Good and Evil

[Eodnhoj7]

All being is good, evil is a lesser grade of good as a deficiency of good.

Discuss.

[henry quirk]

There is good and there is evil. I left Gallifrey to answer a question of my own. By any analysis, evil should always win. Good is not a practical survival strategy - it requires loyalty, self-sacrifice and love. And so, why does good prevail? What keeps the balance between good and evil in this appalling universe? Is there some kind of logic? Some mysterious force?
-The First Doctor

[commonsense]

There is good and there is evil. I left Gallifrey to answer a question of my own. By any analysis, evil should always win. Good is not a practical survival strategy - it requires loyalty, self-sacrifice and love. And so, why does good prevail? What keeps the balance between good and evil in this appalling universe? Is there some kind of logic? Some mysterious force?
-The First Doctor

Quite right, HQ, I think The First Doctor has it spot on. Love does not conquer the saber toothed tiger.

Why does good prevail? I think it will always seem that way to the optimist, yet for the pessimist evil will be victorious.

As for the balance of the two, I think it is a temporary state that ebbs and flows in both directions.

[commonsense]

P.S. Not a Dr. Who fan but humbly respect those who are.

[henry quirk]

There is good and there is evil. I left Gallifrey to answer a question of my own. By any analysis, evil should always win. Good is not a practical survival strategy - it requires loyalty, self-sacrifice and love. And so, why does good prevail? What keeps the balance between good and evil in this appalling universe? Is there some kind of logic? Some mysterious force?
-The First Doctor

Quite right, HQ, I think The First Doctor has it spot on. Love does not conquer the saber toothed tiger.

Why does good prevail? I think it will always seem that way to the optimist, yet for the pessimist evil will be victorious.

As for the balance of the two, I think it is a temporary state that ebbs and flows in both directions.

In the show, the answer to the Doctor's question is, of course, the Doctor himself. He, in his travels, throughout all his incarnations, is the factor that tips the scales away from evil. And the joke is, for all his smarts, he's too dumb to know he's the factor.

In the real world: we're supposed to be the factor. Most of the time, most people are, I think. I think evil is mostly uncommon. Thing is: good is fairly mundane-appearing. A kind word, a smile, holdin' the door open for another, etc. all the little gestures, these don't make a splash in our awareness. Rather, those little innocuous happenings accrete in our awareness. Good grows slowly, you can say. Evil can be subtle, can start off small, but it grows fast. It has an inertia. Unchecked, it becomes obvious and, like a speedin' freight train, hard to stop. And it's impossible to stop after a certain point, but mebbe all a person needs to do is find the switch and change the tracks.

[henry quirk]

P.S. Not a Dr. Who fan but humbly respect those who are.

I grew up watchin' the Doctor. He, the character, is a fixture for me, even now, with him, for no damn reason, becomin' a girl, and the awful writing, and the heavy-handed social justice manure, and some of the earlier dark fantasy hooey.

[bahman]

All being is good, evil is a lesser grade of good as a deficiency of good.

Discuss.

Evil is the opposite of good and not the deficiency of good. Why? Because there is a neutral value that resides between good and evil.

[henry quirk]

All being is good, evil is a lesser grade of good as a deficiency of good.

Discuss.

Evil is the opposite of good and not the deficiency of good. Why? Because there is a neutral value that resides between good and evil.

I don't think I can agree. It's fashionable to say things aren't black and white, that there's a whole lot of gray, but it really doesn't seem to be that way.

[Immanuel Can]

...for no damn reason, becomin' a girl...

What, Henry? You're unfamiliar with the ideological push to make us think that women are a kind of supermen?

How many times have you seen a cop show, in which a 100 pound supermodel chases down a 250 lb. bad guy, drops him to the ground with a couple of good shots, and cuffs him? Or don't you know that female athletes, who perform at a fraction of male capacity, are supposed to be "just as good" as men -- so that admitting men to the women's events isn't even supposed to represent a threat to women's athletics? Or haven't you seen that a woman who is dressed stylishly enough and has a clip board is able in a movie to become not only smarter than all the male characters, but also a world expert in nuclear physics by age 22?

There's a whole ideology of unreality surrounding this. Women are supposed to be equal and superior to men in every possible regard. So why not take a beloved male character -- a Dr. Who, a Thor, a Luke Skywalker-type, and make it female, and present it as if nothing's implausible? As if the story is not a bit mangled thereby, and in fact, that the story is made better, because it adds obvious Feminist propaganda to an otherwise ordinary story? So now it's not just a story, it's "good for us" and "super moral" too.

Of course, we all know this is propaganda of the most obvious and shallow kind. But we are told it's GOOD propaganda...it will make society better, if we all learn to believe what we darn well know is not true and will never be true.

And so the evil of being crassly and obviously lied to is clothed in the 'righteous' garb of social justice, and all "for the good of society."

[henry quirk]

Well, my objection to a female Doc is only cuz it makes no sense in the context of the show.

Timelords, it's been long established, can switch sex, if the Karn Witches monkey around with a regeneration, or if a Timelord suicides. Neither apply to the Doc havin' a vagina right now.

It was just wokedness.

Further, the writin' sucks; the plots are awful, the dialog is retarded, and they've fucked up (again) the Master.

Fire the staff, hire me to plot and write, clone Tom Baker, and we'll clear up all this fruity-tooty bullshit quick.

[bahman]

All being is good, evil is a lesser grade of good as a deficiency of good.

Discuss.

Evil is the opposite of good and not the deficiency of good. Why? Because there is a neutral value that resides between good and evil.

I don't think I can agree. It's fashionable to say things aren't black and white, that there's a whole lot of gray, but it really doesn't seem to be that way.

It might help if we think of pleasure and pain as examples of good and evil. There is a spectrum that starts from extreme pleasure, less pleasure, ..., to neutral and then little pain, more pain, ... extreme pain.

[Immanuel Can]

It was just wokedness.

I wonder why they call it "wokeness" when the people who have it have to shut their eyes to these facts all the time. They should probably call it "sleepness," or better, "indoctrinatedness."

... clone Tom Baker...

I've never been a fan of the show, frankly...but the only time I could actually enjoy it a bit was when TB was the star. Then, it was kind of funny and campy. I found all others utterly unwatchable.

[henry quirk]

Evil is the opposite of good and not the deficiency of good. Why? Because there is a neutral value that resides between good and evil.

I don't think I can agree. It's fashionable to say things aren't black and white, that there's a whole lot of gray, but it really doesn't seem to be that way.

It might help if we think of pleasure and pain as examples of good and evil. There is a spectrum that starts from extreme pleasure, less pleasure, ..., to neutral and then little pain, more pain, ... extreme pain.

I don't think that spectrum works either. In my 57 years I've never had a neutral physical moment. I feel good or I feel bad.

In the same way: my motives and intent are good or bad, the actions that follow are good or bad.

I can't see the gray.

[henry quirk]

It was just wokedness.

I wonder why they call it "wokeness" when the people who have it have to shut their eyes to these facts all the time. They should probably call it "sleepness," or better, "indoctrinatedness."

... clone Tom Baker...

I've never been a fan of the show, frankly...but the only time I could actually enjoy it a bit was when TB was the star. Then, it was kind of funny and campy. I found all others utterly unwatchable.

It's Newspeak.

Baker was the best.The David Bradley version of the first Doc is good too. The others: range from okay to awful.

And: yeah, it ain't everybody's cup.

[bahman]

I don't think I can agree. It's fashionable to say things aren't black and white, that there's a whole lot of gray, but it really doesn't seem to be that way.

It might help if we think of pleasure and pain as examples of good and evil. There is a spectrum that starts from extreme pleasure, less pleasure, ..., to neutral and then little pain, more pain, ... extreme pain.

I don't think that spectrum works either. In my 57 years I've never had a neutral physical moment. I feel good or I feel bad.

In the same way: my motives and intent are good or bad, the actions that follow are good or bad.

I can't see the gray.

So you have never felt meh?