• There is no such thing as "evil" because it is only a perspective.


  • @SexyLexi4204ever
    it's more of a feeling so it is true


  • @SexyLexi4204ever But the same reasoning would lead you to conclude that there is no such thing as shadows, as long as we know they result from something casting them. Everything, of course, is perspective.


  • It's easy to establish that concepts such as 'good' or 'bad' are simply perspective, but that's not a very strong position to hold.
    Consider, the concept of 'truth' now; that a thing is objectively the case it presents as. Does truth fall prey to the same perspective fallacy?
    Yes, and this is concerning because by its definition truth must be singular, and self-evident. What limits our judgement here is availability of information.

    Consider the "Hubble Sphere or Volume"
    It states that the expansion of the universe is such a rate that light from a far enough distance will never reach us at the centre, therefore we will have no knowledge of what is outside of our "hubble bubble" so to speak.

    This lack of information would lead us to conclude that, say, there is only a single galaxy (if all others exist outwith our frame of reference. While this would be a form of truth, it is only so from our -limited- perspective, and simultaneously wrong and false objectively.

    Therefore, I conclude that there is only one form of evil in the world, though it takes many forms, each aspect of it involves the destruction of information, or restricting access to information.


  • @Randy_Butternubs we can see shadows, we can control them and they are clearly there. What I consider a shadow, you will also know as a shadow, as will someone from another country, background, ethnicity, etc. They might have a different word, but we all know it as a shadow.
    Evil is different. What you call evil I might call kindness. What I call evil another person might consider good. I think that's what they meant by evil being a perspective. A shadow on the other hand isn't perspective, it isn't subjective, it is real. We can see it and name it.


  • @Randy_Butternubs but we already know that there is nothing we know about this universe. To conclude there is only a single galaxy would be to have a theory, which is very different from truth or fact. There would be a "single galaxy theory" just as there is a "big bang theory" and "theory of gravity". We are aware we have lack of information and until we are able to completely prove something true it will fall under theory.


  • @TheGoldenMole
    That's what I was trying to say, it's not enough simply to be aware that we may be lacking information which puts perceived "truths" at risk of being found wrong. We must be aware that our very understanding of what is true, will be less effective as time goes on due to the degradation of either the information quality, or the availability of information.

    Estimates put the rate of universe expansion at ~70kilometers-per-second-per-megaparsec. That means that, with three galaxies initially within a megaparsec of one-another, we could easily measure the existence of any object in that sphere from any other object, yet after some time and some distance travelled, a galaxy could disappear, never to be heard of again.
    Consider that galaxies A and B are now within the same sphere, yet galaxy C has accelerated so that it is outside of this sphere. The acceleration (km/s) increases with distance (megaparsecs) as space appears to actually generate more of itself between objects as they move, so objects farther away from the point of reference are actually travelling faster than those which are closer. This gives the impression of the receding galaxy C having moving faster than the speed of light, which is not strictly possible, but due to spatial expansion between it and the observer, is actually the observed case.

    The implication here is that at a particular distance, no information can be gained about a thing; it cannot interact with us now in any way as nothing can travel faster than the speed of light without space itself increasing in volume between them in addition to their movements.

    So, we would be correct, provably and mathematically to conclude that "Because I can measure these objects in my galaxy being affected in certain ways due to objects in the only other galaxy available to me, there are just two galaxies." The third has ceased to be of any meaning, because it can affect no change on our now too-distant galaxies A & B.

    If we want to hold that mathetmatics is a language we discovered, inherent to the universe and not simply an idea we made up; ie, that mathematics, that numbers are objective truths (one is always a singular, for example), then I think the conclusion has to be that the only evil is an action which degrades quality or, or access to available information. As to whether it is inherent or learned, since we could never settle Nature-Nurture debate, I think that question ceases to be relevant.

    What are your thoughts?

    (Excuse the length here, I'm realising I'm not very concise!)


  • @Randy_Butternubs Yeah pretty much. It is an endless question with no definitive answer. That's why I asked it, I wanted to know opinions, thoughts, and reasonings. I like asking these questions because there are no right or wrong answers, just ideas and thought processes. Somehow that's more interesting to me than a straight answer


  • This post is deleted!

  • @TheGoldenMole
    Adam ate an apple of sin. ThereaFteR evil transferred from his SpErM to uS. πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚

  • Gamers

    Once in a while, a child would be born with a brain disorder not allowing them to comprehend empathy or feelings, which is basically what evil is. But not all evil people are born evil. If these people who are born evil grow up to become parents with perfectly normal kids, then their child will grow up only knowing bad or evil behaviors, therefore making them evil. So basically, evil is sometimes learned and sometimes inherited, but the instances where evil is learned are derived from the instances where evil is inherited. I don't know if this is the answer you're looking for, but it's what I think.


  • @AllAboutGay GhoSt mAdE stRaiGht peOple inTo hiS imAgE


  • @TheGoldenMole that’s a great question! I think the capabilities of both good and evil exist in every person. Maybe the deciding factor relies on the morals of the individual.


  • @Intellectual animals are born with no empathy or complex feelings all of the time. Using this logic, could they be considered evil?


  • Evil is actually like God , we can't see them by this eye and can't hear their sound by this ear. we can't feel them by our five senses. but we have five senses else that we can feel them by those senses.
    I have an Instagram account which explained about these notes.


  • @TheGoldenMole

    Based on psychology books i have read (like a lot), they mentioned evil things are created with the perception and the interactions in verbal communication. Hence, i think it is none of that. You can manage things like your evil side if you want to.
    There is no learning in evil, they are just copy paste it then adapt it to their behaviour. πŸ˜‚


  • Devil is source of evil. Devil is actually like God. we can not see Devil by this eye or hear Devils sound by this ear but he speak with us every moment. we must select every moment Devil or God. if we select Devil therfore we are selecting evils and if we select the great God therfore we select goodness. we are free for any selection in our life.
    sorry my English is not very good.


  • @TheGoldenMole
    life is short and truth is not far from us. we need to know how can to be goodness and happy at this moment only.


  • Both. A sociopath is born without emotional awareness. The inability to "feel" what others feel. No empathy. A sociopath can see the pain on another's face and can only derive a perverse kind of pleasure from the knowledge that it is they who inflict that pain.
    Hatred is a form of evil that is entirely learned. No one is born with an innate understanding of hatred. It is taught to children by parents who have hate in their own hearts or it is learned from being victimized by those who hate you for what they "think" you are without knowing "who" you are.


  • @pe7erpark3r said in Is Evil Learned or Inherent?:

    @Berin said in Is Evil Learned or Inherent?:

    @Indrid-Cold You may disagree with what I said Indrid. It is always good to have the counterpoint and a pleasure to receive your notes.

    Life is ripe with suffering and tragedy, as it is, but what brings people to their knees, what brings us to desperation and contempt is suffering intentionally brought into the world, by other's and ourselves. Soldiers often experience PTSD not after having seen incredible evil in front of their eyes, but by seeing the evil they are capable of themselves.

    What hurts us most is the suffering that didn't have to be, that was caused by someone willing to hurt others. We have seen immense evil done in the past century, by the third reich, and multiplied even by all the communist empires the world has seen so far.

    If we were truly born evil, then the suffering we cause would be tragedy, it would not actually be evil, because it would not be intentional. For anything to be evil, it needs to stem from a decision. Thus all evil, without exception, is freely committed and not innate.

    In fact, recent study shows that taking, for instance, sth that is considered bad, like addiction, in the moment they are supposed to choose whether they want to subside to that addiction or not the part of their brain responsible for awareness and decision-making is being shut down, that is the basis of addiction. So, we say they should simply remove their harmful habits, but complelely dismiss that it is not exactly possible with an atittude of "it's their fault"
    As with soldiers having PTSD as a result of perceiving themselves as bad, the actual issue in people not being able to change their habits is the constant thought of "don't do it" as if we needed to resist our internal self which would naturally behave as bad. That is what we are taught, because parents usually don't differentiate between a bad action and a bad self, such as when a kid breaks a plate and her mom says: "bad girl, you're so (fill in the blank)"
    That is the fundamental issue with society, and it is actually internalised, and creates ego: ego can be wonderful and the only way to experience reality, but a major setback too, if we identify with the negative, dark, at a most subconsious level
    That's what we need to look into
    That creates why we act evil, because that's what we believe at our deepest level about ourselves(even religion talks about the originary sin), how could we not mirror that in our actions?