• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

The Devil's Greatest Trick..

I rekon most people, not brought up in a bubble, are aware of the fact that the vernacular 'devil' is only a metaphor for something else.

Words are a means to represent something. lol Obviously.

However, if we lose 'words' due to constant religious stigmatization of their meaning... isn't that really just self-defeating? Doesnt that justify peoples insecurities, in relation to power, over their own personal ethics?

Ethical issues, concepts of right/wrong, function/dysfunction, always need to be expressed; in an effort to communicate the human condition and what is acceptable or not.


Semantics are what they are... but 'evil' in terms of ignorance, cruel destruction of humanity and any other way of expressing it, should never be censored, a balanced need to reproach it is important. Debate; regarding semantics - with regard to where it came from- is not important(and is complete folly) when matters of actual callousness is still permitted to exist, with the aid of blind obedience, by all of us.
 
Last edited:
I rekon most people, not brought up in a bubble, are aware of the fact that the vernacular 'devil' is only a metaphor for something else.

Words are a means to represent something. lol Obviously.
Click to expand...

But isn't this just another religious-apologetic cop-out? "You just don't understand, you uncultured rube! My stupid, retrograde Bronze Age beliefs are actually deep, meaningful metaphors for...stuff."

I wonder if radical Muslims detonate suicide bombs in service of metaphors? Do would-be Christian theocrats campaign against abortion rights for the sake of semiotic constructs?
 
max_ said:
If you believe there is no evil then you will mistake evil things for good things.
Click to expand...

I used to believe in good and evil.
But then I matured, and some of what I had previously though of as good, I realized was not good.
Same with evil.
So, if my definitions of good and evil change with time, what does that really mean?
Also, I realized that other people - including some very good ones - didn't always agree with what I thought to be good and evil.
So I gave up believing in good and evil, preferring instead to think of "I like it" and "I don't like it".
When I did so, life improved drastically.
 
Asclepius said:
I rekon most people, not brought up in a bubble, are aware of the fact that the vernacular 'devil' is only a metaphor for something else.

Words are a means to represent something. lol Obviously.

However, if we lose 'words' due to constant religious stigmatization of their meaning... isn't that really just self-defeating? Doesnt that justify peoples insecurities, in relation to power, over their own personal ethics?

Ethical issues, concepts of right/wrong, function/dysfunction, always need to be expressed; in an effort to communicate the human condition and what is acceptable or not.


Semantics are what they are... but 'evil' in terms of ignorance, cruel destruction of humanity and any other way of expressing it, should never be censored, a balanced need to reproach it is important. Debate; regarding semantics - with regard to where it came from- is not important(and is complete folly) when matters of actual callousness is still permitted to exist, with the aid of blind obedience, by all of us.
Click to expand...


i agree, the only entity committing "evil" acts, are us. the evil we see is what we create indirectly or not as humanity as a whole, and the bar of standard rises with desensitization. once we begin to accept this responsibility, our inert good nature will naturally take over, if for no other reason then to protect oneself and family.
 
So I gave up believing in good and evil, preferring instead to think of "I like it" and "I don't like it". When I did so, life improved drastically.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Whenever I find myself reflecting upon the moral implications of a particular action (which I now consider to be principally aesthetic judgments), I find that I'm most often reacting to something that I find viscerally objectionable, with little else in the way of intellectual substance to serve as a bedrock for my various ethical precepts. When it comes to questions of behavior, my focus has certainly shifted away from systematic normative valuations of right and wrong; and toward such comparatively rewarding avenues of thought as game theory, social psychology, and aesthetics.

There's also the intrinsic difficulty latent in moving from shaky premises (e.g., absolute Evil exists) to pragmatic conclusions with real-world applications. Popular ethical theories themselves, however, are often internally consistent, so long as you grant them their (often baseless) premises. This fact, combined with 1) the seemingly inborn tendency among non-sociopaths to respond passionately to vaguely objectionable experiences; and 2) the phenomenon of the conscience, is what I suspect underpins and discursively sustains the vast majority of 'moral thinking' in most/all societies. The Devil, on the other hand, is probably just some sad atavistic psychological regression to the ephemeral boogeymen and fairy stories of prehistory.
 
panic in paradise said:
the only entity committing "evil" acts, are us. the evil we see is what we create indirectly or not as humanity as a whole, and the bar of standard rises with desensitization. once we begin to accept this responsibility, our inert good nature will naturally take over, if for no other reason then to protect oneself and family.
Click to expand...

What about when a young innocent person dies from something in nature like cancer? This isn't good so is it evil? And if it is evil it wasn't committed by us.
 
cloudyday said:
What about when a young innocent person dies from something in nature like cancer? This isn't good so is it evil? And if it is evil it wasn't committed by us.
Click to expand...


no it isnt good or evil.

there is only so much occurring naturally that we can ingest or be exposed to in such a way to cause carcinogens in our systems.

n. america has an epidemic of diabetes type 2 in its children, and 1 in 4 native americans will successfully attempt suicide or has a family member who does commit suicide, there are many new auto-immune disorders and new types of cancers being discovered that are not caused by nature, but the choices we make.
 
Fyasko. said:
^^+1
Click to expand...


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

1.

..and alot more ;)
 
cloudyday said:
So what is the general definition of evil? And how would you define something as evil or not evil?
Click to expand...

Many prayers end with, "your child, a sinner"; I assume because we are a part of the eternal spirit, established as a soul who inhabited a material body. the divine, or divinity, the undivided singular consciousness, does not have morals as we mortals do, because there is no discrepancy amongst singularity. until the compassion recognized and accepted in all else as a part of the oneself, morals that exist between two parties to create a sense harmony will be needed, and presented in the form of personal experiences until they are not learned, but lived.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top