>solves the problem of evil in your path

I scoffed at "evil doesn't exist, there's just a lack of Good" from Augustine when presented with it in middle/high school, I was an atheist who was still recovering from his tween days of Dawkins-worshipping anti-theistic homosexualry, and I thought it just a rhetorical evasion from actually solving the theodicy

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 year ago
    P.N.E.U.M.A.T.I.C

    Only at 20 I understood what Augustine meant.

  2. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    neither evil nor good exist. take the ultimate redpill.

    • 1 year ago
      P.N.E.U.M.A.T.I.C

      You're in the midway point (luciferianism/satanism).
      >take the ultimate redpill
      Noumena don't exist, only phenomena do. But phenomena can be categorized as Good or "evil" as these are "abstract" concepts, they serve the abstract thinking module of the homosexual sapiens, who created these concepts, and when it boils down to it, it's not just that "what is good is what is helpful" (utilitarianism i.e. the vulgar materialism of Anglos i.e. their bug brain) but indeed what is good is what helps the Human species and what is not good is what harms the Human species. Ideas like environmental protection can have a monistic kick to it but the actual drive stems from the fact that a green (including nuclear) world would be better for the Human species as it would allow for (at least in theory) runaway growth quite feasibly whereas relying on fossil fuels would not do that.

      Now when we're faced with the post-ideology of (faux-)"post-modernism" or "neoliberalism" or in fact simply "liberalism" or "capitalism," and in practical terms, globalist techno-fascism, and look at the effects of it on the global birth rate by ~2050 and compare it to the generational replacement rate, we can realize Evil can be quite real.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        No, it's actually more useful to get rid of good and evil and use the new concepts of Destiny and the Self and the Culture and the "Will". Good and evil are obsolete, we don't need them anymore.

        • 1 year ago
          P.N.E.U.M.A.T.I.C

          Good is just the principle behind Order. You can't throw that out of the park.

          That's Plato, bro

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Plato would not say that the good is identical to order, he would say it is identical to Being. Being was proven not to be "order" by Hegel. Being is itself a negation and a process.

          • 1 year ago
            P.N.E.U.M.A.T.I.C

            >Plato would not say that the good is identical to order
            Indeed, but I did not say he said that. I said he said it's the principle behind order. That Good and Order (and Truth and Being) are identical was me (and Shankara and Spinoza and some others, yes, but, well, that is the ultimate redpill). Ultimately Platonic panentheism vs Spinozan pantheism is a non-issue for me, just a technicality.

            If you are interested in philosophy or theology, 99% chance you have never had sex.

            99% you never had sex. Sex isn't that interesting once you actually have it. You're nuts about it in high school then you find a steady supply of pussy and you move on to other, more interesting things

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Spinoza didn't believe in good and evil, he believed in the Will to Existence. Shankara was a non-dualist so the idea of good and evil existing makes no sense. I don't think you have understood any philosophers.

          • 1 year ago
            P.N.E.U.M.A.T.I.C

            Dude you're arguing about technicalities trying to one-up me while I'm already beyond that and down to the essence. Most philosophers rename concepts for originality. Of course Spinoza didn't support dualistic good-evil. Neither do I. That's not even what I'm talking about. This thread is about Augustine and theodicy, naht about Spinoza and theodicy

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Augustine's theodicy doesn't make sense in any modern context, it's a purely neoplatonic-christian-synthesis concept, if you don't accept the form of the Good as the highest principle it makes zero sense.

          • 1 year ago
            P.N.E.U.M.A.T.I.C

            >if you don't accept the form of the Good as the highest principle
            Good doesn't have to be the highest principle. You need out-of-the-box thinking. The way I see the world, and the meaning of Augustine in it, is likewise:
            1. Golden rule & "good" (interchangeable to me, by "good" I mean the form of the Good, Plato's all-in-one bullshit definition of good that works as a god of the gaps)
            From it follows
            2. (1a) Existence, Being & Truth (all interchangeable)
            3. (1b) Order
            4. (1c) Good (actual, as defined by me earlier)
            5. (1d) Beauty
            In this world there's no evil. Just an absence of Good. And there's no ugliness. Just an absence of Beauty. There's no nothingness and chaos either: nothingness is just the absence of existence (doesn't exist), the absence of the golden rule, and the Universe (where the golden rule is omnipresent) is All, and chaos likewise doesn't exist, only seemingly so, but the appearance of a lack of order is just an illusion (because the golden rule is omnipresent, in the sense that the golden rule is the code of reality itself). There's order everywhere, it just has different levels of complexity, which have different emergent properties. Then there's the complexity level of abstract thinking and in this plane exists Good (1c).

            Plato's requires little modification to make the system a perfect foundation for the ToE

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Your post is so moronic. You haven’t read Plato. You got literally everything wrong. This isn’t just a “little modification.” Anyone who has actually read basic philosophy knows that you are a moron

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >more interesting things
            those things don't include philosophy (no impact on the world ever) and theology (no impact on the world past the Dark Ages). But people are still interested in sex.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >Noumena don't exist
        >what is good is what helps the Human species and what is not good is what harms the Human species
        you dare call yourself pneumatic you're the entire bundle of sticks

        • 1 year ago
          P.N.E.U.M.A.T.I.C

          I'm a pneumatic according to pneumaticism, not according to the doctrines of gnosticism.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Μακάριοι οἱ πτωχοὶ τῷ πνεύματι ὅτι αὐτῶν ἐστιν ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν
            you mean pneumatism? so you got gifts? i'm not a gnostic. gnosticism was an illuminati solve et coagula styled psyop to suck all mysticism out of christianity.
            >a sacred text couldn't possibly have double entendres and esoteric meaning goy, if you believe that you're stupid and probably a pagan
            a spiritual vision of the world informed all the writers of The Holy Bible because they had no idea what philosophical materialism was. you'll never understand it unless you read it in the context in which it was written. God and only God is good and perfect. think! in light of this FACT what does "doing good and being good" entail?

  3. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Man is necessarily the absence of God; therefore, God is not all powerful.

    Dude, there's no escape from the rape train.

  4. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    If you are interested in philosophy or theology, 99% chance you have never had sex.

  5. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Human homosexuals always amuse me. These Black folk haven't even existed for 2 million full years and for most of that time they were jumping around like monkeys. And now they tell us some universal force called evil exists because some Black person stole their bike

  6. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    you have graduated, aquinas waits for you

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      this pneumatic guy is a complete schizo, he hasn't actually read any philosophers. he won't read aquinas and he probably hasn't read augustine either. he just creates his own insane but trivial reality metanarrative from whatever wikipedia level understanding he has gained of philosophers.

  7. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Problem of evil solution:Humans aren't inherently more valuable to god than other forms of beings/substances

    • 1 year ago
      P.N.E.U.M.A.T.I.C

      God isn't a person. I don't even use the word God in any serious manner

  8. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    There's something so childish and repulsive about Renaissance artwork. You can taste the proletarianization and sensualization of art emanating from it. Such amazing visual detailing and all for nothing. Or all for itself and nothing else.

    • 1 year ago
      P.N.E.U.M.A.T.I.C

      It's just a painting of Augustine. A good one. You're so gay and your shit's all moronic

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        I have nothing against Augustine but the painting is awful.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          There is literally nothing wrong with making sumptuous artwork just because you can. Better than shitting on a wall and esteeming it highly because of the 'message'. At least the former is visually impressive.

  9. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    So, given that I’m one of those people who thinks it’s a lame argument, would you mind articulating it in the way that made it finally hit home for you?

  10. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Literally heresy.

  11. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    "Evil doesn't exist, there is only privation from God" should be extremely obvious to anyone who understands the etymological root of the term Satan. Men are destroyed from without by other men blind to godliness or from within by their own blindness. There is no metaphysical force that is just (or nearly) as powerful somehow as God and completely evil and that God allows to run around and frick with us because reasons.
    Christ's Satan in the desert claimed to have been given power over all the Kingdoms of Earth. But who was the true King of Kings? The temptations were an encounter with the self-destructive, hedonistic tendencies of the mind.

  12. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Privatio boni is bunk. How can something that doesn't exist be defined as the absence of anything at all? If cold is the absence of heat, where does this privation come from? From God? Then God is responsible for evil. From outside God? Then God is not omnipotent.

    The Manichaeans were right, Augustine just couldn't take the heat.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >From outside God? Then God is not omnipotent.
      This doesn't follow, what does follow is that God is not omnipresent (ie, it follows that pantheism is false if evil is "outside" of God). It's still problematic to even say that it's "outside" of God however, because that would be a place which exists, but evil does not exist so it is not even "outside" of God, but nor is it of or in God. It's what Plotinus refers to as downward transcendence, transcendence in the descending direction (in the way that "matter" is the ultimately opposite reflection of the One).

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Then God is responsible for the diminishment of the Good by degrees. The Schellingposter is the only person here who understands the problem

        >Μακάριοι οἱ πτωχοὶ τῷ πνεύματι ὅτι αὐτῶν ἐστιν ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν
        you mean pneumatism? so you got gifts? i'm not a gnostic. gnosticism was an illuminati solve et coagula styled psyop to suck all mysticism out of christianity.
        >a sacred text couldn't possibly have double entendres and esoteric meaning goy, if you believe that you're stupid and probably a pagan
        a spiritual vision of the world informed all the writers of The Holy Bible because they had no idea what philosophical materialism was. you'll never understand it unless you read it in the context in which it was written. God and only God is good and perfect. think! in light of this FACT what does "doing good and being good" entail?

        >gnosticism
        >sucking mystical experience out of Christianity
        lol this board gets dumber by the Planck second

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          maybe I didn't make myself clear, I'll explain myself. I'm saying they made up the most mystical, spiritual, borderline schizo interpretation of Christianity that was humanly possible (a strawman) and then called it heretic (knocked it down), so that fricking millenia later we have morons that say:
          >you believe in souls and life after death? that's paganism!
          (I say schizo affectionately and do not wish to insult brothers in Christ, i'm just saying what it looks like or what they made it look like)

          EXAMPLE
          >οὐδὲ ἐροῦσιν Ἰδού, ὧδε ἤ ἰδού, Ἐκεῖ Ἰδού, γὰρ ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ ἐντὸς ὑμῶν ἐστιν
          gnostic strawgolem: ἐντός means 'within' and nothing else! the Christ is within!
          the experts™: ἐντός means 'in the midst' and nothing else! the Christ is without!
          notice how both contradict the very literal previous line:
          >Nor will people say, ‘Look, here it is,’ or ‘There it is.’
          but you trust the scienc--sorry-- the theology so you go with the second or you do not trust the theology and go with the first. the true meaning that can be called esoteric is apophatic in nature, and the true exoteric meaning is that God is making good on his edenic vision, dethroning the Princes [elohim] of the nations and giving their inheritance to Jesus.
          the gospel is supposed to be simple (pic very related) but the message is lost with materialism, the opposite of true morality.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Cold is just the lack of movement of atoms

  13. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    A very theologically troubling thought is Kants definition of the devil which is conditional on him chosing evil and incapable of sensual corruption or benefit. If this is so, and that he is the one to chastise damned souls, is his existence and actions not good? His actions are in accordance with justice and a rejection of an imperfect creation to which he had proved with the fall and all subsequent creations that chose sin. It seems he rejected the possibility of sin and in doing so he is chastised. All other souls are dragged to hell precisely because they are tangled into passions of anger, malice, lust, vainglory. Would not total insensitivity to these privation of good therefore make him good? And indeed confirm humanity were flawed?

  14. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    It's not his argument, its from Plato. Proclus puts it better earlier.
    >The central question addressed in the work is: how can there be evil in a providential world? Neoplatonists agree that it cannot be caused by higher and worthier beings. Plotinus had said that evil is matter, which, unlike Aristotle, he collapsed into mere privation or lack, thus reducing its reality. He also protected higher causes from responsibility by saying that evil may result from a combination of goods. Proclus objects: evil is real, and not a privation. Rather, it is a parasite feeding off good. Parasites have no proper cause, and higher beings are thus vindicated as being the causes only of the good off which evil feeds.

  15. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    And both Kant and Schelling BTFO that naive Platonic view. Kant with the problem of radical evil:
    https://iep.utm.edu/rad-evil/

    And Schelling eatablishes the positive nature of evil in his freedom essay: freedom is radical evil, the capacity to do evil, to choose against categorical imperatives:
    https://germanidealism.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/schelling-fs-english.pdf

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      The categorical imperative is both wrong and has nothing to do with good nor evil, so both Kant and Schelling are ipso facto refuted off the bat.

  16. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    nah, looking at the real world without copegoggles in almost every situation good is the absence of evil. Good is the virginal status quo (or perceived/desired status quo) and evils are all the possible very varied events that could change it. You say the road is safe when there's no accidents. A person is healthy when he has no diseases. You are a moral person if you don't commit sins. Your room is clean if you don't have pissbottles and cumsocks on the floor. Yeah sure you could reword these into the opposite rhetoric, but these will be vaguer, clunkier, less all-encompassing and requiring lengthy caveats. You could say "Disease is the absence of health" but that wouldn't be true in most cases, a person with eczema can very well have all internal organs in perfect condition, you'd have to correct it to "eczema is the absence of healthy skin" but then there are plenty other skin diseases that a person doesn't have. So you'd have to describe the exact mechanics of what gets changed by eczema and say "eczema is the absence of that, and it was caused by the absence of avoiding allergens". Ridiculous.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Good post. You can tell this man owns a water filter. "Good is the absence of evil" is the corollary of "Good is all-powerful and evil is weak" which is ridiculous. The purest, most innocent creatures in this world are the feeblest. I really hate Augustine.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >"Good is the absence of evil" is the corollary of "Good is all-powerful and evil is weak" which is ridiculous. The purest, most innocent creatures in this world are the feeblest.

        You are conflating physical weakness or fragility with "weakness" itself. The weakness of evil is corruption, the lack of integrity a thing has with respect to itself.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >good is the absence of evil

      If good is the absence of evil then evil is real, good isn't real. But take a step back. Good accumulates: all the various things that can be good combine to larger, higher goods. Your good eyes and good teeth and good heart accumulate into your good health, which can accumulate into your good life which can accumulate into your good overall. Bad things don't accumulate: bad things are piecemeal, ad hoc, and with enough of them you simply don't exist. Tolstoy's opening is relevant here: happiness is always the same but unhappiness comes in infinite variety. Good is being; evil is nothing.

  17. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    But Augustine failed to solve the problem of evil. It is clear from his last work where he more or less admits it by saying the good old cope
    >god's ways are unknowable
    Also it is Platonist idea not necessary an abrahamic

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *