The nature of Evil

The last post was a simple argument as to why I see Creation as perfect, and that is because Evil only manifests as an attribute of an act, not of a thing, and no amount of act can transfer the metaphysical privation of goodness within a being to creation itself, because the act has no direct influence on the ontological state of other beings, only the influence the being allows the act to have.

In other words, Satan cannot make Creation flawed, because first, Creation is perfect by its nature of coming from the perfect Creator, second, Satan’s acts cannot alter the will of other beings. The other being, must partake in the temptation willingly in order to commit an evil.

            This is best summarized by Socrates when he stated “A good man cannot be harmed either in life or death”. If one stays virtuous, no amount of suffering or temptation can alter the good man. That being said, can an evil be done to a person?

            An evil act may be done to a person, but is only evil insofar as it is an immoral act, it is not evil as a result of the unpleasantries it creates. The murder is evil because it is anti-teleological and against Natural Law, it is not evil because it hurts another, because one being causing pain to another is not intrinsically negative.

            Someone could cut my leg off in an unprovoked violent attack, making me bedridden, and as a result I devout my time more to prayer and coming closer to God. Overall, this would be a Good thing. So does that make the violent attack a good? It depends. It does not change the act itself as intrinsically evil. The materialization of the act does not affect the nature of the act itself. The nature of the act is intrinsically bad, despite the consequences being good. That is the point though, that Act and Consequence can and always do manifest separately.

            Now, the next question is, is a negative consequence an evil? I would say no, once again a look at the Book of Job or even a look at the entire story of Christ’s crucifixion, one can see that suffering, pain, and struggle are not intrinsically evil. But can what seem to be ‘negative consequences of acts’ be evil at all?

            No, for no amount of unpleasantries can actually alter the nature and will of the being. This is what Socrates was alluding to. In a Christian context, all unpleasantries, all ‘negative consequences of acts’, are simply tests of character and all pleasantries simply rewards.

            The metaphysical result of this is that evil exists only in act, not as a result of an act.  Evil cannot actually be done to a person, for the materialization of the act is determined by consequence and the chosen affect it has on other beings and not by the will of the being doing the acting. Only unpleasantries can be done to a person, it is their choice whether they allow it weaken them and push them towards evil acts.

Is Creation perfect or imperfect?

An entirely good Creator could not create an only partially good creation. I take this as a given. God could never have created a flawed world, for He is Perfect, as Christ could of never sinned, as He is perfect.

 So how can the world have the attribute of being flawed, or rather, seem imperfect? I think one needs to define what exactly evil is. It is the conscious, deliberate, and freely chosen act which is contrary to God's Will, Natural Law, the being's teleological purpose, all these being different names for the same thing. The key to this is that Evil is an act, not a characteristic. All of creation is good by its nature of being created by the Perfect Creator.

So again, why does the world seem imperfect? It seems imperfect because we mistake Unpleasantness for Evilness. Existence is a struggle for limited beings, as Freedom of Will means temptation, and possibility of failure. This possibility is necessary for us to be good, because a forced attribute is not worthy of recognition by God, Goodness must be freely chosen. Evil being an act, cannot materialize onto creation as a whole, it only remains the fault of the being doing the act.

The Book of Job best demonstrates this. The suffering God allows for Job is not evil, it is a righteous test, evil only manifests if Job falters and succumbs to Satan's pressures. No amount of unpleasantness or pain could overcome Job's holiness, the struggle only amplified his holiness. Suffering in itself is not evil, what matters is how the being suffering acts in relation to the suffering. If one is weak, he errors, commits an evil act, he fails. If one is strong, he chooses good, as Job did, his holiness is heightened. Suffering can be a blessing, the greater the struggle, the greater the success, the more likeness to God.

 The World is perfect, for all its perceived flaws are simply beautiful unpleasantries meant to be overcome, and all its pleasantries a reward. This conception of evil, coupled with Leibniz's Best of All Possible Worlds argument, that this world has the perfect balance of attributes to maximize goodness, dispels any criticism of Creation as flawed.

Naturalism, Evolution, and the Self

If we take Naturalism as true, as biological reductionists and many of the modern 'Intellectuals' do, Evolution is reduced to a method for the advancement of the wholly material organism. Such an organism has only material, biological parts, parts which advanced its 'cause' of reproduction. Such a being, can only have attributes and parts that are naturally derived through Evolution, which necessitates those attributes and parts be of some evolutionary benefit or a byproduct of some other mutation which is more beneficial than detrimental.

So what of the concept of the Self? What evolutionary benefit is offered by a being understanding he is a being?

The Self, the idea that we are an introspective, feeling, living, existing, being, has no evolutionary benefit. The concept that ‘I be” lacks any evolutionary advantage. The amount of energy exerted into the process of the human aspect of being is biologically detrimental. Complex Life, could of evolved, and should of evolved, with no concept of the self. A robotic style of intellect, of input-output, would have been more beneficial, without the wasted resources trying to conceptualize what exactly is inputting and outputting.

An evolutionist would surely respond that the concept of the self is a byproduct of the evolution and over-complexity of the human brain and its problem solving abilities.

This is not a rebuttal I find valid, because to operate as a biological being, one has no need to understand metaphysical properties. Looking at the issue biologically, the human mind would be creating existential questions where there should be none. And I am supposed to believe such a massive intellectual step is the result of over-complexity? No. That is but a pseudo-solution.

Not only this, but the issue is why does an increase in intellect always result in an increase in self-awareness, unless self-awareness is necessarily the result of an increase in rational ability, of reason and truth manifesting.

A question, does a grasshopper have existential crises? Does he understand what it means ‘to be’?

If he cannot do the first, it is due to ignorance. Then he cannot do the second due to ignorance. This necessitates a link between reason and self-awareness.

And if reason points to self-awareness? Then there is no such thing as over-complexity of the human mind.

Rather, the Naturalists are the ones under-thinking.