ded_maxim: (Cusanus)
ded_maxim ([personal profile] ded_maxim) wrote2006-12-25 11:58 pm

философия и зло

Книга: Evil in Modern Thought: An Alternative History of Philosophy by Susan Neiman. Автор прослеживает развитие философской мысли от Лейбница до Арендт, исследуя эволюцию представлений о природе зла.

The word "evil" gets thrown around pretty frequently, especially in connection with certain Axes, but Einstein Forum director and former philosophy professor Susan Neiman reminds us that the existence of evil is a theological and intellectual dilemma through modern Western intellectual history in fact, she argues in her erudite and accessible Evil in Modern Thought: An Alternative History of Philosophy, the question of evil is at the heart of modern philosophy. Neiman looks at how philosophers and writers Leibniz and Arendt, Pope and Sade have sought to explain evil, and traces two divergent strains of thought: one that insists we must try to understand moral evil, and another that maintains we must not.

Уже получил посылку из Амазона. Будем читать.

[identity profile] alexakarpov.livejournal.com 2006-12-26 06:07 am (UTC)(link)
У нас в университете целый курс есть - Evil, aka RS (Religious Studies) 100L

The modern world has seen great advances. It has also seen unprecedented acts of evil: colonialism and imperialism, the Holocaust, World Wars, the nuclear arms race, mass starvation, and the environmental crisis that threatens the very existence of life on this planet. None of these events would be possible without the political, economic, and social structures of a modern society.

How do religious communities react to these new forms of evil? This course is a study of a number of religious thinkers who use the social sciences to understand modern societies and the evil they produce. These same thinkers turn to ancient writings, ideas, values, and practices to address the problem of evil in the modern world and come up with some startling and fascinating suggestions. They find that often their own communities, beliefs, values, and traditional practices often contribute to the problem! They also find sources of wisdom and goodness in their traditions and offer solutions to the evil they see around them. Finally, they make general observations about the nature of the evil in the world and in each one of us.

Ужасно смешно =)

[identity profile] boriskogan.livejournal.com 2006-12-26 06:24 am (UTC)(link)
It's not hard to understand moral evil, it being an inextricable part of all of us; not any harder than to understand moral good, anyway.

[identity profile] ded-maxim.livejournal.com 2006-12-26 06:25 am (UTC)(link)
Our brains and our consciousness are likewise inextricable part of us, and yet we cannot yet say that they are easy to understand. Why presume the opposite about good or evil?

[identity profile] boriskogan.livejournal.com 2006-12-26 06:35 am (UTC)(link)
Are we talking about evil in some presumed scientifically measurable sense?

[identity profile] ded-maxim.livejournal.com 2006-12-26 06:40 am (UTC)(link)
No, evil in its many various senses: ontological, moral, etc. My point is that just because evil seems to be an irreducible component of human nature, understanding it is not easy at all. Unless, of course, one doesn't burden oneself with such trifling nuisances as doubt or critical thought.

[identity profile] boriskogan.livejournal.com 2006-12-26 06:42 am (UTC)(link)
What's there to doubt about evil?

[identity profile] ygam.livejournal.com 2006-12-26 06:44 am (UTC)(link)
Is zoophilia immoral? Last time this came up, you and I disagreed about it.

[identity profile] boriskogan.livejournal.com 2006-12-26 06:45 am (UTC)(link)
Is immorality tantamount to evil?

[identity profile] ded-maxim.livejournal.com 2006-12-26 06:48 am (UTC)(link)
See? And yet you say "what's there to doubt about evil?". Is it?

[identity profile] boriskogan.livejournal.com 2006-12-26 06:56 am (UTC)(link)
I don't think so. Immorality can be caused by evil, or by ignorance, but it's neither. What do you think?

[identity profile] ded-maxim.livejournal.com 2006-12-26 04:36 pm (UTC)(link)
I think that evil often comes from disdain for the limitations of the human condition.

[identity profile] ded-maxim.livejournal.com 2006-12-26 06:48 am (UTC)(link)
The short answer is: plenty. The long answer is, well ... : Is evil real AND absolute (or metaphysical, if you will), or is it real, but not absolute? Martin Buber thought the latter (and I tend to agree). Is it an act of evil to lie to an assasin in order to prevent murder? Whence comes evil? Why are there those who think themselves warriors in the name of good, and yet it is often they who are inherently evil? Etc.

[identity profile] boriskogan.livejournal.com 2006-12-26 06:51 am (UTC)(link)
I.e., real but relative? What's it relative to?

Is lying de facto evil? Who says so?

I don't know whence comes evil. It's programmed into us, and whether it's by God or evolution depends on which you believe in (if you believe in either, or maybe both...)

[identity profile] ded-maxim.livejournal.com 2006-12-26 04:35 pm (UTC)(link)
No, saying that evil is real but not absolute means that there is no 'elemental,' irreducible Evil, no Satan. It has nothing to do with 'moral relativism.'

As for whether evil is programmed into us, perhaps. But therein lies one of the problems that the book tries to address: if evil had been programmed into us by God, how can this be reconciled with the idea of God as the source of good? If evil had been programmed into us by evolution, was it a bona fide evolutionary adaptation, or a side product of something else, and how can we overcome it?

[identity profile] boriskogan.livejournal.com 2006-12-27 10:04 pm (UTC)(link)
Okay, a better question: what relevant questions can we ask about evil that will help us personally avoid it as much as possible?

As far as the idea that God as the source of good can't be the source of evil (or what seems evil to us,) it's addressed pretty thoroughly in God's monologue at the end of the book of Job.

[identity profile] ygam.livejournal.com 2006-12-26 06:57 am (UTC)(link)
What's there to doubt about evil?

http://www.ashtray.ru/main/texts/2/brodsky_pessimism.htm

«Slave, come to my service!» «Yes, my master. Yes?»

«I feel like doing some evil, eh?»

«Do that, my master. By all means, do some evil.

For how otherwise can you stuff your belly?

How, without doing evil, can you dress yourself warmly?»

«No, slave. I shall do no evil!»

«Evildoers are either killed, or flayed alive and blinded,

or blinded and flayed alive and thrown into a dungeon».

[identity profile] boriskogan.livejournal.com 2006-12-26 07:00 am (UTC)(link)
That's a good one. His slave is his heart, right?

[identity profile] ygam.livejournal.com 2006-12-26 07:02 am (UTC)(link)
The way I see it, the master is passions and the slave is reason. However, nobody knows for sure.

[identity profile] boriskogan.livejournal.com 2006-12-26 07:06 am (UTC)(link)
flayed alive and blinded,

or blinded and flayed alive and thrown into a dungeon

Хуясе нравы у шумеров были! Прямо как у Саддама.

[identity profile] ygam.livejournal.com 2006-12-26 04:39 pm (UTC)(link)
Вообще-то поэма вавилонская; Бродский ошибся. Но да.

[identity profile] ded-maxim.livejournal.com 2006-12-26 07:51 pm (UTC)(link)
This is nice. How did you come across it?

[identity profile] ygam.livejournal.com 2006-12-26 07:59 pm (UTC)(link)
I own a short book of Russian translations of some ancient Mesopotamian texts, including the Dialogue of Pessimism, and I know Joseph Brodsky's oeuvre well enough to be aware that it contains an English translation of same.

[identity profile] spamsink.livejournal.com 2006-12-26 07:39 am (UTC)(link)
I wonder what they say about the relation of "evil" and "harm". As far as I am concerned, harmless actions cannot be evil.

[identity profile] ded-maxim.livejournal.com 2006-12-26 06:23 pm (UTC)(link)
We'll see. On the other hand, can there be an abstract definition of harm (or harmlessness), detached from concrete circumstances? I don't think so.

[identity profile] spamsink.livejournal.com 2006-12-26 06:29 pm (UTC)(link)
Unlike "evil", to claim that an action causes harm, one has to show the object of that harm and to demonstrate at least an effect on the object. No object, no harm. No effect, no harm.

[identity profile] ded-maxim.livejournal.com 2006-12-26 07:54 pm (UTC)(link)
Your proposed definition equates effect with direct causation. However in complex systems, which human societies necessarily are, effects often propagate indirectly and with delays. Certain kinds of harm (such as psychological or emotional) are not easy to spot at first, but may have significant effects later on.

[identity profile] spamsink.livejournal.com 2006-12-26 08:20 pm (UTC)(link)
If the objective nature of the harm can be proved, then I'm OK with it. Otherwise I tend to consider such kinds of harm self-inflicted.

[identity profile] boriskogan.livejournal.com 2006-12-27 10:06 pm (UTC)(link)
harmless to others, or harmless to the doer?

[identity profile] boriskogan.livejournal.com 2006-12-27 10:09 pm (UTC)(link)
Then you believe that every man belongs in entirety to himself?

[identity profile] spamsink.livejournal.com 2006-12-27 10:14 pm (UTC)(link)
I don't think I understand the question. Define "belongs".

[identity profile] boriskogan.livejournal.com 2006-12-28 12:44 am (UTC)(link)
In other words, is his own final and ultimate master and property, and alone bears responsibility for and passes judgement on his personal state. I.e., if I quit work, purposely take up crack as a hobby and quickly die homeless, is this not an evil thing I'm doing to myself?

[identity profile] spamsink.livejournal.com 2006-12-28 01:05 am (UTC)(link)
If nobody cares about you and will not be harmed by your demise, then no, you will only be harming yourself, that's not evil.
Compare with something that one does that only benefits himself - it's useful to him, but it is not a good thing.

[identity profile] boriskogan.livejournal.com 2006-12-28 01:07 am (UTC)(link)
I disagree, for obvious reasons, but believe in your right to have this opinion.