<p>Well, if society is a composition of all people and we learn from society, wouldn’t that then insinuate that society as a whole is evil? After all, you stated that we become evil over time. Where else would we acquire thoughts that would initiate our undergoing of evil actions? Are you stating that we possess some knowledge of evil upon being born. How do we know it’s evil though? I feel like the examples we are exposed to have some influence on our actions. For example, if you were to isolate an individual on an island away from the rest of mankind, do you believe that that individual would have the possibility of becomming evil and undergoing evil actions on his own? Personally, I believe that society initiates those actions.</p>
<p>But society is also full of good people. Isn’t society as a whole good then?</p>
<p>No. It is neither wholly evil or good. It is a mixture of both.</p>
<p>I did not state we become evil over time–if I did, I was mistake. I meant that we have the POTENTIAL to, but not that we necessarily do.</p>
<p>We can acquire thoughts due to natural factors or environmental factors, genetics or “society.” So evil is not solely acquired through the evil facets of society, but can be acquired (i.e. innate) through natural factors.</p>
<p>Well, most “evil” is done by one person to another. But the person could commit suicide, which many people consider “evil” since life is a gift. </p>
<p>Yes, society is not the only factor that causes evil. Genetics do too. Society plays a part in initiating these actions (and it is large), but it’s not the SOLE part.</p>
<p>I personally believe ends do not justify the means.</p>
<p>An individual who thinks an evil thought, like “I want to kill my mother” but does not follow through, had an evil thought, but is not inherently evil. The person may be good–but just had a fleeting thought of evil. But without following through on the action, the person can not be deemed evil based on that event.</p>
<p>Undergoing an evil action would presuppose evilness. However, “evil” acts may be justified in certain cases…like duress in law (except in taking of a life). I also believe in second chances and redemption though–it depends on the level of evil.</p>
<p>That’s interesting. I’m under the impression that perception is significantly involved in this. The issue is relevant to how an individual derives a conclusion based off of deductive and inductive reasoning. It’s like idealism. We’ll never have a definitive answer, solely perceptions.</p>
<p>I’m not sure exactly what you mean—but I DO think perception is very key; I don’t want to give off the impression that I am dismissing it in the least.</p>
<p>Yeah, sorry, I don’t want to drag you into anything!</p>
<p>Any other questions people!!! It can be…ANYTHING.</p>
<p>^And yeah, it’s nice to discuss and not become <em>mad</em> at each other over dissenting opinions. That a discussion can end, and everyone is still alright with each other. Internet…is different though (that wasn’t an obvious statement).</p>
<p>What William Faulkner book should I read next? I’ve read Absalom, Absalom! and The Sound and the Fury, and I know you’ve read stuff. I thought Quentin Compson was the kewlest</p>
<p>^I am shamed. I have not read a single William Faulkner book—though I am planning to read [italics] The Sound and the Fury [/italics] in the near future.</p>
<p>Perhaps you can try:
–Sanctuary
–Pylon
–Light in August</p>
<p>[noparse]like this lol[/noparse]
Faulkner’s really good. Be attentive during part 1 of The Sound and the Fury, but it’s incredibly good. Part 2 is a work of art comparable to part 5 of A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man. Jason is so crazy too. Absalom, Absalom! has tragic fatalism in it that has Faulkner’s typical plot unfolding (read “A Rose for Emily”, a Faulkner short story, to see what I mean)</p>
<p>Faulkner is my favorite novelist for many reasons :)</p>
</p>