Do we need both and can both be both beneficial and detrimental! Please provide definitions for both. My own definition is based on value. Good is beneficial and evil is detrimental. Based on another used definition, good amounts to liking something and evil amounts to disliking something. My own view and answer is yes ... Food and evil can both be beneficial and detrimental, which leads to logic, critical thinking, and ability to reason and or understand individual circumstances and how the concepts of good and evil might apply to them.
To what? Eating animals is good (beneficial) if you're, say, a lion. But detrimental (evil) if you're a gazelle. I (intensely) dislike oranges, but I'd be hard pushed to classify them as evil. But not, apparently, in your case.
Apparently so. If the intellectual class (i.e., Leftangelicalism pervading the community for all intents and purposes these days) -- in its grand elevation of enlightenment above lowly proles and the marginalized groups of society that it has been self-summoned to shepherd and deliver from oppression -- can't do without this primeval dichotomy in the course of its elaborate diatribes and missionary crusades against despicable capitalism, the West, the privileged, and tradition... Then there seems little hope of the rest ever tossing it. _
I would classify your first statement as a given depending on situation. Predator prey type scenario ... Survival. The second I'll deem thick headed or daft. You can think better than that I'm sure. Your third statement ... I might apply a mirror type technology to help illustrate a point, but then the statement stands for itself as do your replies.
So "good" and "evil" are mere "preferences"? Entirely subjective? And yet your only response is an attempt at belittling. According to YOU oranges are evil. Your responses here simply illustrate my point.
A mixture and of good and evil in one being is as far as I am willing to spare. Evil by no means should be a human nature, and it is the lack of a thing.
I expected a better thought out response. I would suggest orange juice in the eye might be considered an evil experience, unless you enjoy that type of burn on the pupil.
I suppose darkness is an absence of light, so I'll agree evil is an evident a sense of good. The lines can seem both broad and thin. Concerning good and evil I mean.
1) It's not a case of do we "need" good and evil, no we don't but we've got them. 2) Maybe. I don't think there is anything beyond evil itself that can benefit anyone. Good on the other hand... Example: Someone is drowning, you try and save them and die, along with them. No good came out of good intentions. Detrimental. Example: Someone is drowning, you try and save them, you both survive. Beneficial. I just use google, and dig a bit deeper if it looks iffy. A simple google dictionary search would have been a lot better then what you wrote above. I think you're mixing up the word "bad" with evil. So I think you think that having good and evil in the first place is a good thing? The only reason these words exist is for our benefit, because their really is evil people and good people, there is good and evil in everyone. We have no choice.
I expected a better thought out opening question but we don't always get what we expect. Do you know what GIGO means?
I'll tell you what I do know. If I like something too much, I can be a bit careless, which leads to, more often than not, a great deal of grief or other unwanted undesired things. I also know, that this type of evil is what, more often than not, keeps me from being so careless. That's what I know. I have no idea what GIGO means.
GIGO is an acronym for Garbage In, Garbage Out. It means the quality of what you get out of something is no more than the quality of what you put in to it. You said to Dywyddyr that you "expected a better thought out response". But getting good answers is predicated on asking well-thought-out questions. Your opening post was not very well-thought out, since the problems it has could easily have been addressed by you without waiting for others. Here's a obvious problem: You said: "Good is beneficial." OK, you giving me a hundred bucks is obviously beneficial to me. You should do that because it will raise the total amount of good in the world. Giving me a thousand bucks will make the world an even gooder place. This is so obviously a problem that you could have developed your ideas further before posting them here. You should expect answers like mine and Dywyddyr's orange-aversion answer because you could that figured them out yourself with just a bit of thought. The upshot is, it's bad form to criticize others for the lack of depth in their responses; they are simply mirroring the lack of depth in your question.
I think in the context you're trying to use the word evil, it would be better replaced with the word bad.
I enjoy words and being wordy is nothing new to me. Concise seems appropriate and I enjoy asking the obvious if only for sake of bringing out the nonsense from others. Good is obviously good and evil is obviously evil. The question was more about moderation and both being beneficial .... At least in a Christian stand point as I used the term evil. The nonsense is typically to the tune of evil is evil and serves no good purpose, although it's stated in scripture that all things work together for the good of those who love God, but then the whole religious thing turns people off, so ... We end up with my opening post and your lack of understanding and applied nonsense. With that stated. Orange peels taste bad, therefore they are bad sometimes. As a garnish, on the other hand, they're real good, and for the oils. You applied another's logic to me, which I find to be intellectually dishonest, but that's nothing new. Then again, maybe you're right about my presentation. It was well thought out, but misunderstood by my audience. Im beginning to better understand my audience, so I'll choose to be a bit more wordy and thorough.
It only works sometimes. In other words, only when applicable. Otherwise, it's a writer error and not reader comprehension ability.
