Vanished Like the Snow

[Michael Sullivan]

If you believe that God created
the universe, you may well get
the relation between good
and evil that you have
ably represented. But I think
that without that underpinning,
that relation isn't so obvious,
nor does it seem to be
a matter of metaphysical
necessity. Best, Jim
* * *
I've been away so I haven't been able to read or reply; now quite a lot has piled up. Perhaps I should simply stick to this.

Jim might be right about this. It is true with everything but especially metaphysics that for things to make sense you have to go in the right order. Claims can make no sense until they are shown to follow from previously admitted positions. In which case maybe we should talk about the existence of God first, or if we think this is a bad idea, move on.

I suspect however that this isn't true and that good and evil are more primitive notions than that of God. If this is the case the answer should be accessible in its metaphysical necessity, as Jim puts it, without having resource to the divinity or to any religious ideas.

But I think in order for any more conversation to be fruitful we're going to have to talk about definitions. Bandying about the words "good" and "bad" won't get us far if we mean different things by them. I'd like to know what people have to say about this.

For myself I believe that "good" can be defined in a relative sense as what anything desires and in an absolute sense as what a rightly ordered mind desires. If this is right then in the end "good" will be essentially convertible with "being" or what exists, to the extent that it exists rightly or in accord with its nature. Also, having so defined good, evil is necessarily defined in contrast to it as what a disordered mind or appetite desires or what exists in discord with its nature.

Realizing that putting it like this is begging the entire question, I don't insist on it. Maybe such a definition can only be held after the discussion is resolved. But perhaps the best way to proceed would be to look at other definitions and see which one makes the most sense. Personally I doubt that the idea of an evil nature is even a coherent one, much less a naturally evil world. By what standard would such a thing or universe be judged?

To put it as briefly as possible, I think that a thing can only be called evil by at least mentally comparing it to some ideal good. Health and sanity is the natural state and disease and madness are recognized and judged by their deviance from them. A bad whistle is called so because it doesn't sound like what we think a whistle should sound like. Unhappiness and discontent compares the present state to the state one would rather be in.

In a wholly evil world not only would beings be diseased and unhappy and miserable; they couldn't know that this was so. They could have no standard of good to compare their state to, nothing to try for. Every change would be a change for the worse but be unrecognizable as worse. I think this only works in the imagination and isn't really thinkable; because even to call this theoretical world evil depends on us, from the outside, applying some standard of good to it and seeing that it fails, where no such standard would be applicable.

Does this make any sense? Maybe I should just shut up.

[jim stone]

A general account of the difference
between good and bad transcends
my mental capacities, Michael,
at least today. Perhaps Wombat or Carol
have something to say, or that
old Sophist, Bloomfield!

I sent you a private message
asking you where you are
studying. I've been learning
a bit of Aquinas at St. Louis
University, with Eleanor Stump.
Are you there? If not, where?
Notre Dame? Only a small number of places
to study this medeival stuff. Please
let me know. Also, what
sort of epistemology are
you doing? Thanks and best wishes, Jim

[jim stone]

I thought it might be suitable to
close this
thread with more song lyrics,
by myself, in fact;
on the same subject.

'Where does the breeze of autumn fly
When September leaves the sky?
Where do November evenings go
When November's through?'

Take your jacket from the wall,
We'll go looking for the fall.
No one ever spies
Where the autumn flies.

'Where does the ice of winter stay
When all of March has blown away?
Where does the silver fox lie down
When February's done?'

Wax your skis, dress for rain.
I'll show you where the fox has lain,
No one ever knows
Where the winter goes.

'Why does the wheel of nature sing
And spin the tangled shoots of spring?
And why do sky and earth combine
And join the cause of May?'

Bring a bag of songs to say,
We'll go and find the roots of May.
No one ever knows
Why the springtime grows.

'Where does the lamp of summer stand
When July has crossed the land?
And where's the place where August fell
And set the world a spin?'

Mend your boots by the fire light,
We'll be on our way tonight.
No one ever spies
Where the summer dies.

Best to all

[Michael Sullivan]

At the end of a long and entertaining discussion I would like to extend my thanks for the cordiality of those involved. There have been some other discussions going on here lately, entertaining and funny to read, but of which I would not care to be one of the participants or share in the feelings flying about. May we who took part in this conversation always disagree and remain friendly.

Sorry to the rest of the board for the unwhistlelike digressions.

Best wishes to all, Michael

[Bloomfield]

Yes, thanks all for the discussion, I've enjoyed it tremendously.

[carrie]

Sorry to the rest of the board for the unwhistlelike digressions.

You mean this wasn't about whistles??? Wow, I was more confused than I thought...