RE: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order & Belief)

From: Stathis Papaioannou <>
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2006 21:49:20 +1100

Tom Caylor writes:

> Bruno,
> I have been doing a lot of reading/thinking on your former posts on the
> Hypostases, other reading on Plotinus and the neo-Platonist hypostases,
> and the Christian "interpretation" of the hypostases. There is a lot
> to say, but I'll start by just giving some responses to your last post
> on this.
> On Dec 11, 8:46 am, Bruno Marchal
> > I agree that the problem of evil (and thus the equivalent problem of
> > Good) is interesting. Of course it is not well addressed by the two
> > current theories of everything: Loop gravity and String theory. With
> > that respect the comp hyp can at least shed some light on it, and of
> > course those "light" are of the platonic-plotinus type where the notion
> > of goodness necessitates the notion of truth to begin with. I say more
> > below.
> The discussions over the last two weeks on Evil, and just how to define
> good and bad, underscore how puzzling this problem can be. I agree
> that at the base of this is the question, "What is Truth?" I am not
> satisfied with the Theaetetus definition, or Tarski's "trick". I
> believe the answer to the question, "What is Truth?" which Pilate asked
> Jesus, was standing right in front of Pilate: Jesus himself. The
> Christian definition of truth goes back to the core of everything, who
> is personal. As I've said before, without a personal core, the word
> "personal" has lost its meaning. In the context nowadays of
> impersonal-based philosophy, "personal" has come to "mean" something
> like "without rational basis". But when the personal IS the basis, not
> an impersonal concept of personal, but the ultimate Person, and with
> man being made in the image of that ultimate Person, we have a basis
> for truth, personality, rationality, good...

I'm not sure that this is what you meant, but there is in a sense an objective
basis to the personal or subjective, which is simply that when I say I feel or
desire something, this is an empirical statement: either I do feel it or I am
lying. Also, there is an objective explanation for why I have the feeling in
terms of neurophysiology, evolution and so on. But this is not enough for some
people and they think, for example, that there must be more to "love" than
just particular feelings and the scientific basis for these feelings. But this
mysterious love-substance would appear to make no difference whatsoever.
The evidence is that if certain chemical reactions occur, the love feeling also
occurs, and these chemical reactions occur because they have evolved that
way to assist bonding with family, community and so on. That explanation
covers everything, and the love-substance remains superfluous and undetectable,
inviting Occam's Razor to cut it down.

Stathis Papaioannou
Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail.
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at
Received on Sun Dec 24 2006 - 05:49:37 PST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:12 PST