EVIL DOESN'T EXIST HAHAHA

[PressEnterToExit]

I'm creating this post to know what you think about the fact that most people think that EVIL is like something that is in the minds of people... I've heard it so many times, have read it from so many brilliant and intelligent people... What's the point on denying evil? what is wrong witht those people who think that? May they don't know a thing about history or they are blind or dunno what cause it is just amazing...... What are your thoughts?
How can the believe that human being is good? I just can't get it........... I mean, just think about racism, discrimination of all kinds, poverty, wars for money interests... really? human being is good? hahahaha oh come on
Please, can you all give me a line from a famous person saying that evil doesn't exist and let's take some laughs
"When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants and murderers, and for a time, they can seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall. Think of it--always."
― Mahatma Gandhi

 

[GenesAndEnvironment]

I'm creating this post to know what you think about the fact that most people think that EVIL is like something that is in the minds of people... I've heard it so many times, have read it from so many brilliant and intelligent people... What's the point on denying evil? what is wrong witht those people who think that? May they don't know a thing about history or they are blind or dunno what cause it is just amazing...... What are your thoughts?
How can the believe that human being is good? I just can't get it........... I mean, just think about racism, discrimination of all kinds, poverty, wars for money interests... really? human being is good? hahahaha oh come on
Please, can you all give me a line from a famous person saying that evil doesn't exist and let's take some laughs
"When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants and murderers, and for a time, they can seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall. Think of it--always."
― Mahatma Gandhi

Based joker-mode.

 

[Beachedwhale]

All the cartoons and kids shows and movies you grow up with showing good triumphing over evil is bullshit. They apply to particular times and places where people live in close knit communities untouched by the outside world and you couldn't afford to be evil and had to be good to get along with everyone because it was easy to get caught out and you were stuck with the same people. They are also just propaganda to fool people and support things like war, just like religion.

Today in most places due to neoliberal capitalism championing individualism, atomisation, free movement and the destruction of societal bonds its the opposite. You must be extremely evil, narcissistic, selfish, greedy, cunning, materialistic, bullying, cruel, manipulative, self-aggrandising, fake, hypocritical to survive and thrive. Nobody must be spared, even your closest family. You must be extremely antisocial but have just enough emotional intelligence to be able to fool people into thinking you're a "good guy". If you can do this early on you are set for a life filled with pleasure.

If you grow up with people like this you need to be even more like this from as early an age as possible before it's too late and you fucked up your life of your own accord due to brainwashing and extreme fear.

 

[BlankUser]

I was always a misanthrope. Humans do way more harm than good.

 

[motel rooms]

"This is the best of all possible worlds."​

-- G. W. Leibniz


1. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent;

2. God created the existing world;

3. God could have created a different world or none at all (i.e., there are other possible worlds);

4. Because God is omnipotent and omniscient, he knew which possible world was the best and was able to create it, and, because he is omnibenevolent, he chose to create that world;

5. Therefore, the existing world, the one that God created, is the best of all possible worlds.

 

[Beachedwhale]

"This is the best of all possible worlds."​

-- G. W. Leibniz


1. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent;

2. God created the existing world;

3. God could have created a different world or none at all (i.e., there are other possible worlds);

4. Because God is omnipotent and omniscient, he knew which possible world was the best and was able to create it, and, because he is omnibenevolent, he chose to create that world;

5. Therefore, the existing world, the one that God created, is the best of all possible worlds.

Voltaire satirised this in his book Candide

 

[PressEnterToExit]

"This is the best of all possible worlds."​

-- G. W. Leibniz


1. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent;

2. God created the existing world;

3. God could have created a different world or none at all (i.e., there are other possible worlds);

4. Because God is omnipotent and omniscient, he knew which possible world was the best and was able to create it, and, because he is omnibenevolent, he chose to create that world;

5. Therefore, the existing world, the one that God created, is the best of all possible worlds.

I'd love to see someone saying that in front of a bunch of depressed problematic people with knives

 

[TheAmazingCriswell]

"This is the best of all possible worlds."​

-- G. W. Leibniz


1. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent;

2. God created the existing world;

3. God could have created a different world or none at all (i.e., there are other possible worlds);

4. Because God is omnipotent and omniscient, he knew which possible world was the best and was able to create it, and, because he is omnibenevolent, he chose to create that world;

5. Therefore, the existing world, the one that God created, is the best of all possible worlds.

Leibniz was a brilliant mathematician, but this has always been and will always be garbage.

 

[Sprite_Geist]

Evil does exist, because one time I received evil karma points in Fallout for stealing a 200 year old candy bar.

 

[TheAmazingCriswell]

On a related note, I once started a thread which was completely ignored, but ties in nicely with your point, namely that people try to believe in some kind of natural justice/the good always triumphs:

I recently came across this video of a woodpecker attacking baby birds:



One of the highest comments reads thus:
"next search: eagles eating woodpeckers"

This comment highlights the warped sense of justice or, more accurately, revenge that people have always possessed and always will.
The proceedings in the video are not committed out of malignance and the woodpecker is not evil; he is acting on his natural instincts
which were put in place to ensure his survival.
Nevertheless, most people watching this video will find themselves taking party for the baby birds. The comment above implies that this person
(and the 1700 others who seem to agree with it) will now try to lighten their mood by watching a video in which a woodpecker is killed in
similar fashion.
It is of no importance that the woodpecker that is being killed has nothing to with the woodpecker that has killed, as long as he
is a woodpecker. The act of witnessing the killing of another woodpecker will not bring to life the killed baby birds, but the viewer will derive
a sense of retribution, a sense of justice from it.
This is the same response that makes people go to war: "A Frenchman killed my brother, so I will kill a Frenchman, who might not have had a hand
in his demise at all, to make up for it. I will not bring my brother back, but it will give me the feeling of having committed an act of justice."
People crave justice and fairness, despite these terms being completely unknown to nature; the wilderness knows no good and evil. Hence, they will
indulge in such illogical acts as the one described above to cater to these cravings.
This is what people want to see, and by consequence this matter is treated accordingly in fiction: The villain dies, the hero lives, the bullies fail,
the bullied succeed.
Nothing could be further from the truth.

 

[motel rooms]

People crave justice and fairness, despite these terms being completely unknown to nature; the wilderness knows no good and evil. Hence, they will
indulge in such illogical acts as the one described above to cater to these cravings.

Hence, they will invent an Almighty Sky Daddy who is perfectly just & who will destroy all their enemies in the afterlife...

 

[PressEnterToExit]

On a related note, I once started a thread which was completely ignored, but ties in nicely with your point, namely that people try to believe in some kind of natural justice/the good always triumphs:

I recently came across this video of a woodpecker attacking baby birds:



One of the highest comments reads thus:
"next search: eagles eating woodpeckers"

This comment highlights the warped sense of justice or, more accurately, revenge that people have always possessed and always will.
The proceedings in the video are not committed out of malignance and the woodpecker is not evil; he is acting on his natural instincts
which were put in place to ensure his survival.
Nevertheless, most people watching this video will find themselves taking party for the baby birds. The comment above implies that this person
(and the 1700 others who seem to agree with it) will now try to lighten their mood by watching a video in which a woodpecker is killed in
similar fashion.
It is of no importance that the woodpecker that is being killed has nothing to with the woodpecker that has killed, as long as he
is a woodpecker. The act of witnessing the killing of another woodpecker will not bring to life the killed baby birds, but the viewer will derive
a sense of retribution, a sense of justice from it.
This is the same response that makes people go to war: "A Frenchman killed my brother, so I will kill a Frenchman, who might not have had a hand
in his demise at all, to make up for it. I will not bring my brother back, but it will give me the feeling of having committed an act of justice."
People crave justice and fairness, despite these terms being completely unknown to nature; the wilderness knows no good and evil. Hence, they will
indulge in such illogical acts as the one described above to cater to these cravings.
This is what people want to see, and by consequence this matter is treated accordingly in fiction: The villain dies, the hero lives, the bullies fail,
the bullied succeed.
Nothing could be further from the truth.

at least those babies won't suffer for a lifetime, just imagine to be your whole life trying to get the fucking monster away from you

Hence, they will invent an Almighty Sky Daddy who is perfectly just & who will destroy all their enemies in the afterlife...

that sounds so hot
i mean just saw the word daddy.. i think have a problem

 

[ithappens]

On a related note, I once started a thread which was completely ignored, but ties in nicely with your point, namely that people try to believe in some kind of natural justice/the good always triumphs:

I recently came across this video of a woodpecker attacking baby birds:



One of the highest comments reads thus:
"next search: eagles eating woodpeckers"

This comment highlights the warped sense of justice or, more accurately, revenge that people have always possessed and always will.
The proceedings in the video are not committed out of malignance and the woodpecker is not evil; he is acting on his natural instincts
which were put in place to ensure his survival.
Nevertheless, most people watching this video will find themselves taking party for the baby birds. The comment above implies that this person
(and the 1700 others who seem to agree with it) will now try to lighten their mood by watching a video in which a woodpecker is killed in
similar fashion.
It is of no importance that the woodpecker that is being killed has nothing to with the woodpecker that has killed, as long as he
is a woodpecker. The act of witnessing the killing of another woodpecker will not bring to life the killed baby birds, but the viewer will derive
a sense of retribution, a sense of justice from it.
This is the same response that makes people go to war: "A Frenchman killed my brother, so I will kill a Frenchman, who might not have had a hand
in his demise at all, to make up for it. I will not bring my brother back, but it will give me the feeling of having committed an act of justice."
People crave justice and fairness, despite these terms being completely unknown to nature; the wilderness knows no good and evil. Hence, they will
indulge in such illogical acts as the one described above to cater to these cravings.
This is what people want to see, and by consequence this matter is treated accordingly in fiction: The villain dies, the hero lives, the bullies fail,
the bullied succeed.
Nothing could be further from the truth.

I think that revenge and the idea of "justice" does have some natural place in nature, and especially human society, but much like other aspects of how our brains are wired, we apply it to things that aren't even remotely related. Like attacking someone who was uninvolved with the incident that makes us want revenge like in your example. People want justice because it signals that they will be safe for the time being, but that isn't always true and that doesn't mean that it's being directed at the right person/people (often it isn't).

For example Person A's child is murdered by Person B (for sake of example I'll be talking about this in terms of some sort of ancient, less regulated society). Person A is obviously wounded by this and goes to take revenge against Person B. If the revenge is successful but Person B still survives they might realize it was not worth attacking Person A's child, the consequences were too much, and may choose to leave Person A and their family alone in the future because they do not want to be attacked out of revenge again. In another scenario Person A takes revenge and Person B dies, and then Person B will *definitely* never be a threat to Person A ever again. In this case, when the revenge is directed at the right person/aggressor it is possible it will serve a purpose, even if it isn't a pretty one - nature isn't pretty and we didn't evolve to be saints.

However the way it usually goes down (from my experience) is Person A lashing out at the wrong person or group and them getting hurt while Person B sneaks off having gotten away with murder. And in modern society taking revenge at all is considered morally wrong, so if the authority doesn't punish Person B for their cruel behavior they just get to get away with it.

Life is just inherently cruel, and there really isn't such a thing as "justice", merely attempts at survival and some people/species having evolved to be more aggressive and less cooperative than others.

 

[motel rooms]

"Everything is, everything exists, only because I love. Everything is united by love. Love is God, and to die means that I, a particle of love, shall return to the general and eternal source of it."
-- Tolstoy

Tolstoy, in his infinite Christian humility, called Shakespeare an insignificant, inartistic writer. Jealous much, bitch?
He claimed that Shakespeare was immoral because he wrote about the real world & its horrors instead of praising God

 

[Beachedwhale]

On a related note, I once started a thread which was completely ignored, but ties in nicely with your point, namely that people try to believe in some kind of natural justice/the good always triumphs:

I recently came across this video of a woodpecker attacking baby birds:



One of the highest comments reads thus:
"next search: eagles eating woodpeckers"

This comment highlights the warped sense of justice or, more accurately, revenge that people have always possessed and always will.
The proceedings in the video are not committed out of malignance and the woodpecker is not evil; he is acting on his natural instincts
which were put in place to ensure his survival.
Nevertheless, most people watching this video will find themselves taking party for the baby birds. The comment above implies that this person
(and the 1700 others who seem to agree with it) will now try to lighten their mood by watching a video in which a woodpecker is killed in
similar fashion.
It is of no importance that the woodpecker that is being killed has nothing to with the woodpecker that has killed, as long as he
is a woodpecker. The act of witnessing the killing of another woodpecker will not bring to life the killed baby birds, but the viewer will derive
a sense of retribution, a sense of justice from it.
This is the same response that makes people go to war: "A Frenchman killed my brother, so I will kill a Frenchman, who might not have had a hand
in his demise at all, to make up for it. I will not bring my brother back, but it will give me the feeling of having committed an act of justice."
People crave justice and fairness, despite these terms being completely unknown to nature; the wilderness knows no good and evil. Hence, they will
indulge in such illogical acts as the one described above to cater to these cravings.
This is what people want to see, and by consequence this matter is treated accordingly in fiction: The villain dies, the hero lives, the bullies fail,
the bullied succeed.
Nothing could be further from the truth.

What you wrote sounds a lot like how the Marquis de Sade writes. The philosophical stuff in between the sadism of course. How there is no good and evil in nature etc

Although justice and equality do have their place but only in small hunter gatherer bands which is how we lived for most of our history.

 

[WornOutLife]

Most humans are evil but don't wanna admit it.

Who is really "free of sins"?

Not me, at least lol.

 

[Pookie]

 

[Meditation guide]

What people call evil is just life.

 

[PressEnterToExit]

What people call evil is just life.

yeah but must be clear that in life there are more evil than good
at least in this world

 

[FuneralCry]

Everything a human being does is motivated by their own selfish interests. People have the capacity to inflict so much harm. I honestly think it would be better if we never existed in the first place.

 

[motel rooms]

Here's some patronizing Eastern bullshit about evil being necessary to make life the fun, joyous game that it so clearly is

 

[TheAmazingCriswell]

Hence, they will invent an Almighty Sky Daddy who is perfectly just & who will destroy all their enemies in the afterlife...

People will go to any lengths, whether consciously or unconsciously, in an attempt to preserve their sanity in this brutal, random, indifferent universe.

For example Person A's child is murdered by Person B (for sake of example I'll be talking about this in terms of some sort of ancient, less regulated society). Person A is obviously wounded by this and goes to take revenge against Person B. If the revenge is successful but Person B still survives they might realize it was not worth attacking Person A's child, the consequences were too much, and may choose to leave Person A and their family alone in the future because they do not want to be attacked out of revenge again. In another scenario Person A takes revenge and Person B dies, and then Person B will *definitely* never be a threat to Person A ever again. In this case, when the revenge is directed at the right person/aggressor it is possible it will serve a purpose, even if it isn't a pretty one - nature isn't pretty and we didn't evolve to be saints.

This is a good point, although your first scenario might as well end in a loop of revenge just as that of the infamous "Hatfield-McCoy Feud".

What you wrote sounds a lot like how the Marquis de Sade writes.

That's very interesting; do you happen to have any recommendations?

Here's some patronizing Eastern bullshit about evil being necessary to make life the fun, joyous game that it so clearly is

"A game with a positive or good forces clearly triumphant isn't an interesting game". Well, I'd take an uninteresting game over a downright horrendous one any day.

 

[Beachedwhale]

People will go to any lengths, whether consciously or unconsciously, in an attempt to preserve their sanity in this brutal, random, indifferent universe.

This is a good point, although your first scenario might as well end in a loop of revenge just as that of the infamous "Hatfield-McCoy Feud".

That's very interesting; do you happen to have any recommendations?

"A game with a positive or good forces clearly triumphant isn't an interesting game". Well, I'd take an uninteresting game over a downright horrendous one any day.

Justine and juliette (they are extremely long though), philosophy in the bedroom (shorter), 1001 days of sodom (haven't read this one).

Justine is about a good religious girl who is virtuous and goes searching for goodness from place to place being raped and exploited. Juliette is about a shameless atheist girl who indulges in sin, has no morals and has tons of sex and goes from success to success.

I had read these at a time when I really needed to apply the principles to my life but I completely failed to do so. I should have seen how I was a Justine and how I could become a juliette.

One can learn so much about society even today from the French revolution.

 

[motel rooms]

People will go to any lengths, whether consciously or unconsciously, in an attempt to preserve their sanity in this brutal, random, indifferent universe.

It's practically all unconscious, I'm afraid. We need our illusions more than the air we breathe, as Camus said.

 

[Amumu]

Oh well... look at how other primates live, and you'll think human beings are the kindest souls on earth.

 

[UseItOrLoseIt]

Funny how we percieve animals as being perfectly good even when they're absolutely brutal, but we call people evil when they give in to their animal instincts.

I call that a deeply rooted resentment towards the absolute dominion of body over mind.

All civilization is just a big fig leaf.

 

[PressEnterToExit]

Funny how we percieve animals as being perfectly good even when they're absolutely brutal, but we call people evil when they give in to their animal instincts.

I call that a deeply rooted resentment towards the absolute dominion of body over mind.

All civilization is just a big fig leaf.

It is not about give into their animal instincts, the problem is...THEY DONT!

 

[UseItOrLoseIt]

It is not about give into their animal instincts, the problem is...THEY DONT!

I think this is a slippery slope. There are two kinds of instincts. In freuidian terms, these are Eros and Thanatos. Life and death. Creation and destruction. Connection and severance. Love and violence. Expression and repression. Although, I think they're not separate, but the latter is born out of the abscensce of the first, and the first has some elements of the latter.

Taking into consideration another duality, that of mind and body, I think it works like this:

What we all need, what we all crave, is the death of the mind. The french term for orgasm - "la petit morte", the little death - is a hint of that. It's not the body that dies in the moment of climax, which is the creational force at its peak, but the mind, in a sense, becomes forgotten. In greek mythology, the twin brother of Thanatos was Hypnos, the god of sleep. This is no coincidence. This is the destructive part of Eros, which is essentialy the wish for the death of the Ego, a temporary death of consciousness.

Lacking the possibilty of this kind of expression, the mind doesn't get a chance to rest, as the body screams for connection. Thanatos is born from the screams. As the body cannot get a chance to do what it's supposed to, to unify itself with matter - its natural element - the insomniac Ego gets corrupted. The mind is its own worst company and will turn on itself and it will turn against the body and become violent. Granted, this can also work as a release. But the principle now is to exaust the body by amplifying its screams, overwhelm the body to overpower the Ego, not to put it to rest. This is Thanatos. If we cannot express the body, we cannot forget the Ego and then the only mode of action is to destroy the body.

The problem is not only that we don't give in to our creative animal instincts. The problem is we have a sense of self which gets easily overwhelmed, bewildered, corrupted and isolated if we don't silence our unconscious forces and this results in violent behavior much different from that of animals.

The body may be the root of all our problems, but the mind is the the spark that turn those problems into a fire that cosumes us, and is the activating agent of all "evil", for lack of a better word. Mind+body=bad combination.

Not sure if I was at all clear lol This is complicated stuff and it's early morning and I'm at work, writing this in between pauses.

 

[motel rooms]

I think this is a slippery slope.

Why Freud Should Be Dead

 

[UseItOrLoseIt]

@hotelbeneathground

"I throw a spear into the darkness. That is intuition. Then I must send an army into the darkness to find the spear. That is intellect."

Let's just throw this under the category of mental athletics. I merely borrowed the terms to express my own thoughts. There's not much a man can do besides relying to metaphors or stories when explaining that which eludes the scientific method. Provided you don't proclaim it as the truth.

"There are four legends concerning Prometheus:
According to the first, he was clamped to a rock in the Caucasus for betraying the secrets of the gods to men, and the gods sent eagles to feed on his liver, which was perpetually renewed.
According to the second, Prometheus, goaded by the pain of the tearing beaks, pressed himself deeper and deeper into the rock until he became one with it.
According to the third, his treachery was forgotten in the course of thousands of years, the gods forgotten, the eagles, he himself forgotten.
According to the fourth, every one grew weary of the meaningless affair. The gods grew weary, the eagles grew weary, the wound closed wearily.

There remained the inexplicable mass of rock.—The legend tried to explain the inexplicable. As it came out of a substratum of truth it had in turn to end in the inexplicable."

There's no fun in throwing spears against solid rock. Being vague is much more entertaining. And you never know - you may just catch a glimpse of the truth in the process.

Edit: Heeey! You edited your post! Now my vague post is even more vague. Nonsensical even.

Oh well, that's what I'm opting for, right? Fun times!