Equality

[Immanuel Can]

...the logical question is why indoctrination or pedophelia is considered evil or bad to begin with.

Apparently only you and I think it's evil or bad, Nick. There's already an advocacy group for it in at least one European country. It's the new LGBT..P.

The purpose of education is to allow the lower parts of the soul to become balanced so that later on the rational or higher parts of the soul can remember its natural love of the GOOD. The result is "character."

Human beings "naturally love the good". And yet, there is evil?

So how?

[henry quirk]

I know or have known only five Americans or people who have lived there, and they were not propagandised

How old are they?

I'm 57 and my schoolin' was fairly clean compared to the bullshit my 14 year gets thrown his way.

He handles it well cuz I counter it well, but neither of us ought to have to contend with slave training, which is exactly what it amounts to.

[commonsense]

hate crime

Your Harrison Bergeron socialism dictates the first (or, in the least, it dictates that any who climb out of the muck must carry another on his back).

Heh. One quotation from Orwell, and one from Harrison Bergeron in the same post. Ironically, B. doesn't seem to know that "hate crime" is an Orwellian nightmare of an idea -- the idea that you could be charged or persecuted just for having an opinion or emotion about something.

But that's what Lefties think. They think that "hate" is a "crime." It's not, of course, just as you say. "Hurtful action" is a crime...and "to the penalty box with you," if you do it, just as you say.

But one can't indict someone for feeling "hate" or holding an opinion one doesn't like, without becoming an Orwellian dictator oneself.

Perhaps the meaning of “hate crime” is a crime attended by hate and not that hate itself is a crime. No?

[henry quirk]

People who succeed on their own merits need successful others.

Not always, no.

But even if that were so: there's a big difference between, for example, a father raising his son, and, assembly line assistance.

The first is love, the second is mechanization.

[Immanuel Can]

Perhaps the meaning of “hate crime” is a crime attended by hate and not that hate itself is a crime. No?

Well, I think that's the idea. But how does one judge an emotion? How do you know whether, say a savage beating a person of colour got was motivated by "hate," or by greed -- as in the desire to have the guy's wallet? Or was it a product of a misunderstanding, for which no pre-existing hatred was even involved? Or was it a case of mistaken identity? Or was the hatred present, but directed at his "Pittsburg Steelers" sweater, rather than at the colour of his skin?

We can judge beating up somebody as evil. What we don't know is the WHY. And it's not enough to say, "Well, the assailant was white, or a policeman, or the son of a Southern Democrat"; none of these things is sufficient proof of what emotion was involved in the act. All of that is merely circumstantial. We cannot fairly judge a persons heart-motives. We just don't know.

But in point of fact, what's happening right now is rather different. Instead of us waiting for a crime to be committed, we're now attacking each other for having "hate speech," or racial "hatred," purely on the assumption that if he or she belongs to a different political party, or expresses doubt about the purity of our own political project, or even because they just haver a different view than we like.

And that's really a poisonous turn of events.

So it's better we indict the act...like "assault," and leave the motivations out of it, unless the person has already revealed exactly what his motive was by saying or doing it. That's enough. To go beyond is to open a can of worms we can't close.

[Nick_A]

...the logical question is why indoctrination or pedophelia is considered evil or bad to begin with.

Apparently only you and I think it's evil or bad, Nick. There's already an advocacy group for it in at least one European country. It's the new LGBT..P.

The purpose of education is to allow the lower parts of the soul to become balanced so that later on the rational or higher parts of the soul can remember its natural love of the GOOD. The result is "character."

Human beings "naturally love the good". And yet, there is evil?

So how?

This is one of those questions which require a serious discussion on deep ideas which threaten our normal understanding of ourselves. I am referring to Plato's Chariot allegory. I'll post two links. the first is by John Uebersax. He is a very deep man who understands both Plato and Christianity. It is long but the analysis is excellent. But this is only for serious thinkers.

https://www.john-uebersax.com/plato/plato3.htm#intro

The second is from: https://www.artofmanliness.com/articles ... 0obstinate.

It is a lot easier but the essentials are there which explains the human condition.

The Allegory of the Chariot

In the Phaedrus, Plato (through his mouthpiece, Socrates) shares the allegory of the chariot to explain the tripartite nature of the human soul or psyche.

The chariot is pulled by two winged horses, one mortal and the other immortal.

The mortal horse is deformed and obstinate. Plato describes the horse as a “crooked lumbering animal, put together anyhow…of a dark color, with grey eyes and blood-red complexion; the mate of insolence and pride, shag-eared and deaf, hardly yielding to whip and spur.”

The immortal horse, on the other hand, is noble and game, “upright and cleanly made…his color is white, and his eyes dark; he is a lover of honor and modesty and temperance, and the follower of true glory; he needs no touch of the whip, but is guided by word and admonition only.”

In the driver’s seat is the charioteer, tasked with reining in these disparate steeds, guiding and harnessing them to propel the vehicle with strength and efficiency. The charioteer’s destination? The ridge of heaven, beyond which he may behold the Forms: essences of things like Beauty, Wisdom, Courage, Justice, Goodness — everlasting Truth and absolute Knowledge. These essences nourish the horses’ wings, keeping the chariot in flight.

The charioteer joins a procession of gods, led by Zeus, on this trip into the heavens. Unlike human souls, the gods have two immortal horses to pull their chariots and are able to easily soar above. Mortals, on the other hand, have a much more turbulent ride. The white horse wishes to rise, but the dark horse attempts to pull the chariot back towards the earth. As the horses pull in opposing directions, and the charioteer attempts to get them into sync, his chariot bobs above the ridge of heaven then down again, and he catches glimpses of the great beyond before sinking once more.

If the charioteer is able to behold the Forms, he gets to go on another revolution around the heavens. But if he cannot successfully pilot the chariot, the horses’ wings wither from lack of nourishment, or break off when the horses collide and attack each other, or crash into the chariots of others. The chariot then plummets to earth, the horses lose their wings, and the soul becomes embodied in human flesh. The degree to which the soul falls, and the “rank” of the mortal being it must then be embodied in is based on the amount of Truth it beheld while in the heavens. Rather like the idea of reincarnation. The degree of the fall also determines how long it takes for the horses to regrow their wings and once again take flight. Basically, the more Truth the charioteer beheld on his journey, the shallower his fall, and the easier it is for him to get up and get going again. The regrowth of the wings is hastened by the mortal soul encountering people and experiences that contain touches of divinity, and recall to his memory the Truth he beheld in his preexistence. Plato describes such moments as looking “through the glass dimly” and they hasten the soul’s return to the heavens.

Our problem is a corrupted dark horse which needs to become harmonized. Lacking harmony the dark horse lives by imagination which is the only way our lives are hypocrisy is made tolerable

This is from the Uebersax article which describes thumos

It is evident from Homer and before that Greek culture attached considerable importance to the concept of thumos. That a similar word or concept doesn't exist in modern English (and that super-ego is at best a meager and unsatisfying substitute) is terribly important. For something to be fully conscious -- and, especially for it to be part of the collective, public consciousness -- we need a word or term for it. Lacking a term, the idea or thing is marginalized, without complete access to our full intellectual and behavior repertoire. It is unintegrated into conscious psychic life. When something so basic as thumos is not integrated, the entire organism of the psyche must as a consequence necessarily be thrown into severe disarray.
Modern man has no concept of thumos. This is like the charioteer not realizing he has a white horse! If thumos is no longer consciously recognized, the variations of psychic disorder that result are numerous and diverse. This subject alone would merit a long article or book -- and probably relate quite directly to a number of serious contemporary social and cultural concerns. Here, however, we shall have to content ourselves to just list a few examples (a task facilitated by making convenient use of the analogy itself).

Like it or not, thumos is not a secular idea so naturally is rejected by progressive education. But the bottom line is that we first have to appreciate what the GOOD is before recognizing what denies it called evil

It is impossible for us which is why the Christ descended. His sacrifice enabled the Holy Spirit to provide the means, the quality of energy, to reconcile what is represented by the two horses.

[Immanuel Can]

Our problem is a corrupted dark horse

You could have just said that, Nick. It was all I was interested in.

...the bottom line is that we first have to appreciate what the GOOD is before recognizing what denies it called evil

No, that doesn't work. If everything is already good, then there's no possibility of identifying evil with anything. So you wouldn't even know what evil was.

[commonsense]

...the bottom line is that we first have to appreciate what the GOOD is before recognizing what denies it called evil

No, that doesn't work. If everything is already good, then there's no possibility of identifying evil with anything. So you wouldn't even know what evil was.

Wouldn’t an individual tend to assume that whatever he appreciates is good, and whatever displeases him is evil? At least wouldn’t that be the case before the influence of others?

[Nick_A]

Our problem is a corrupted dark horse

You could have just said that, Nick. It was all I was interested in.

...the bottom line is that we first have to appreciate what the GOOD is before recognizing what denies it called evil

No, that doesn't work. If everything is already good, then there's no possibility of identifying evil with anything. So you wouldn't even know what evil was.

God doesn't create evil. Evil is defined by aim. The potential for Man is to have the two horses fly with the Gods. The dark horse having become corrupt is tied to the earth. Evil by definition is what prevents Man from achieving its evolutionary potential. It is an unnatural creation. That is why the world is considered the domain of the Prince of Darkness

The idea of thumos explains progressive education. It is like the charioteer forgetting it has a white horse.

[Nick_A]

...the bottom line is that we first have to appreciate what the GOOD is before recognizing what denies it called evil

No, that doesn't work. If everything is already good, then there's no possibility of identifying evil with anything. So you wouldn't even know what evil was.

Wouldn’t an individual tend to assume that whatever he appreciates is good, and whatever displeases him is evil? At least wouldn’t that be the case before the influence of others?

Yes, this is how the Great Beast thinks. The question is if an individual is capable of being more than a mechanical atom of the Great Beast

from Book VI of his Republic (here Plato critiques those who are "wise" through their study of society):

I might compare them to a man who should study the tempers and desires of a mighty strong beast who is fed by him--he would learn how to approach and handle him, also at what times and from what causes he is dangerous or the reverse, and what is the meaning of his several cries, and by what sounds, when another utters them, he is soothed or infuriated; and you may suppose further, that when, by continually attending upon him, he has become perfect in all this, he calls his knowledge wisdom, and makes of it a system or art, which he proceeds to teach, although he has no real notion of what he means by the principles or passions of which he is speaking, but calls this honourable and that dishonourable, or good or evil, or just or unjust, all in accordance with the tastes and tempers of the great brute. Good he pronounces to be that in which the beast delights and evil to be that which he dislikes...

[Immanuel Can]

...the bottom line is that we first have to appreciate what the GOOD is before recognizing what denies it called evil

No, that doesn't work. If everything is already good, then there's no possibility of identifying evil with anything. So you wouldn't even know what evil was.

Wouldn’t an individual tend to assume that whatever he appreciates is good, and whatever displeases him is evil? At least wouldn’t that be the case before the influence of others?

Well, if the world were good, and people were good, then what would ever "displease" anyone? There wouldn't be anything to do that, would there? Things wouldn't be displeasing...just perhaps "pleasantly surprising" at times. Nothing really bad could happen, though.

So either we have to suppose that evil is baked into the nature of things (which would then have to be explained: why shouldn't what is be good?), or it's inherent in human beings (which also needs an explanation, of course). But it doesn't make a lot of sense to suppose that in a good work with good people, evil is even an experience that can be had, or a concept that is possible.

[Immanuel Can]

God doesn't create evil.

Agreed.

Evil is defined by aim.

???

How can one "aim" at a bad thing that's not ALREADY bad? So "aim" doesn't explain anything.

Evil by definition is what prevents Man from achieving its evolutionary potential.

That seems wrong two ways.

Firstly, because "evolution" is supposed to be a purely material process, and thus has no "potential" for man that he could be "prevented" from reaching. Evolution neither knows nor cares where human beings, or any other creatures end up. It has no telos, no "end game" in mind. It doesn't have a mind. Its creatures go extinct by the millions, and it has any number of false-starts where some critter turns out to be "maladapted" and thus becomes extinct. Evolution is a tremendously wasteful process, in that regard; and it has no power to care about that.

Secondly, why would something be "preventing" human beings from anything, if nothing is already evil/preventative? So that seems obviously a case of assuming the conclusion and calling it an explanation, I think.

[commonsense]

No, that doesn't work. If everything is already good, then there's no possibility of identifying evil with anything. So you wouldn't even know what evil was.

Wouldn’t an individual tend to assume that whatever he appreciates is good, and whatever displeases him is evil? At least wouldn’t that be the case before the influence of others?

Well, if the world were good, and people were good, then what would ever "displease" anyone? There wouldn't be anything to do that, would there? Things wouldn't be displeasing...just perhaps "pleasantly surprising" at times. Nothing really bad could happen, though.

Yes, if the world were good, there wouldn’t be any evil. But it is not, and some things are evil.

To most people, murder is anathema. Perhaps this is due to societal proscription or perhaps it is instinctual, based on a need to be a social creature.

Murder is evil as it displeases normal people.

On the other hand, pleasure is good because it feels good. Procreation, in/of the act itself, is good because it pleases people, putting rape aside.

Doesn’t this make sense?

[Immanuel Can]

Yes, if the world were good, there wouldn’t be any evil. But it is not, and some things are evil.

Well, that sure calls for a question or two, doesn't it?

Like, "Is this world really something that contains evil, or is 'evil' just a word we use to describe things that are "inconvenient"? But then again, why should anything be "inconvenient," when it might have been otherwise? It's a very odd fact that we find the world is somehow "against us" in some ways; why should it be so?

And what about the evils men do? For even if there were not these strange oppositional forces we find in the world and call 'evil,' there are surely enough cases in hand of human beings taking the opportunity to harm each other, aren't there? So where does that impulse come from?

Murder is evil as it displeases normal people.

Well, we've got loaded terms here.

Which "people"? What's "normal," and who gets to say? How serious is it to "displease" a person? And what if, for some reason, an action that was formerly displeasing, like genocide, becomes not-displeasing, as it did to so many in the Third Reich? What if the majority is in favour of propagandizing or killing children...does its normalcy excuse it morally as well, and make it good?

That's a pretty shaky definition for evil, isn't it?

On the other hand, pleasure is good because it feels good.

Hmmm.

Heroin, I hear, feels really good. Prostitution might feel good. Pornography feels good to those drawn to it. Being drunk out of one's mind feels good. And sometimes, beating another person up, if you really, really didn't like him, is reported to feel good too. Are we sure we want to call all such things good?

Then we have the old consequentialist problem: what if I have to do some evil (like, say, embezzle) in order to get some pleasure (like being wealthy, having a big house and a boat, and having no problem providing for my family and having the admiration of many friends). Does the pleasure I get justify what I have to do to get it?

[Nick_A]

No, that doesn't work. If everything is already good, then there's no possibility of identifying evil with anything. So you wouldn't even know what evil was.

Wouldn’t an individual tend to assume that whatever he appreciates is good, and whatever displeases him is evil? At least wouldn’t that be the case before the influence of others?

Well, if the world were good, and people were good, then what would ever "displease" anyone? There wouldn't be anything to do that, would there? Things wouldn't be displeasing...just perhaps "pleasantly surprising" at times. Nothing really bad could happen, though.

So either we have to suppose that evil is baked into the nature of things (which would then have to be explained: why shouldn't what is be good?), or it's inherent in human beings (which also needs an explanation, of course). But it doesn't make a lot of sense to suppose that in a good work with good people, evil is even an experience that can be had, or a concept that is possible.

Yes, the potential for evil must be built into universal laws. This is why on earth for example life moves in circles and cycles. there are no straight lines in nature. For the universe to serve its purpose it must include the struggle between affirmation/denial, right/wrong, yes/no or either of the great expressions of duality These dualities are united on the great chain of being by the third force of reconcilition. It is what makes the flows of involution and evolution possible.