|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jan 10, 2023 16:09:52 GMT
The word Good has an interesting etymology. It originally meant powerful (in the sense that anything the powerful did was good). Notions of good and evil vary with time and place (obviously). Logic is eternal (a priori in the Kantian sense), so I suppose it stands to reason that it can't be made to chime with fluctuating notions such as good and evil. I think you are engaging in a bit of conflation. The English word still has a bundle of meanings including best, fixed, fit, ready and completed. Looking at the etymology of evil may be a better bet. The interesting thing is that these notions don't drift all that much. - Re Aristotle, you can recognise what was driving at even if it can't be put into logic or maths I'm not engaging in conflations. The point was to show that 'good' is a relative concept, subject to change over time. Nietzsche's Beyond and Evil devotes an entire chapter to the etymology of the word good, to make the point that its meaning varies from time to time and place to place. The etymology of evil is a simpler matter. It is based on ancient misogyny. Eve brought badness or wrong into the world when she tempted Adam - now all wrong is called ev(e)il. |
|
|
|
Post by Ripley on Jan 10, 2023 16:22:26 GMT
The early Christian author Lactantius, who was advisor to Constantine 1, attributes the following paradox to Epicurus:
He says that God either wants to prevent evils and is unable to, or He is able to but unwilling; or He is neither willing nor able, or He is both willing and able. If He is willing and is unable, He is feeble, which is not in accordance with the character of God; if He is able and unwilling, He is envious, which is equally at variance with God; if He is neither willing nor able, He is both envious and feeble, and therefore not God; if He is both willing and able, which alone is consistent with the character of God, then from what source does evil come, and why does He not remove them?
(De Ira Dei, 13, 20-21)
In modern parlance we would say, if God is willing to prevent evil but cannot, then he is impotent, and what good is an impotent god? If he is able to remove evil but unwilling to, then he is malevolent, and what good is a malevolent god? If He is neither willing nor able to prevent evil, then He is far from omnipotent as scripture describes Him. If He is both willing and able to remove evil but doesn't, what good is a god like that?
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jan 10, 2023 16:34:09 GMT
I'm not engaging in conflations. The point was to show that 'good' is a relative concept, subject to change over time. You are talking about the word rather than the concept. If you were enquiring about the concept, you would examine a word that doesn't today contain several overlapping concepts and whose etymology also didn't contain several overlapping concepts. Imo the word 'evil' or 'wicked' would be a much better place to start - c. 1200, extended form of earlier wick "bad, wicked, false"I would submit that a concept of wrongness that is somewhat divorced from ability or power, has been around as long as legal systems have existed. I'm not arguing that interpretations of the concept don't vary, more that it is a notion that has worried humanity for some time and is still not resolved rationally and is unlikely to ever be. The etymology of evil is a simpler matter. It is based on ancient misogyny. Eve brought badness or wrong into the world when she tempted Adam - now all wrong is called ev(e)il. lol.. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jan 10, 2023 16:43:30 GMT
Imo this logic doesn't quite work if we have eternal souls who either reach salvation by confronting evil, or reach damnation by submitting to it. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jan 10, 2023 16:47:15 GMT
I'm not engaging in conflations. The point was to show that 'good' is a relative concept, subject to change over time. You are talking about the word rather than the concept. If you were enquiring about the concept, you would examine a word that doesn't today contain several overlapping concepts and whose etymology also didn't contain several overlapping concepts. Imo the word 'evil' or 'wicked' would be a much better place to start - c. 1200, extended form of earlier wick "bad, wicked, false"I would submit that a concept of wrongness that is somewhat divorced from ability or power, has been around as long as legal systems have existed. I'm not arguing that interpretations of the concept don't vary, more that it is a notion that has worried humanity for some time and is still not resolved rationally and is unlikely to ever be. The etymology of evil is a simpler matter. It is based on ancient misogyny. Eve brought badness or wrong into the world when she tempted Adam - now all wrong is called ev(e)il. lol.. No, I'm talking about the concept of good, not just the word good. There was a time when an action was judged to be good or bad according to who carried out that action. What does the Lol in your post mean? Is my account of the source of the word evil incorrect? |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Jan 10, 2023 17:05:16 GMT
The word Good has an interesting etymology. It originally meant powerful (in the sense that anything the powerful did was good). Notions of good and evil vary with time and place (obviously). Logic is eternal (a priori in the Kantian sense), so I suppose it stands to reason that it can't be made to chime with fluctuating notions such as good and evil. I think you are engaging in a bit of conflation. The English word still has a bundle of meanings including best, fixed, fit, ready and completed. Looking at the etymology of evil may be a better bet. Re Aristotle, you can recognise what was driving at even if it can't be put into logic or maths If anyone is trying to to make God into good, in Hebrew, God is spelt Gd. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jan 10, 2023 17:22:03 GMT
There was a time when an action was judged to be good or bad according to who carried out that action. I think that's probably wrong because it is too categorical. There was an official reality, but I feel people still differentiated between what they saw as the good (morally correct) or bad (wicked) actions of kings and rulers. The idea that these notions of goodness separate from power simply didn't exist is silly imo. See Aristotle, who talks about virtue, honesty, fair-mindedness and self control. More broadly, i think it's likely the idea that moral authority comes from a person is a kind of an evolved legal fix for the fact that it is difficult to find anything else functional to replace it. Until you have centuries of common law precedent, somebody has to decide each case on what he sees as a case's merits. Somebody has to be ultimate arbitrator and do it a lot and that authority has to be enforced. |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Jan 10, 2023 17:22:40 GMT
The etymology of evil is a simpler matter. It is based on ancient misogyny. Eve brought badness or wrong into the world when she tempted Adam - now all wrong is called ev(e)il. Bloody hell, I never realised that. Obvious really. Great bit of knowledge that I should have been taught during religious indoctrination classes at school. Next time I see someone eating an apple I shall make sure to tell them they are evil. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jan 10, 2023 17:25:28 GMT
The similarity is coincidence. One is Germanic, the other Hebrew
|
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Jan 10, 2023 17:30:18 GMT
Notions of good and evil, in a secularist setting, are difficult to pin down, are they not? A drug dealer who kills an opponent for poaching his patch is considered evil by the majority of people. The drug dealing gangs might say "They deserved it" justifying or even congratulating those actions. On a less serious scale, someone shooting a hen harrier for food will be breaking the law. Is it an act of evil, or an act of good? They eat the bird. 100 years ago homosexuality was illegal. Now it is not. Which is correct? Is it the most modern decision that trumps the old ones, and why? With respect to sex, the age of consent in some counties is 13 and in others 18. Which is correct, and does breaking this law in a loving relationship make the act evil? Does the consensus make something good or evil? I don't think so. Mankind makes rules, but they are not just based on good and evil. Mankind makes rules for two reasons. 1) For the good of society. 2) For the good of the rulers. Secularism should be the mechanism that ensures there is more of 1 and less of 2 but politicians are no less self serving than religious leaders so we are left with a mixture of 1 and 2 still. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jan 10, 2023 17:33:01 GMT
There was a time when an action was judged to be good or bad according to who carried out that action. I think that's probably wrong because it is too categorical. There was an official reality, but I feel people still differentiated between what they saw as the good (morally correct) or bad (wicked) actions of kings and rulers. The idea that these notions of goodness separate from power simply didn't exist is silly imo. See Aristotle, who talks about virtue, honesty, fair-mindedness and self control. More broadly, i think it's likely the idea that moral authority comes from a person is a kind of an evolved legal fix for the fact that it is difficult to find anything else functional to replace it. Until you have centuries of common law precedent, somebody has to decide each case on what he sees as a case's merits. Somebody has to be ultimate arbitrator and do it a lot and that authority has to be enforced. What can I say? Nietzsche was an etymologist, and, while I've read several criticisms of his philosophy, I've yet to come across disagreement regarding his account of what it meant to be 'good' in the ancient world. He was discussing the concept as it was understood in the 7th Century BC. Homer has this conception of 'the good' in The Iliad and the Odyssey, suggesting this was the common understanding of the concept of good among the Greeks at this time. It makes no sense to bring Aristotle into it, as the point is that the meaning of the notion of what is good changes from time to time, and Aristotle was writing 400 years after Homer. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jan 10, 2023 17:34:22 GMT
The similarity is coincidence. One is Germanic, the other Hebrew Can you expand on this? I was taught that at school (but teachers aren't always right). |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jan 10, 2023 17:43:46 GMT
The church and dead philosophers shouldn’t be taken seriously when we consider absolutes regarding morality.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jan 10, 2023 17:50:28 GMT
What can I say? Nietzsche was an etymologist, But I'm not arguing with the etymology. I'm arguing about the concept referenced by the English word 'good' when set in opposition to the English word 'evil'. The word 'good' has several meanings today and, while I've read several criticisms of his philosophy, I've yet to come across disagreement regarding his account of what it meant to be 'good' in the ancient world. He was discussing the concept as it was understood in the 7th Century BC. Homer has this conception of 'the good' in The Iliad and the Odyssey, suggesting this was the common understanding of the concept of good among the Greeks at this time. I think your interpretation is likely to be a rather gross over-simplification. For instance, such a moral system would not allow valour to be a virtue separate from victory. You can see this is not the case. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jan 10, 2023 17:55:49 GMT
What can I say? Nietzsche was an etymologist, But I'm not arguing with the etymology. I'm arguing about the concept referenced by the English word 'good' when set in opposition to the English word 'evil'. The word 'good' has several meanings today Okay. I'm using the word good to mean conduct to be aspired to and actions which are acceptable. |
|
