Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Catarina Silva_]

I love spending time in this topic. People always disagree or agree with different things than I did. I always love to know what people have to say about a book I read too.

[Betsy House Mills]

Hi Scott,

I can agree with just about everything in the book except the chapter on "There is no Problem of Evil," page 139. There is evil, and I have met it face to face. I can forgive it and have inner peace -- the peace that passes understanding -- but if there were no evil, there would be no need for forgiveness. I DO understand that forgiveness is for myself and not for the person who committed the evil against me. I know it took a while to learn and understand that lesson, but I am there. It took a grandfather explaining why and how he could forgive the man who raped and killed his 7-year-old granddaughter -- "He might share Heaven with that man some day." If he could forgive that man, I could certainly forgive those whom I needed to forgive, as their transgressions against me paled in comparison.

My sweet little grandmother lived by the scripture: "Not that I am speaking of being in need, for I have learned in whatever situation I am to be content." Phil. 4:11 I am striving to follow her example.

I am at peace. I am happy.
Betsy House Mills

[Megan Gilligan]

I am having a bit of trouble with the chapter about evil. If I had read this years ago, I think I could see these thoughts and have valid conversations. However, as the world changes and one sees how others are treating each other, it is hard not to see evil in the world and, therefore, evil acts. As different occurrences happen in the world, should the philosophy also change and evolve?

[ola beremako]

Page 139 - P. 139; "Logic tells us that if there is an all-loving god, then there would be no evil."
I believe in the existence of an all-loving God; yet there is evil. So, the existence of an all-loving god does not imply there would be no evil.

[Anthony Muyambi]

No.

I disagree with the following sentence:

"There is no problem of evil because there is no evil," from Page 139.

There is evil in this world, and it manifests in many forms, ranging from visible acts of violence to structural systems of oppression.

The most obvious examples include physical violence against vulnerable persons, murder, rape, torture, genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, terrorism, domestic abuse situations, organised crime, etc.

There also is systemic or structural evil embedded in laws, policies, and institutions that are deliberately designed and maintained that way, e.g., apartheid, racism, economic exploitation, slavery, colonialism, etc.

I accept the philosophical premise for duality of human nature in the sense that both evil and good do exist in any and every individual. In this respect the statement seems a rejection of duality.

I concede that acceptance of unchangeable reality can be liberating, as the author asserts. However, the acceptance should not obscure elements of evil when and where they are present. Acceptance of unchangeable reality can still be liberating, even if that reality is evil, as long as the acceptance is not a surrender to, or acceptance of, said evil, or self-deception that there is no evil at all to begin with. Accepting that evil exists or that something evil has occurred does not mean condoning it. It simply means acknowledging it as a fact, rather than denying, repressing, or obsessively resisting what cannot be undone or reversed (e.g., a past atrocity, irreversible damage, or death).

[Anthony Muyambi]

"There is no problem of evil because there is no evil," from Page 139.

[Shirley Labzentis]

The first sentence in the book that I do not agree with is actually the title of the chapter on page 23. "We Can't Help Starving Children Because We Can't Help Ourselves." I believe that we can help ourselves, and most people do. It is that some people do not want to help themselves, not that they can't. I also believe that many people do help many starving children with donations to different charities. It is just that there are so many children that you can't possibly help them all. We may treat ourselves cruelly, but that doesn't necessarily mean that we treat others cruelly or treat starving children cruelly.

[Shirley Labzentis]

No, I do not agree with everything in the book. The first sentence that I did not agree with is really the chapter heading on page 23. "We Can't Help Starving Children Because We Can't Help Ourselves." I believe that we can and do help ourselves. There are some people who don't want to help themselves and therefore, do not. They have given up and don't care what happens next. I don't believe that we treat others cruelly, and we don't treat ourselves cruelly, either.

[Caledonia A]

I didn't completely agree with this statement. I believe there are limits to what can be accomplished through politics. As ahead of her time she as was, I considered it a bit of a stretch to apply her words to deeper spiritual connections that can only be reached by turning inward in a profound state of self awareness.

"In calling for equal political freedom, as a contrast to violent classism, Voltairine's wise words of a singular common political struggle ring still to this day to unite people politically across not only the silly one-dimensional left-right political spectrum, but also to unite people politically in a multidimensional way across the whole world and across the ages of time."

[maidahramzan]

Not everything resonated with me...

I agreed with a lot of the book's overall message—especially the emphasis on empathy and collective struggle—but no, I didn’t agree with everything. The first sentence that made me stop and question was:

“We can't help starving children because we can't help ourselves.”

It’s a powerful line, sure. But to me, it felt too absolute. I know people—flawed, hurting, not-at-all-perfect people—who still go out of their way to help others. I get that the author was trying to explore inner conflict, but I don’t think self-sabotage is the only reason people fail to act. Sometimes, it’s a lack of awareness. Sometimes, it’s fear. And sometimes, people do help—even when they’re barely holding it together themselves.

That sentence just didn’t sit right with me.

[maidahramzan]

Not everything resonated with me...

I agreed with a lot of the book's overall message—especially the emphasis on empathy and collective struggle—but no, I didn’t agree with everything. The first sentence that made me stop and question was:

“We can't help starving children because we can't help ourselves.”

It’s a powerful line, sure. But to me, it felt too absolute. I know people—flawed, hurting, not-at-all-perfect people—who still go out of their way to help others. I get that the author was trying to explore inner conflict, but I don’t think self-sabotage is the only reason people fail to act. Sometimes, it’s a lack of awareness. Sometimes, it’s fear. And sometimes, people do help—even when they’re barely holding it together themselves.

That sentence just didn’t sit right with me.

[Jessica Woods 3]

"Even in consideration of innocent children starving to death, likely at some level you as a human feel that foolish, selfish human instinct: the knee-jerk urged to rationalize or excuse the starvation and death, to somehow conceptually defend the horrible status quo, much like a drug addict creating excuses to use drugs once more, or a blood-addicted vampire creating excuses to murderously pierce another neck and drink." Pg 20

[Rena_smith]

I disagree with the following statement from pages 11-12: "Like Voltairine, when Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. died, he was one of the most hated men in America, hated by establishment politicians on both the left and the right, hated by the wealthy owners of the mainstream media, hated by Democrats, hated by Republicans, hated by the military-industrial complex, and hated by the wealthy special interest groups and paid lobbyists that steered the plutocratic oligarchic government under which he was a despised criminal, a repeatedly arrested repeat offender."

It is true that many people hated Dr. Martin Luther King Jr and what he stood for, but it is also true that many people loved him and his cause. Likewise, there were some who neither hated nor loved him, but who maybe respected him, or disapproved of him, or was indifferent. So I feel it is not accurate to state as a proven fact that "he was one of the most hated men in America" without reference to valid evidence supporting such a claim. Without supporting evidence, a claim that Dr. King was actually equally loved and hated by Americans cannot be disproven. One could even reference his assassination in support of a claim that a significant number of Americans, maybe even a majority, admired and supported him and his cause, and he was killed to stop his progress. Alas, this is not a political book. But I think this statement could have been better worded to more accurately express your point without supporting evidence, such as "he was hated among Americans" for example.

[Sarah Fisher_LP]

First sentence which I disagree: "The problem about words is you may listen to them, and that would be a mistake. For all I am doing is painting with words, and the message that is being sent is non-verbal." (page 5)

I don't disagree with this for others, but I disagree with it for myself. For me personally, words have meanings and I'm not "painting" with them, they are vehicles to put truth into so it can be heard. It was profoundly irritating to have to read nonsensical poetry written by academics in college. While words should show and not tell, what they should show needs to be clear to the reader. It's not a mistake to listen to the words and hear the rhythm of a poem.

For an essay in particular, following this line would be a travesty. For a forum post, it's a disaster. I offer my forum posts so people will listen and profit from them, as it the case with all my writing. This line is very oversimplified.

4 of my poems have been published. Apparently the direct voice isn't dead, and it's just how I am. I am not going to be able to read poetry night after night and endure blistering criticism from professors over something I don't really mean. That's emotional suicide, and I've committed too much of that in my life. It's just how my writing voice and poetry reading persona is, so I might as well just go for it with full intensity.

Second disagreement: ""I believe there is a force of unbelievable love and goodness deep within you, and that force is you more than anything is you. It's like a beautiful light trying to work its way out of you, and shine through your art or shine through your deepest feelings of love and through your kindness." (page 7)

I disagree with this too as stated, but mostly because it needs to be qualified heavily. This looks like the philosophy of Jean-Jacques Rousseau in his Confessions, which most literary scholars have read at least a part of. Basically, Rousseau believes that man is basically good and it is society that corrupts him. Essentially, the truest part of man is the goodness and light, which has been corrupted by others. A good analysis of Rousseau's work is Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self by Carl R. Truman in my estimation. He explained to me a lot of the agony that I was enduring in my literary studies.

Thus, the act was driven not by some inward impulse that was intrinstically sinful but by a good desire that led him to perform a sinful act. He stole the asparagus to help Verrat. The desire was a basically good one; it was only the manner in which he fufilled it that was morally problematic. This is important for understanding Rousseau's view of the nature of human corruption as something that is created and fostered by social conditions and not something to be considered innate. (The Rise And Triumph of the Modern Self, page 109)

This argument is further demonstrated by Rousseau's First Discourse:

if decency were virtue; if our maxims were our rules: if genuine philosophy were inseparable from the title of Philosopher!...Before Art had fashioned our manners and taught our passions to speak in ready-made term, our morals were rustic but natural; and differences in conduct conveyed differences in character at first glance.

Now most people I see adopting and promoting the philosophy of Rousseau are ironically literary college professors, who aren't willing to accept the primitivist baggage of the "man is basically good" philosophy, as they are teaching a form of Art. This is a hole big enough to run a tractor trailer through in my opinion. Not to mention the fact that Rousseau criticizes the formal titled Philosophers while he himself is posing a philosophy that is antithetical to Greek philosophy and civilization, which is only the historical gold standard of what philosophy is. The whole thing is self-contradictory, and it's actually not a good guide for literary scholarship at all, because literature is a marriage of Philosophy and Art in order to explain how Theology affects Psychology.

Aside from the problematic assertion of essential human goodness, "and that force is you more than anything is you." firmly places this in Rousseau's camp and solidifies my disagreement. In Christian philosophy, there are actually three elements of the human condition as I understand it (don't quote me on this, I'm not a theologian):

1. God's original creation, which was good, as per Genesis 1. This is the imago dei, the image of God, in which we all are, and even in our fallen condition, we still have this, inside and outside. This explains why people who are not believers in Christ's death and resurrection and thus have not received the Holy Spirit can still do good things. It also explains our consciences.
2. The sinful nature of mankind, which corrupted mankind completely, making people unable to please God at all. Jeremiah 17:9 and Romans 3:23 post a strong disagreement with Rousseau.
3. The Holy Sprit of God, which dissolves the sin nature of mankind in concert with God's Word and indwells in every Christian - it's inside of us. This is a force for goodness and Light indeed, but it is not me more than anything, it is God working in me, through me, and in spite of me, remaking me from the inside out so my imago dei returns to force and not the sin nature.

This trifold approach is similar to Freud's Id, Ego, and Superego model for the unbeliever, but he never put the Holy Spirit into the equation. The sin nature is Id + Ego under the Christian model, with the SuperEgo representing the orginal imago dei. Fraud believed that man was basically good under the Rousseau model, however (he was influenced by Rousseau), so his interpretation of his own model doesn't add up correctly, and he blamed strange childhood sexualities for the Id (ugh).

Psycholanalytic thought progressed from Fraud to Jung, and also to Lancan. Jung believed in the philosophy of overcoming adversity, which seeped into us in the form of the Shadow, and Lancan believed that we look for Others to remind ourselves of the repressed shadow self we find disgusting and wish to remove, so we attack it in others instead of ourselves.

Needless to say, I agree with the Christian explanation of human psychological reality over Rousseau, Fraud, Jung, and Lancan. Later on down this page you mention overcoming: "There's so much to overcome, but imagine what it could mean to overcome it. You are truly amazing, even if it often goes unseen or unshown. The world only seems so cold and dark sometimes because you are so bright." That's Jungian. The problem is, if humanity is basically good, there's nothing to overcome except adversity. But where does that adversity come from? And how do we overcome it, exactly?

Christianity does a lot better job explaining how to do that. That's why people convert to Christianity when their lives hit rock bottom. Christianity started science to figure out how to overcome an adverse creation that God set against us because we sinned; but Rousseau believes that's wrong and we should go back to dying of dysentery, cholera, and alcoholism before the age of flush toilets and modern medicine. Christians believe that humanity can be redeemed and improve themselves through adherence to Scripture, prayer, and worship after the Gospel is accepted; Rousseauists claim that Christians believe that humanity is basically evil and that is the source of all problems when the truth is more complicated and nuanced. The problem is, we can't tell what the imago dei is and what is our sinful nature without the guidance from Scripture and the power of the Holy Spirit, as Christianity explains. So Rouseau's philosophy is just the height of the sin nature trying to excuse its misdeeds and oppose human progress, aka rationalization. Rationalization of wrong is not inner light, according to Christianity. That doesn't produce art or kindness. After all, if people live longer, they will have more opportunities to accept the Gospel, so clearly returning to primitive living is the highest form of morality because it will kill more people before they have the chance to accept it. So we all have inner light, eh? I guess that's why I suffer from lust and murderous thoughts and am incredibly lazy. Without the Bible, how do I know my inner light from my inner darkness?

With that being said, I'm not surprised to run into this philosophy again, as it is a staple of literary fields and if you've ever been to a literature class in an American state university, you will encounter it, except they never explain it and just expect you to believe it without explaining it. I started to get a clue when I researched Freudian uncannies for an essay and another professor mentioned Lancan in a lecture. Actually reading Rousseau's Confessions helped. But I didn't quite put it all together until Truman explained it in plain English. In my publishing classes, we were basically told that our work needed to match this Rousseau philosophy in order to get published, which is a lie. Where do all the Christian books come from, for one thing?

Not to mention the fact that Christianity told me my dad's behavior was wrong, what with Ephesians 6:4 and Ephesians 4:32. I endured considerable verbal assaults from him for 6 years, with physical assaults and theft of my personal property thrown into the mix. I ended up filing for financial aid to pay for my college so I could do English instead of computer science and get myself out of the web design compromise, filing for EBT to avoid starvation, and when my father filed an eviction case against me, I fought the case and won, using my writing skills that I learned in college. It is what it is, said Rocco Versaci in That Hidden Road. For me it is personal: damn it anyway to the lowest pit of hell. I went to state university, all I could afford because my dad was abusive and I wanted to do my writing career anyway, blazing CPTSD symptoms or not, and I had to bend over backwards to appease the Rousseauist professors who believed that my dad's abuse was NOT EVIL and then I had to go home and use the exact opposite philosophy to counter my dad's lies as he attempted to fuse a negative false wrong identity to my soul. Christianity was what allowed me to say that my dad was wrong: I wanted to try, I'm not recalcitrant nor rebellious, and I most certainly was not lazy or entitled. This whole thing was absolutely psychologically excruciating. It made it painful to write essays even after I used Christian means to stop the abuse. So no, humans aren't basically good, mate, sorry, because the philosophy that humans are basically good leads to standing by while humans are abused, deny it, and do nothing to help. From my perspective, this can never work.

I look forward to reading the rest of the book, because I believe in the philosophy of hermeneutics which means that I should give you a chance to fully develop your argument in context. However, I noticed from your mentoring program page to pause reading at the first disagreement, which suggests the idea "If you don't follow my directions, you don't respect me", and I don't want to trigger that reflex. We're just getting to know each other. I look forward to your response.

[Jessica Woods 3]

"Even in consideration of innocent children starving to death, likely at some level you as a human feel that foolish, selfish human instinct: the knee-jerk urged to rationalize or excuse the starvation and death, to somehow conceptually defend the horrible status quo, much like a drug addict creating excuses to use drugs once more, or a blood-addicted vampire creating excuses to murderously pierce another neck and drink." Pg 20

My reason for disagreeing with this statement is that everyone does not have this "knee-jerk" reaction when hearing about a devastating misfortune such as children starving to death. Consider the charities and organizations that have been established to help those in a crisis or those that instantly act to help those in need. There are people that exist who are not selfish at heart. There may be only a few, but they do exist.