The absence of good. Not the opposite of good. Such an appropriate description for evil. Like when the opposite of love is not hate, but indifference. Once again, thank you for these teachings. Next time I go to the English Library (Biblioteca del Anglo) in Montevideo, I shall ask for that book.
One of the best modern Christian authors, very glad you covered a less famous work. Now I’m curious about whether Tolkien has other books filled with rich religious theology like Lewis’ The Great Divorce.
An analogue might be Tolkien's translations, as those are not given enough attention - especially his interpretive essays, like with Beowulf and Sir Gawain and the Green Knight.
Also suggest “Leaf By Niggle”, a short story by Tolkien which is a powerful reflection on Purgatory and on how an artist / author’s subcreation honors God our Creator.
Respectfully, my problem with this is that *everyone* --you me, left/right/center and Nazi's included, all believe that we "choose what is good" and [believe we fully] "participate in what is real." No says, "I'm going to choose evil today". Hitler did not think he was doing evil, but rather the opposite. He thought he was a righteous dude, making the tough calls, blah blah. Good and evil are abstracts ideas about stuff people do -- simple labels we used to define what we (personally) like and don't like. If you wear a red hat, Bernie Sanders is evil. I voted for Reagan; did I chose good or evil? I thought it was good at the time and now I don't think so. Hanna Arendt's idea about the the "Banality of evil" implicates all of us for this reason. C.S. Lewis (IMO, as per usual), oversimplifies moral freewill to back up his personal need to live in a clear, straightforward, and purposeful, moral universe. I enjoyed the post nonetheless, thanks!
The tradition calls this an "apparent good," where the will seeks what is good but the intellect is mistaken. Even a man who knowingly does evil does so for the sake of some good. Humans seek what is good, but it is certainly not a simple concept in practice.
What is your take on how we can know the difference between an apparent good and real one? if we can't know the difference then what does that make of the judgment day? tnx
Your explanation of evil as privation through Lewis' grass scene is brilliant. What really gets me is how this flips our usual way of thinking about good and evil as equal forces battling it out. The transparent visitors from hell can't even bend the grass because they've chosen unreality over reality.
This connects to something deeper about how traditional Christian thought understood existence itself. The ancient wisdom saw being and goodness as the same thing - to exist is to participate in the good, and to turn away from good is literally to become less real, less yourself. It's not that God punishes evil by making it weak, but that evil punishes itself by choosing non-existence.
What's haunting about Lewis' image is how the grass isn't trying to hurt the visitors - it's just being what it is, solid and real. Their pain comes from their own unreality meeting actual substance. Makes you wonder if a lot of our suffering comes from the same thing - we've made choices that have made us less real, and then reality itself becomes painful to encounter.
The hopeful part is that even the most transparent ghost still exists enough to make the choice to stay and become more solid. That's pretty profound.
Its a striking metaphor but I can't quite accept how evil is simply "the privation of good". Why is it, then, that there are satanic pedophiles who choose to do ritualistic rape and killings of children for worldly power? That's not simply privation of good. That's not a hole. That's not some nihilistic, meaningless, chaotic, unreal nothingness. That's *something*.
Another way to look at it would be that evil is a corruption, a disease. It is parasitic on what is good. It cannot exist without it. All those who do evil do so because they think it will be good for them. They have a corrupted understanding of the good. All actions, etc., are aimed toward what is good, but both our actions and the good sought could be corrupted or suffering a privation - which causes depravity. Good pushback.
... a final note.: Lewis lost me a long time ago, as you can tell, lol and I explain why in a recent post called "C.S. Lewis is NASCAR." I'd be interested in your thoughts! if you care to check it out. https://substack.com/@sierraechocharlie/note/p-169251859
The absence of good. Not the opposite of good. Such an appropriate description for evil. Like when the opposite of love is not hate, but indifference. Once again, thank you for these teachings. Next time I go to the English Library (Biblioteca del Anglo) in Montevideo, I shall ask for that book.
The Great Divorce is well worth your time - and its an easy, enjoyable read!
One of the best modern Christian authors, very glad you covered a less famous work. Now I’m curious about whether Tolkien has other books filled with rich religious theology like Lewis’ The Great Divorce.
An analogue might be Tolkien's translations, as those are not given enough attention - especially his interpretive essays, like with Beowulf and Sir Gawain and the Green Knight.
Those a great suggestions, thank you!
Also suggest “Leaf By Niggle”, a short story by Tolkien which is a powerful reflection on Purgatory and on how an artist / author’s subcreation honors God our Creator.
Respectfully, my problem with this is that *everyone* --you me, left/right/center and Nazi's included, all believe that we "choose what is good" and [believe we fully] "participate in what is real." No says, "I'm going to choose evil today". Hitler did not think he was doing evil, but rather the opposite. He thought he was a righteous dude, making the tough calls, blah blah. Good and evil are abstracts ideas about stuff people do -- simple labels we used to define what we (personally) like and don't like. If you wear a red hat, Bernie Sanders is evil. I voted for Reagan; did I chose good or evil? I thought it was good at the time and now I don't think so. Hanna Arendt's idea about the the "Banality of evil" implicates all of us for this reason. C.S. Lewis (IMO, as per usual), oversimplifies moral freewill to back up his personal need to live in a clear, straightforward, and purposeful, moral universe. I enjoyed the post nonetheless, thanks!
The tradition calls this an "apparent good," where the will seeks what is good but the intellect is mistaken. Even a man who knowingly does evil does so for the sake of some good. Humans seek what is good, but it is certainly not a simple concept in practice.
What is your take on how we can know the difference between an apparent good and real one? if we can't know the difference then what does that make of the judgment day? tnx
Thank you for the text !
Your explanation of evil as privation through Lewis' grass scene is brilliant. What really gets me is how this flips our usual way of thinking about good and evil as equal forces battling it out. The transparent visitors from hell can't even bend the grass because they've chosen unreality over reality.
This connects to something deeper about how traditional Christian thought understood existence itself. The ancient wisdom saw being and goodness as the same thing - to exist is to participate in the good, and to turn away from good is literally to become less real, less yourself. It's not that God punishes evil by making it weak, but that evil punishes itself by choosing non-existence.
What's haunting about Lewis' image is how the grass isn't trying to hurt the visitors - it's just being what it is, solid and real. Their pain comes from their own unreality meeting actual substance. Makes you wonder if a lot of our suffering comes from the same thing - we've made choices that have made us less real, and then reality itself becomes painful to encounter.
The hopeful part is that even the most transparent ghost still exists enough to make the choice to stay and become more solid. That's pretty profound.
Its a striking metaphor but I can't quite accept how evil is simply "the privation of good". Why is it, then, that there are satanic pedophiles who choose to do ritualistic rape and killings of children for worldly power? That's not simply privation of good. That's not a hole. That's not some nihilistic, meaningless, chaotic, unreal nothingness. That's *something*.
Another way to look at it would be that evil is a corruption, a disease. It is parasitic on what is good. It cannot exist without it. All those who do evil do so because they think it will be good for them. They have a corrupted understanding of the good. All actions, etc., are aimed toward what is good, but both our actions and the good sought could be corrupted or suffering a privation - which causes depravity. Good pushback.
Me thinks you need to rethink your analogy. /definition of evil
, it is not merely a lack of good...
evil comes about from a choice to rebel against God, against all that is good, and it has very real eternal consequences...
because of that reality, God's grace/love brings us the cross.
... a final note.: Lewis lost me a long time ago, as you can tell, lol and I explain why in a recent post called "C.S. Lewis is NASCAR." I'd be interested in your thoughts! if you care to check it out. https://substack.com/@sierraechocharlie/note/p-169251859