Give me your thoughts on this theory.

SS5_Majin_Bebi · Post by **SS5_Majin_Bebi** » Fri Feb 21, 2003 12:46 am

I was unable to sleep the other night, and as so often happens at times like that, my mind started to tick over, and i came up with a rather interesting thesis. Its fairly straightforward, and it runs along the lines of this.

Every "good" aspect of this existence is defined by its antithesis, for example love is defined by hate, happiness by anger and so on. However, the "bad" aspects require absolutely no basis for definition, that is, they exist as they are, with no need for comparison to a probable opposite (basically, you need evil to define good, but not vice versa, as evil is by nature self-defining. In fact, good is explained as something that is not evil by nature)

This prompted me to think about the birth of the universe. Before order was chaos, which in turn defined the lack of chaos that followed, which was defined as order. Therefore, what is considered to be a bad aspect of existence is by nature, self-defining. And that leads to the conclusion that negatives define positives, so the positives are, for all intents and purposes negative (if you trace its origin back far enough, you reach a negative by which the positive in question was defined)

What are your thoughts?

Koopiskeva · Post by **Koopiskeva** » Fri Feb 21, 2003 12:48 am

"This brings me to my next point. Don't smoke crack."

- LT

Zarxrax · Post by **Zarxrax** » Fri Feb 21, 2003 12:50 am

Er... I don't believe that bad things are self-defined. I mean it's common sense, you can't have evil without there being good as well.

SS5_Majin_Bebi · Post by **SS5_Majin_Bebi** » Fri Feb 21, 2003 12:50 am

Koopiskeva wrote:"This brings me to my next point. Don't smoke crack."

- LT

hehe, thats quite humourous! No, but really, i posted that because i genuinly want to find out ppls opinions of it (intelligent opinions, not along the lines of "thats too deep" or "thats stupid")

I wanted to start an intelligent conversation.

But that joke made me laugh.

SS5_Majin_Bebi · Post by **SS5_Majin_Bebi** » Fri Feb 21, 2003 12:51 am

Zarxrax wrote:Er... I don't believe that bad things are self-defined. I mean it's common sense, you can't have evil without there being good as well.

Not true. evil existed first. every ordered system took its basis from a chaotic system. chaos is one of the core fabrics of reality, best represented in the course of entropy.

SS5_Majin_Bebi · Post by **SS5_Majin_Bebi** » Fri Feb 21, 2003 12:52 am

but thats the kind of conversation im looking for, Zarxrax.

jonmartensen · Post by **jonmartensen** » Fri Feb 21, 2003 12:54 am

My thoughts are

The assumption that something is defined by its antithesis is wrong.

El Banana · Post by **El Banana** » Fri Feb 21, 2003 1:14 am

So do I.
I especially don't think that emotions are defined by their antithesis. Although there would probably not be one without the other, you cannot say that love is just the lack of hate. The lack of hate or lack of love is indifference.

KhayotiK · Post by **KhayotiK** » Fri Feb 21, 2003 1:23 am

It's like saying the yin doesn't require the yang in order to exist, it's unrealistic in my mind. You can just as easily state that chaos is the unorderly, can you not? Without having a good, all would be our definition of evil, but would it still be evil, or would there be lesser evils, making them good? Negative is not negative, if there is no positive.

jonmartensen · Post by **jonmartensen** » Fri Feb 21, 2003 1:28 am

Actually, a line of reasoning in philosophy (ontological) is that bad is not actually a negative thing, it is just the lack of good, hate is the absence of love, foolishness is the absence of knowledge, etc.

This is along the line of reasoning that God is the thing of which nothing greater can be conceived, and it is greater to exist than not to exist, so God must exist.