@orathaic - Social standing is one of the powers. It is closely related to fame and, in fact, is a spreadable power in the sense that if one is accepted by another of higher social standing, that tends to elevate one's own social standing.

My info comes form one Tom Nies, Jr.: founder, owner, and president of Cincom Systems and someone many consider to be one of the greatest men to understand power and motivation. Look him up and be enlightened.

@damian - not being good =/= being evil. This isn't a black and white issue. There is good, evil, and stuff in between and inanimate objects are inherently *neutral*. Evil and good are measure of ones *will* and inanimate objects have no will.

Again, look up Tom Nies, Jr.

When it comes to trade and money, I don't even consider what something costs in actual dollars but relative to how many hours of work I have to put forth to cover it's cost - a barter of the mind as it were. So the 21K I spent on my Jeep equates to 3 months gross salary (or 4 months take home). With interest, it will be more like 4 months salary or 5.25 months take home out of the next 6 years. So I bartered to reduce my effort put forth in the workplace and get the exchange better for myself.

i think wielding power is seen as social status, and so is wealth and fame.

That it is social standing which is what everyone craves... I can't seem to find any 'Tom Nies, Jr' online... does that mean you want me to read?

@Draug. All things are good, those that have no good, are by definition evil, by virtue of being a no-thing. Evil is simply the absence of good, it is nothing. Money as it lacks in substance/purpose cannot be good. Thus it must be evil, it is a no-thing.

Things can be good in different ways, but all things are either good, because god made them, or not good because they do not have a purpose from the one. Not good as shown above is evil.

Money by virtue of having no true purpose, has no form, thus must be nothing.

Try neo-platonism on for size.

As for the mental barter. Good for you. It is however clear by the debt acquired by many households that they do not consider time as you do.

@damian, i believe you will find that i vehemently disagree.

That's fine. You're also wrong.

(Look a no content post that does nothing but express my disagreement. Wee! I are can argue.)

@damian - Evil is a negative, not a lack of a positive. Just as in chemistry where you have base and acid *and* neutral. There are degrees of good and degrees of evil and dead center between them is neutral. So evil is *not* the absence of good anymore than good is the absence of evil.

Here is Merriam Webster's definition. Please show me where it says "an absence of good". Every one of these clearly reflects a negative, not neutral, definition.

Definition of EVIL
1a : morally reprehensible : sinful, wicked <an evil impulse> b : arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct <a person of evil reputation>
2a archaic : inferior b : causing discomfort or repulsion : offensive <an evil odor> c : disagreeable <woke late and in an evil temper>
3a : causing harm : pernicious <the evil institution of slavery> b : marked by misfortune : unlucky
— evil adverb, archaic
— evil·ly \-(l)ē\ adverb
— evil·ness \-nəs\ noun

Oh, and damin, your "religious" definition doesn't fit all of religion, nor all of Christianity, not even all of Catholicism to the best of my knowledge. Talk to your priest, rabbi, minister, pastor, whatever and see if they agree with that. If they do, they are a whackadoodle whack job.

@ora - Just try Tom Nies Cincom... You should find something about him and maybe some of his quotes about power and such. I'll see if the company still lists his books on amazon. He is a fair writer (I've read better) but a brilliant business man and student of philosophy. His ideas and views are simply fascinating and you can talk to him all day about philosophy and he'll oblige you. If obi actually had some business acumen and were a conservative, he might eventually become like Tom.

P.S. He owns the company I work for...

Read Augustine's confessions.

Then call me and what I'm saying nonsense. The definition of evil you are using both suggests a) that god created evil, which is false, and b) that evil is a natural state of the human being. Also false.

I don't care what your dictionary says. It will also tell you that freedom is:
the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint: He won his freedom after a retrial.
2.
exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.
3.
the power to determine action without restraint.
4.
political or national independence.
5.
personal liberty, as opposed to bondage or slavery: a slave who bought his freedom.

Which is entirely a modern definition that arises from the idea of liberalism, while true freedom, is actually a state of submission to higher authority. Free will is not the natural state of a human but a reaction to a authority that misinterprets the universal will.

Freedom: As correctly defined is a fulfilling life, acting in accordance with human reason.

Not the ability to do whatever the hell you want.

If you don't understand religious philosophy don't try and argue the definition of evil.

Note to self: Never argue with a deluded religious fanatic...

The God of the Bible didn't create man - man created him. As long as we disagree on that point which we clearly do, we have nothing further to discuss. Good day.

Also even if we were discussing a secular view of good and evil you'd still be wrong.

Just look at Aristotle. Good and Virtue is the balance between two extremes. While evil is the extremes of the spectrum. Given the the world, as it exits physically is an aspect of union of opposing principles. A balance so to speak, the extreme, either pure chaos or pure order is unnatural, and that which is unnatural is not a thing. By virtue of not being a part of the world.

rescourced from a reliable source?

I'm also not religious. Wee! I just happen to understand philosophy.

It turns out most of the best definitions of good and evil have arisen out of the work of the religious scholars. However if you insist we discuss the secular, I have presented Aristotelian definitions of good and evil.

*plonk*

"with respect to acting in the face of danger,
courage {Gk. andreia [andreia]} is a mean between
the excess of rashness and the deficiency of cowardice;

with respect to the enjoyment of pleasures,
temperance {Gk. swfrosunh [sophrosúnê]} is a mean between
the excess of intemperance and the deficiency of insensibility;

with respect to spending money,
generosity is a mean between
the excess of wastefulness and the deficiency of stinginess;

with respect to relations with strangers,
being friendly is a mean between
the excess of being ingratiating and the deficiency of being surly; and

with respect to self-esteem,
magnanimity {Gk. megaloyucia [megalopsychia]} is a mean between
the excess of vanity and the deficiency of pusillanimity."

Nichomachean Ethics. Aristotle.

The more things change, the more they stay the same. I'm gone for a few months, and nothing really changes. :)

The entire idea of "religious philosophy" is basically a contradiction in terms.

Ok. Religion teaches us that there is a revelation, that contains the Truth. This is unalterable, absolute Truth. There is no discussion of how the revelation matches up with reality. The best you can do is debate the particular meaning of revelation.

Philosophy means love of wisdom. Knowledge. When you have your so-called philosophy of religion, you're trying to straightjacket the knowledge that is out there to discover through your revelation. Its not even an intellectual circle jerk.

The scientific and evidentiary methods, on the other hand, by their very nature, reject that which does not follow what can be observed or tested. If the facts(once verified) do not match up with the theory, the theory is thrown out.

Your "religious philosophy" tosses out fact when it does not suit your revelation. That is the primary reason that I reject religious thought, because it teaches us that we cannot hope to understand, we must be told what is true by some divine figure who reveals to us, instead of actually engaging our brains and trying to figure it out.

There you go quotes from Ethics. To back up the virtue as a mean. If you'd like I can try and hunt for some quotes about the nature of the world, in metaphysics.

Yay someone who doesn't understand. Religious philosophy. Hold on while I go hunt down some Averroes quotes for you.

"[If the apparent meaning of Scripture conflicts with demon­strative conclusions it must be interpreted allegorically, i.e. metaphorically.]" By demonstrative conclusions he means philosophy.

Averroes, THE DECISIVE TREATISE, DETERMINING THE
NATURE OF THE CONNECTION BETWEEN
RELIGION AND PHILOSOPHY

Which is to say. As truth all descends from ones source it may not contradict. If philosophy can prove something, then it must be true. Thus we must interpret the scripture allegorically, to understand the true meaning of the passage.

That's what religious philosophy is all about. Finding out what the allegorical meaning of scripture is.

So in other words, making it say whatever you need it to say.

The "allegory" excuse is one of the more intellectually pathetic excuses for why most religious texts are fucked up. Whatever passage you don't like? Its not SUPPOSED to be literally, silly person! Its an allegory. </sarcasm>

Please. Don't try to pass off "religious philosophy" as real knowledge.

When it comes down to it, I find "religious philosophy" as relevant to actual knowledge as watching a pair of Lord of the Rings fanatics discussion the intricacies of the ethics of Tolkien's work.

Its got the potential for being entertaining to people who give a shit, but its got nothing to do with genuine searching for knowledge.

They're both fictional stories, after all.

http://www.disinfo.com/2010/10/two-out-of-three-fox-friends-think-all-terrorists-are-muslim/

So there are stupid people on Fox. There are stupid people in the media in general on *both* sides of the political aisle. Fuck, there are stupid people in Congress on *both* sides of the aisle. You don't need a brain to get a job as a political pundit on *any* of the stations or to even get elected to office.

So these stupid people who dont need a brain to get their job.... you trust what they say why?