Supposedly. So here is the story, I was in class and my teacher told me his theory, it sounded familiar but not sure from where. So here is his theory, or maybe it's not his, maybe he just likes it. He says that there is no such thing as darkness, just the absence of light. There is no cold, just the absence of heat. And that there is no Evil jus the absence of(feel free to put whatever in this blank)_______(God, Allah, Yaweh IDK). Well that's the theory so anybody here agree or disagree? It seems simple enough to me so what are your opinions?
He says that there is no such thing as darkness, just the absence of light. There is no cold, just the absence of heat. And that there is no Evil jus the absence of(feel free to put whatever in this blank)_______(God, Allah, Yaweh IDK).
Concerning the two first things, from a strictly physical point of view, it is correct as far as I know. Just take the example of heat: it is how strong molecules are moving, like the brownian motion for example. If the molecules don't move, you have reached absolute zero (0 Kelvin, or -273.15 Celsius). And you can't have negative movement, can't you? Concerning evil and good, idk, but those are humans concepts that can't be measured physically, so I don't think you could compare that.
That is the whole point of the topic. Please read the starting comment.
i thought this was about the natural presence of what was stated in the OP. Or just how this theory stands to reason. Heat is emited from various sources know, but is cold emitted from anything the same way heat is emitted by stars? If not then i can see this theory being more. than theory
That is the whole point of the topic. Please read the starting comment.
The theory in the OP states that if the first two things (light, heat) are true then the third thing about good/evil must also be true. Which, I think, is not strictly the case, since, like I said, you can't compare the two. What I was trying to say was that I deny any coherence between light/heat and good. I basically disagree with the OP if you want it put in easily understandable language.
You didn't get it. It can be physically explained that cold is the absence of heat. It can be physically explained that darkness is the absence of light. It can only be metaphorically objected, or philosophically discussed about, that evil is the absence of good.
Heat and light both=existing, absolute processes good=relative (not absolute), not verifiable human concept, dependent of your own personal judgement
The OP's theory is interesting and totally worth discussing, but IMO not true per se.
The first two are scientifically correct. You are comparing these two to something moral or religious. This is where your teacher is wrong. This cannot necessarily be linked the same way.
Evil = detrimenting others for personal gain. Good = detrimenting yourself for the gain of others.
This does not necessarily mean because there is an absence of good, there will be evil. There is always good, neutrality, and evil.
In terms of cold and darkness. You do not measure by cold or darkness. You just say "there is less heat or less light". You get what I'm saying?
He says that there is no such thing as darkness, just the absence of light.
Darkness is, by its definition, the absence of light.
Should't this belong with world events etc...
Its not a world event, political or exclusively religious(not everyone believes the idea of what good and evil are can only be defined through religion).
Evil = detrimenting others for personal gain. Good = detrimenting yourself for the gain of others.
Disagree completely.
Through your logic, if I accept another's good will, then I am evil. In order for their will to be "good", they would have to harm themselves in the process. By accepting their good will, I am encouraging them to harm themselves for my own personal benefit. Therefore, I am evil.
For instance:
Say, for some reason that is not my fault, I need a kidney transplant. If I don't get this transplant, I will die. My friend is a match, and wishes to donate. I give him my permission, knowing that the surgery is risky and that the operation will likely reduce his life expectancy.
Does that make me an evil person? No. Of course not; it's not like I stole the kidney. He voluntarily gave it to me, and I allowed it.
On the other side:
Why can't acts of good also be in your self interest? Maybe the only reason my friend is offering his kidney is because he doesn't want guilt hanging over him for the rest of his life. Maybe he doesn't really care if I live or die, so long as he isn't directly responsible.
So what? He's still giving me a kidney.
Good and evil are purely normative concepts; they are whatever society currently defines them as.
