The nature and source of evil I

The "problem of evil" in broadest terms is the problem of how to account for the existence of evil within systems of thought that would seem to exclude it -- that may identify reality with goodness in one way or another.

Within Christian thought these efforts are generally called "theodicy.' But the problem precedes Christian efforts. Plato, for example, postulated a Form of the Good that is the most real of realities. This means that he starkly identified Good with Real, and THAT raises the question of -- why isn't it? Or not so much.

When the neoplatonists came along a couple of centuries later and strove to put Platon's thoughts into more systematic form, tried to make linear treatises out of hints from not especially linear dialogs, they found this question staring at them. If the Good is the sun (Plato's metaphor in his culminating story of an escape from the cave) then evil is presumably the darkness: shade. Yet how decode this metaphor? What is it that blocks the sun allowing for shade, or even the darkness of the underground cave?

Suppose, dear 21st century reader, you have grieved two departed friends in recent days. One taken by cancer, the other by a careless driver in a motor vehicle accident. "This is part of the world's shade" will not likey be very consoling.

Another answer, or one effort to translate that metaphor, is: Blame matter! Blame flesh, as the inherently flawed repository of the spiritual energy of the form of the Good!

For the evil that cancer did to your friend, this seems on point. Perhaps even a provider of solace, as it will inspire you to donate something in the deceased fellow's name to cancer research.

But the evil that shows itself as an inattentive driver at an intersection? I'm not sure, even on neoplatonic terms, that this works as well. I'll have a bit more to say on this nest of questions tomorrow.

[That sculpture above is of Plotinus, key neoplatonic figure.]

Comments

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere. At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak...

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge. We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a maj...

A Quote from Parfit

Recently I wrote a little about ethicist Derek Parfit. I've been doing further research on him since, and will now describe his Big Picture as I've come to understand it. Parfit believes that the western world only started taking ethical philosophy seriously (as a domain separate from theology) around the time Nietzsche declared that God was dead. There are only three possibilities, in terms of the God/morality issue: 1) You believe that God exists and that His commands define morality 2) You deny that God exists and, like Nietzsche, infer from this that in the absence of commands there is no right or wrong, or 3) You deny that God exists yet persist in believing and attempting to discern right and wrong. From a certain point of view there could be a fourth category, for people who believe that God exists but that His existence is irrelevant to morality, He doesn't issue commands at all, etc. Still, from DP's perspective that sort of God ...

Jamesian Philosophy Refreshed

Search This Blog