exempted.
Now in that fictional dimension, if we get rid of this evil that men do (Bob?), there will still be suffering. Accidents, misunderstandings, natural catastrophes are still all there. But imagine if the architect of this dimension created people, each unique with their own personality (which includes lust, vanity, ambition, etc.), but all unwilling to hurt another soul.
And no, that's not weeded out with electroshock therapy. ?
Fire walk with