I'd have to agree about opposites. If one didn't exist you wouldn't know the other. You couldn't go west if you couldn't go east. You couldn't wake up if you never slept. You wouldn't know what death was unless you were alive. I think in the end, when it all comes down to it, imperfection is perfection and whatever transcendent being is out there, this is how it intended the world to be.
Without Evil, there cannot be Good...
It should be a more basic question, imo. Who is to say what is good or evil? To millions of people, hitler is evil incarnate. To germans back then who suffered starvation because of sanctions placed on the whole country, he was good. To millions of christians, israelis and some others, bush is good. To millions of muslims he is evil incarnate.
To infected humans, the aids virus is evil. If it evolved into a benign form like other germs have, would it still be evil? Monkeys can be infected w it without dying. Not sure if it makes them sick, maybe not. As far as monkeys are concerned, it's not evil.
I agree that without light, you would not have darkness, or at least not know it, and vise versa. Can you know death if you don't have life? Not sure. People are still arguing about the dead and afterlife.
Sure evil is merely the absence of good.
In that context evil boobies is a wad of kleenex...
I never thought of death as evil . I think death is neutral . So to make a comparison between life and death and good and evil is not as profound as you are trying to make it sound . That's why I stated that we as humans can only provide what we can socially accept as being good and the rest is evil and can be punishable by governments . This does not mean it is evil by any other standard but what the majority deams is acceptable . IMO the punishment for most crimes is even more evil than the crime itself . By your standard it would be law and order vrs. anarchy in the scheme of good vrs. evil . It's human nature to want to be free so how would anarchy by evil ? hMMMM , thinking outloud again ...................
Evil is not inherent to the universe. It is inherent to human beings. Animals don't worry about evil, they worry about eating, reproducing, and avoiding death and pain. Humans are the only animals that wonder about whether their actions are somehow fundamentally good or evil. If animals are natural, then humans are super-natural. We are born "one step removed" from our own existence - constantly analyzing everything as to its moral connotations.
Which is unusual, and often self-defeating, to say the least. We worry about the rights and wrongs of wars, we worry about the rights and wrongs of premature babies being allowed to die, we worry about things that are impossible to solve and often, completely detached from our own individual lives.
Now, how can we bring the two elements of human nature together? We are certainly flesh, but what else are we? We are more than cells, that much is obvious - no possible permutation of evolution could conceivably result in, for instance, war being condemned as "immoral", since every pacifist nation has been overrun and slaughtered by their foes... and yet pacifism keep rearing its dreadlocked head! What genetic twist could produce such a self-defeating and yet enticing proposition?
"God made man in His image. Man made God in his image. You think these two statements are opposites; but meditate until you learn how they are the same." I think that was Spinoza? Anyone know how to look up a quote that you don't quite remember?
Evil is the flesh - but not JUST the flesh. It is the flesh in conflict with the spirit. Only a spirit is capable of evil; but only flesh can suffer it.
Gin, now, gin is a good spirit.