The Inner Purple Eye

Psuedo-Philosophy. Yes, I made it up, and yes, I’ve based it on the concept of psuedo-science that is so prevelant in our society.

What is it? Well, obviously by the word, it’s simply ‘bad philosophy’. Really, it is more specific though. Psuedo-Philosophy, by my definition, are phrases and concepts that people perpetuate and become common in society, but are philosophically flawed. However, because they either contain some grain of truth or some intuitive tendancy, they are easily accepted by the masses. Many are confusing, or are grand concepts that are expressed in such a simplistic fashion that they are taken as true because it would be too difficult to think on them further.

Thankfully, you have philosophers to actually tell you that it’s bullshit. Nice, eh?

Case in point. I’m sure you’ve all heard this before - “If g-d is omnipotent, can he create a rock so big that he himself cannot lift it?” They expect a yes or no. If you can’t already see it, here’s the ‘paradox’ (Not really. This is just stupid.). If you say ‘yes’, then you deny omnipotence because g-d can then not ‘lift’ said rock. If you say ‘no’, than you deny omipotence because g-d cannot create said rock.

However, this is not a yes or no answer. This is a ‘hit the person in the face with a dictionary’ answer. Omnipotence is infinite ‘power’ (power to create, power to lift). An infinite, by definition, has no limit. It expands positively (and in some theoretical cases, negatively, depending on the situation) forever. The question at hand suggests a cap somewhere within the infinite. At one point, it suggests, one will surpass the other. However, it is impossible for an infinite to surpass an infinite. Consider if we spoke this out. You gave me a number, and I told you that g-d could both create and lift that number. You give me another, and I state the same. We continue this.. and die. Or get bored. Hopefully the latter. For a bit more of a concrete example, take space and mass. Infinite mass can occupy infinite space, because they are -both- infinite. One will never supercede the other. On the contrary, one will -completely- fill the other without being limited by it. There will not be ‘extra’ space, as that would presume one is greater, but nor would the amount of available space limit the mass. Both are infinite. So it is with gods’ omnipotence. It will not limit itself.

Stupid question over. It’s not even the point of this post. I’m going to say it was an example of psuedo-philosophy before I introduced it in the main point, but really I just wanted to rant about that.

The point is a thought on evil and good. And here is the psuedo-Philosophy : “Good cannot exist without Evil.”

There is a grain of truth in this. However, it is surrounded by stupidity. So allow me to state the truth first, than pluck out the rest.

There is truth in that our concept of good only exists because we have knowledge of evil. Afterall, after Adam and Eve ate from the tree, they gained knowledge of good -and- evil. If they only knew good, than there would be nothing else with which to compare it. If you saw the world in only the color blue, red would never enter your mind, and you would have no reason to state that which you saw the world in as ‘blue’. It would simply be. Giving the color a name would have no meaning, and would never occur to you, as you would have no reason to nor knowledge of difference.

However, there is a deep flaw in this. This presupposes that only our perception of good makes it be. By this, good has no intrinsic existence of itself or reality. If we do not percieve it, this presupposes, than it does not exist.

This is a rational error. Simply because Adam and Eve did not know of evil did not mean it was non-existant. Unaware of it as you might be, just because all you know is blue does not mean that red is non-existant. It simply means that you cannot see it. Good (in respect to ethical behavior) exists of its own right, and not because we deem it so. This is especially true if we presuppose the existence of a ‘good’ g-d, in which it would apply to all things good.

Now the obvious response to this would, and should, be ‘But not presupposing the existence of g-d, do we not will good ourselves? Do we not establish right and wrong? If we, as a society, decided that murder was acceptable, would it not then be good?’

The difficulty here is that there is a deeper foundation of good, even if g-d is not presupposed : Reason. Rational thinking concludes that mass murder is ethically wrong because of the dark intent and hatred it would spawn, as well as what it would do to ourselves and others in society (Combining Kantianism and Utilitarianism here. Yay me.) Reason will tell us that our actions and our intents are acceptable or condemable. And as faithful as I am, for a secular society, this is a great way (*coughgodgivencough*) manner of establishing good. It also shows that there is a thread of good, whether we are around to experience it or not.

I would also like to make a second topic on this subject. That is, that evil is not a seperate entity from good that exists in and of itself (giving balance to the universe, or whatever). Rather, evil is a -perversion- of good. All actions, at their core, are ‘good’. This statement likely brings skeptecism, so let me provide examples.

Murder : Murder suggests hatred or malice intent. However, killing an animal for sustenance is good (or at least acceptable based upon reason for reasons I don’t care to ensue on such a long tangent. Contact me later if you care that much). The intent and reason for the action changes with murder, and thus it becomes evil. The base action and intent is not itself wrong - simply the perversion of it.

Rape : Rape is evil for a variety of reasons. Sex, however, is not. At all. In fact, it’s quite good. Rape involves control and pain, and is truely not even about sex. Again, the base action and intent is good. It is the perversion into a means of control and fear that brings it into evil.

Lying: Oddly enough, this one is more difficult to explain. In reality, it involves speech and freedom. Consider this - If I told you a young loved one was out smoking pot and playing with guns, the least you would do is worry deeply. You may leave class or work in order to deal with the situation. However, I was lying. This caused you, for a time, to live in a ‘false world’. And in this place, your actions and emotions were different than they would be in reality. I have caused you to suffer based upon a false reality. To to tell you the truth - that your young loved one was playing basketball and having a good time - would allow you to make rational decisions based on reality. If a husband promises his wife to be hers, than cheats on her, he has caused her to live in a reality that is wrong. Now, the base action of speech - promising, informing, stating - do not limit freedom and do not cause a person to suffer in a false reality.

Cut away the dark branches, and every action has a core of good. So it is with good and evil. Evil is simply the perversion - the twist - the sour and gnarled branch - of good.

The point? Good can exist without evil, but evil cannot exist without good.

But than again, I’m a 23 year old junior college student. What the hell do I know? And did you really read all this?

Oh, and I have a new favorite line that comes from Scrubs - “I love you, and there’s absolutely nothing you can do about it.”

Because I do.

Within The Purple Eye,

-B