To address both FAID and BISHOP...

Yes Faid, that is the argument. It is, because it is. Existence...the end.

And to Bishop, if you read my posts, you would see that I defined what truth is, as philosophers have come to understand it. You have two different types of truth. BIG-T Truth, and small-t truth. BIG-T Truth is what everyone (philosophers, scientists, religious fanactics) all want to discover. All we really have are small-t truths, designed by many factors of our understanding. For example, 2+2 = 4 in base-ten mathematical system. It's a small-t truth. As such, small-t truth really only works for science and philosophy, since both justify things in a logical manner. There are several philosophical small-t truths that are justified...problem is, does it being a small-t truth philosophically then indicate it's a BIG-T Truth? Such as, my case in point: there only is existence, non-existence is impossible. If one had non-existence, it would surely exist as such! Thus, there only is existence. Small-t truth...a huge one at that, and quite possibly, the only BIG-T Truth!

Is it though?

man is dependent on society for survival there is no need for it to make something up to control us. Society existed without evil. likely homo erectus did not have this concept. So there is some other reason for man to create evil. Think harder

Actually I would have to disagree with that statement even though it is quite a string of logical deduction

Something can "not exist". Yes, logically it should not be able to "not exist" and yet it can. Sometimes physics and logical deduction can really confuse the hell out of a subject
I can think the hell out of a stack of one hundred dollar bills and sure as shit they still do not exist Yet right there in my mind is a pretty stack of them.

Adolf Hitler does not exist anymore. He is dead and does not exist in our present time.

I exist now and yet I did not exist 39 years ago

Existence is exclusionary.

Evil as a concept was created in order to explain those things that scared the beejeesus out of the early cave dwelling men. It evolved into its present incarnation wherein it is embodied as the whole of everything which is morally repulsive or bad.

Good and Evil have existed as concepts for as long as man has existed.

hmm that makes sense burning bush....

well without evil there can be no good right? nothing to compare it too. i do believe that "evil" in itself is a made up concept (not to be confused with sin, which is a religious wrong doing). as humans we only act naturally, along with all other life. is it possible to act unnatural?
i believe that as human being it is impossible to be evil, we are only being natural.
yes we do have our own morals and ideals to guide us, but that has nothing to do with good and evil. those are there to provide happiness/unhappiness (which are natural desires).
but as far as the definition of evil, i believe that it is a man-made concept, used for social conformity.

Wrong, wrong, and wrong.

Your first example, of the 100 dollar bills, is wrong as you can probably guess how. Metaphysically speaking, it is wrong. Physically speaking, a stack of money may not be in front of you, but it's existence is only in correlation to you and your metaphysical aspects. You're thinking of it is an example of its existence...but what you're really thinking of is a stack of money, which does indeed exist. Like in a bank. Now, a wallybombala may not exist anywhere in the universe physically, but metaphysically...well, it surely does exist. In your mind, dreams, imagination...yaddah, yaddah, yaddah.

Adolf Hitler is dead, but he still exists. Both physically and metaphysically. Physically he is rotting or already rotten, or has been turned into ash, or even if incenerated, his physical remnants is there somewhere. Or, in the same light of St. Aquinas, his existence has merely underwent a change! But as for the man, as for the person, he exists in as much as we still remember him to exist. And again, that is in the root of ontology and metaphysics.

Now, your not having lived 39 yrs ago...well, there's the trickier situation. Why declare you 39 yrs ago as non-existent? There's nothing for comparison. There's nothing to indicate 39 yrs ago that there was an opposition between existence and non-existence. You weren't even a matter of discussion. Simply put, rather than being non-existent, you were merely a negation of yourself. Both negation and non-existence seem to be synonyms, but are they really? Isn't it easier just to accept that 39 yrs ago you weren't what you are today? But then you have all these other problems...show me proof that 39 yrs ago existed at all! Cogito ergo sum, 99.9999% truth in one's self, perception, yaddah, yaddah, yaddah...oi, how the mind spins! And let's not even get on the subject of fate! Or my personal favorite, reverse fate!


Now when concerning this subject I recently took it upon myself to read up on some Heidegger to see his views on "nothingness" and "non-existence." Quite confusing indeed! Heidegger claims to have found a way to prove non-existence, but after re-reading the essay 5 times, I'm still completely baffled by his logic. He claims that non-existence does exist, but only within the individual, within the emotion of anxiety. And me no understandy...

To quote Heidegger: "The nothing is the complete negation of the totality of beings."

"What we call a 'feeling' is neither a transitory epiphenomenon of our thinking [. . .] nor simply an impulse that provokes such behavior nor merely a present condition we have to put up with somehow or other.
But just when moods of this sort bring us face to face with beings as a whole they conceal from us the nothing we are seeking."

But is there a mood which defines the nothing?

"This can and does occur [. . .] in the fundamental mood of anxiety. By this anxiety we do not mean the quite common anxiousness."

"Anxiety is indeed anxiety in the face of..., but not in the face of this or that thing. Anixiety in the face of...is always anxiety for..., but not for this or that."

Now, as I understood this: one can have anxiety from oneself, yet anxiety for a thing. Or, as I pondered over it, in comparison to Nihilism...think of something right in front of you, your monitor. There is the monitor, that is what it is. What it is not: a tree, a pop can, a turd. So, when you "have" the monitor, you "don't have" what it is not (or rather, "have its what it is not" [which would be nothingness?]). Thereby, you have both the "something" and the "nothing." And yet, you don't have the nothing, because "thereby, you HAVE both the 'something' and the
'nothing'"....but you don't have it?! what is it you don't have?! GAH!!!!!

Confuses the shit out of me.

Any ideas?

HOW CAN NON-EXISTENCE EXIST?! damn it!

GAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No offense, but I really wish people would read my posts! Not that other people don't have interesting arguments or proposals, but being a very learned individual in the philosophy of evil.......IT ONLY MAKES SENSE TO READ MY POSTS!

Sorry...I'm not trying to attack you...

Okay, evil as an opposition of the good. It's an argument that has been used many times over and is incredibly unjustified. The Correlation of Opposites is one of the oldest philosophical theories out there. It is a Pre-Socratic philosophy. But it was quickly abandoned when the classics (Socrates, Plato and Aristotle) came onto the scene. Roughly put...the Correlation of Opposites is a flawed theory. You have examples of things that don't have an opposite. In mathematics, virtually every polygon has no opposite. What is the opposite of triangle? The opposite of the number 2 is -2. 2 + -2 = 0. How does a triangle get cancelled out to equal 0? If evil is the opposite of good, then by the ontology of "opposite," both evil and good together = 0. But how does a triangle get cancelled out to equal 0?!

And then again, in my favorite philosophical discussions (as I am having with Dyshade), what is the opposite of existence? Prove to me non-existence exists. Or rather, prove to me non-existence doesn't exist. Give it a try.

So, to speak in the mathematical, to use analytical philosophy, deductive logic, the premise (or the conclusion) that evil and good are opposites is flawed because the theory of opposites isn't a sound and valid argument.


And to go back into the discussion concerning "evil exists because it is a man-made concept"; again, philosophically speaking, there's a flaw in the argument. Just how sound and valid is perception? Not very...

Sorry Dy but it is only evident in homo sapian and perhaps nederthal (the only man that has been viewed by scientist to be able to imagine) all other forms of man homo erectis, egatus on back thru time are believed to have lacked this capacity. This is evidenced in that these species did not bury there dead not produce art (atleast art like we do today, objective). How does this correlate, it demonstrates that these species are incapable of looking beyond the here and now it lives only in the moment it is incapable of conceiveing evil. You may be able to argue that not knowing a thing does not mean it does not exist which leads into sixs debate.

We as Man are HomoSapien. It has existed as long as MAN has. Once again you misconstrue what I said and take it out of context. Sorry but as long as we have existed the ideal of evil has as well.

As for the others before us you can rest assured that they also had a concept of evil. When someone they knew died they probably felt like something was wrong or bad about it
The history before man though can only be theorized. Nothing is definite beyond the fact that they lived and perhaps some small ideas about how they lived. You cannot for sure say that they had no concept of evil.

Because it can as a possibility. By your logic Anti-Matter should not exist either because it is essentially a logical impossibility. Yet it certainly does exist.
Just because something does not fit into the logic box does not mean it cannot be. Just the ideal of non-existence lends credence to its being.

39 years ago my friend I did not exist. I was not a negation nor any other sweet words you can come up with.... simply put I was non-existent.

Just as Hitler is non-existent and my big ol' stack of hundreds still is not appearing before me

Just for fun.... what exists between molecules??? Is it just space?? Is it empty??? and if it is would you call it nothingness>???? Because there sure is "nothing" much in between molecules but space

And if Hitler still does exist can you send him over for a cup of coffee

I don't know man, I've been in these debates before concerning non-existence. The way I see it, is most followers of science declare "nothingness" as a possibility...but even then, in a symantic argument, nothingness doesn't necessarily constitute non-existence. And if all of science as we know it is derived from philosophy, and if philosophy itself finds it illogical to justify the existence of non-existence, then why say "Nope, they're wrong! Science is right!"

If indeed one can "conceive" non-existence or nothingness...well then surely it exists as such!

"Because there sure is 'nothing' much in between molecules but space."

Well, that's no proof of non-existence. What do you have? You have nothingness, you have space. Things that exist. And if in a physical context it simply "is not there," doesn't dictate it as non-existent!

And did you even understand my Hitler discussion?! What the hell does that mean; "if Hitler still does exist, can you send him over for a cup of coffee"?!

I'm sorry my friend, but existence is a topic best left for those who are well knowledgable in it...specifically philosophers.

whatever your conscience tells you, it's very subjective. there's no one definition of it, you just have to look at all of the different cultures to tell you that.

Are you suggesting I am stupid and as such should not be having this discussion??

Philosophy is most assuredly not an exact science even though it does support science in its logical approach toward deduction.

I understood your 'Hitler' statement. His conscious mind and physical person no longer exist. Regardless of remains the person who was Hitler does not exist today "physically". If he does not exist today it means Hitler is non-existent. When you have the proposition that there is nothing at all between molecules you have the supposition that what is between them is non-existant. A paradox indeed and yet it has been shown that paradoxes in the physical world are not at all unusual

I never said science was right...... I did not even bring it up.... you did

Paradoxes exist.

With this statement you are guilty of--
""I'm sorry my friend, but existence is a topic best left for those who are well knowledgable in it...specifically philosophers.""

argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Basically I may not be as well versed in philosophy as most yet that is no reason to suggest I should not discuss a subject.

I am not ignorant nor am I stupid

Never ever did I declare you were "stupid." I've always liked you and your discussions. I like that you actually bring up valid points and actual philosophical inquiries rather than spoutin' off the same ole' mundane and cliched statements most seem to produce here...

Now, as with Hitler, I don't think you actually got what I was saying, because you've argued something I've already stated has been defined by philosophy...which, as you seem to understand, is a science of sorts.

Hitler, the man, both physically and metaphysically may no longer be, but that does not mean he does not exist. To recall Aquinas...he's merely changed! He's rotting in his grave; he's a figure we recall in history! Does that mean the man he was in 1944 no longer exists?! Well, no, not exactly. All it means is the man in 1944 is now the man in 2006! The essence is still there, even if it's not the same.

And I don't think it's ignorantium I'm guilty of, I think it's arrogance!

Today, in a discussion with my girlfriend, she told she finds me to be a hypocrite. One who tells her to have an open mind, but always recites philosophy and philosophers as truth. Well, there I am guilty...I don't believe in faith-based assumptions, and I warrant science its validity, but find it nothing more than a faith-based assumption. Philosophy is the only realm of knowledge man still has that encompasses all, and negates it at the same time! Philosophy is more scientific than science will ever be.

So you believe in static existence? That nothing ever ceases in its present being? Hmmm... trying to wrap my mind around it because you stated earlier that my ideal about a stack of hundreds never existed and as such is just a figment of my imagination. Yet now that Hitler is an ideal rather than a living being he is still existent??? So if you exist first and die and become a memory or ideal than you still exist but if you are an ideal that is never created it does not exist?? Yet if you say that it does Not Exist you are stating that non-existence in fact does exist me oh my it is like a philosophical tongue twister

I believe in opposition. I am pretty sure that everything operates on the idealism of polarity. In order for existence to be it must have an opposite that grants it the ability to be.

Though frankly both of us are making assumptions. Existence as we know it is poorly defined by our limited perceptions.