As a full-on Neoplatonist, there's so much in this conversation that resonates, despite being neither a Christian nor a stoic. I've not read Boethius, though I'm quite familiar with his name. I particularly enjoyed Doctor Ward's brief walk through the logic linking evil with weakness and his explanation of the somewhat counterintuitive (and Platonic) claim that, despite appearances, the wicked never prosper. It's something that I've been meditating on myself lately, especially how it relates to the transcendental desire for the Good. So I was pleased to hear this all discussed here! Anyway, I really enjoy the channel. I have for some time now. Your interviews with specialists on the philosophy of mind are constant favorites of mine (esp., Rickabaugh, Taliaferro, Reppert, Slagle, and Hasker). Keep up the great work.
@@allenanderson4567 bro! This is a huge encouragement! Thanks for sharing this, sometimes I wonder if anyone cares about this podcast, great to know there are folks like you out there. Especially interesting that you're not a believer and enjoy it still
I don't know, I feel like committing evil acts definitely takes strength. Being evil is not easy. Knowing the consequences of our actions is not the same thing as dealing with the consequences. Hell, being good isn't a walk in the park either. That's just a lie people like to preach because it sounds good.
@@Sorcerollo From @30:00 to @40:26 Dr. Ward explains the connection between evil and weakness as understood in the classical tradition. I would explain it in slightly different terms (which are in essential agreement with Ward's explanation): The good is the constitutive aim of action because action, by its nature, is directed toward some perceived good that defines its essence and makes it intelligible. The ultimate goal of all human action is, for lack of a better word, happiness or fulfilment. The value of our more immediate goals is always derived from how those goals are thought to contribute to our attainment of this more overarching aim. Thus, the good is what everyone ultimately wills and what every action aims at. However, we often err in our pursuit of our true good. We misjudge what is worth pursuing due to vice, or weakness of will, or some other lack of virtue. We often substitute a lesser perceived good for the attainment of our highest good. Often this is due to vice, or incompetence, or a lack of wisdom or some other virtue. It is only through the perfection of the virtues that we develop the capacity to know and act effectively toward what it is we actually desire. The failure to act effectively toward the good we always already desire is what evil and vice are, ultimately. Vice is a lack of some capacity, like wisdom or courage, required to know and attain the end we seek. Evil-doers, of course, think they are acting to attain what they want, but insofar as they do evil they are deceived: they take some end as desirable, which is to say, they judge it as conducive to the attainment of the good that they seek, when in fact it is the opposite. Evil is a form of stupidity and impotence, a failure to know and to attain what one is actually striving for. It is, in that sense, a weakness. As Dr. Ward puts it, “weakness is the inability to get what you want,” or we might say, “the inability to achieve what one is always aiming at in every action.” Once we understand that all motivation is a desire for the good, and that it is this good that all action aims at, then it becomes clear how evil is actually a weakness.
@allenanderson4567 Well, then, by that definition, the church is evil. They have not succeeded in converting the world to believe their doctrine of what is good and holy and the highest aim of a human being.
@@Sorcerollo The point I was trying to make (but perhaps failing to communicate clearly) is NOT that evil consists in the failure to attain whatever goal one happens to be aiming at, but that it consists in the failure to act for the sake of an end that is in fact conducive to one’s actual good-the good that constitutes the fundamental object of all one’s striving and which one desires in desiring anything at all. The good for any being consists in those perfections proper to its nature: A plant is perfected (and attains is good) when it grows strong, bears fruit, and flourishes. The human being is perfected through the cultivation of moral and intellectual virtues proper to our rational/spiritual nature (and ultimately through divine grace, charis, endosis, or shaktipati which unites us to the divine which is the implicit and ultimate end of all our desire). “Evil,” as Proclus says, “consists in lacking the appropriate virtue” which of course “does not exist in the same way in all beings.” (On The Existence of Evils. 25). Thus, evil is always the privation of some perfection, the absence or deficiency of some positive quality that should be present in some being given its nature. The morally evil desires, intentions and actions of human beings arise from the more basic lack of some perfection in their nature, which is to say, the absence or deficiency in some virtue. The irony is that such a soul is disordered and disharmonious in that it is fundamentally at odds with itself: in willing evil, one intends and pursues some end one mistakenly sees as good (at least for oneself), but which is in fact bad and brings harm to oneself alongside whoever else it harms. It’s this state of being at odds with what one truly wants (i.e., one’s actual good, i.e., virtue and ultimately union with the divine) that makes evil, fundamentally, a kind of impotence. While I am not a Christian myself (and so don’t have any personal stake in defending the church from the accusation that it is evil), I don’t think that the position I’ve articulated implies that it is. While it may be an ideal goal of the church's mission that it converts everybody, the mere fact that this is an end at which the church aims does not entail that the church's good consists in its successfully attaining this end. For one thing, the account I've laid out centers on the perfection of those qualities that constitute a thing's essence or nature, which, as any Platonist, Aristotelian, or Stoic will tell you, has nothing to do with consequences external to the agent's character. Whether everyone converts is not within the control of the church, it is up to the free choice of the would-be convert. So, on the classical account I'm articulating, this has nothing to do with the church's good. It is not a privation of some perfection within the church's nature that it has not succeeded in converting everyone, because, once again, whether a given individual converts is not up to the church but that individual. Moreover, it's not clear to me how this account of goodness as rooted in the nature or essence of a thing should be applied to social institutions like the church. I'm sure there's some application, but I'm doubtful that simply treating the church as an individual agent is the way to go. Anyways, I hope that clarifies things.
Hi Parker, I recently joined the Patreon for this since I wanted to support you there. When I click the link to the discord on your membership page, it takes me to a page with no channels on it. Is this an issue on my end or did something happen to the Discord?
Just started getting interested in different types of philosophy... So many words, so little brain cells. I think I understood like 40% of this video. I have so much to learn still 😅
As a full-on Neoplatonist, there's so much in this conversation that resonates, despite being neither a Christian nor a stoic. I've not read Boethius, though I'm quite familiar with his name. I particularly enjoyed Doctor Ward's brief walk through the logic linking evil with weakness and his explanation of the somewhat counterintuitive (and Platonic) claim that, despite appearances, the wicked never prosper. It's something that I've been meditating on myself lately, especially how it relates to the transcendental desire for the Good. So I was pleased to hear this all discussed here!
Anyway, I really enjoy the channel. I have for some time now. Your interviews with specialists on the philosophy of mind are constant favorites of mine (esp., Rickabaugh, Taliaferro, Reppert, Slagle, and Hasker). Keep up the great work.
@@allenanderson4567 bro! This is a huge encouragement! Thanks for sharing this, sometimes I wonder if anyone cares about this podcast, great to know there are folks like you out there. Especially interesting that you're not a believer and enjoy it still
I don't know, I feel like committing evil acts definitely takes strength. Being evil is not easy. Knowing the consequences of our actions is not the same thing as dealing with the consequences. Hell, being good isn't a walk in the park either. That's just a lie people like to preach because it sounds good.
@@Sorcerollo From @30:00 to @40:26 Dr. Ward explains the connection between evil and weakness as understood in the classical tradition. I would explain it in slightly different terms (which are in essential agreement with Ward's explanation):
The good is the constitutive aim of action because action, by its nature, is directed toward some perceived good that defines its essence and makes it intelligible.
The ultimate goal of all human action is, for lack of a better word, happiness or fulfilment. The value of our more immediate goals is always derived from how those goals are thought to contribute to our attainment of this more overarching aim. Thus, the good is what everyone ultimately wills and what every action aims at.
However, we often err in our pursuit of our true good. We misjudge what is worth pursuing due to vice, or weakness of will, or some other lack of virtue. We often substitute a lesser perceived good for the attainment of our highest good. Often this is due to vice, or incompetence, or a lack of wisdom or some other virtue. It is only through the perfection of the virtues that we develop the capacity to know and act effectively toward what it is we actually desire.
The failure to act effectively toward the good we always already desire is what evil and vice are, ultimately. Vice is a lack of some capacity, like wisdom or courage, required to know and attain the end we seek. Evil-doers, of course, think they are acting to attain what they want, but insofar as they do evil they are deceived: they take some end as desirable, which is to say, they judge it as conducive to the attainment of the good that they seek, when in fact it is the opposite.
Evil is a form of stupidity and impotence, a failure to know and to attain what one is actually striving for. It is, in that sense, a weakness. As Dr. Ward puts it, “weakness is the inability to get what you want,” or we might say, “the inability to achieve what one is always aiming at in every action.” Once we understand that all motivation is a desire for the good, and that it is this good that all action aims at, then it becomes clear how evil is actually a weakness.
@allenanderson4567 Well, then, by that definition, the church is evil. They have not succeeded in converting the world to believe their doctrine of what is good and holy and the highest aim of a human being.
@@Sorcerollo The point I was trying to make (but perhaps failing to communicate clearly) is NOT that evil consists in the failure to attain whatever goal one happens to be aiming at, but that it consists in the failure to act for the sake of an end that is in fact conducive to one’s actual good-the good that constitutes the fundamental object of all one’s striving and which one desires in desiring anything at all. The good for any being consists in those perfections proper to its nature: A plant is perfected (and attains is good) when it grows strong, bears fruit, and flourishes. The human being is perfected through the cultivation of moral and intellectual virtues proper to our rational/spiritual nature (and ultimately through divine grace, charis, endosis, or shaktipati which unites us to the divine which is the implicit and ultimate end of all our desire). “Evil,” as Proclus says, “consists in lacking the appropriate virtue” which of course “does not exist in the same way in all beings.” (On The Existence of Evils. 25). Thus, evil is always the privation of some perfection, the absence or deficiency of some positive quality that should be present in some being given its nature. The morally evil desires, intentions and actions of human beings arise from the more basic lack of some perfection in their nature, which is to say, the absence or deficiency in some virtue. The irony is that such a soul is disordered and disharmonious in that it is fundamentally at odds with itself: in willing evil, one intends and pursues some end one mistakenly sees as good (at least for oneself), but which is in fact bad and brings harm to oneself alongside whoever else it harms. It’s this state of being at odds with what one truly wants (i.e., one’s actual good, i.e., virtue and ultimately union with the divine) that makes evil, fundamentally, a kind of impotence. While I am not a Christian myself (and so don’t have any personal stake in defending the church from the accusation that it is evil), I don’t think that the position I’ve articulated implies that it is. While it may be an ideal goal of the church's mission that it converts everybody, the mere fact that this is an end at which the church aims does not entail that the church's good consists in its successfully attaining this end. For one thing, the account I've laid out centers on the perfection of those qualities that constitute a thing's essence or nature, which, as any Platonist, Aristotelian, or Stoic will tell you, has nothing to do with consequences external to the agent's character. Whether everyone converts is not within the control of the church, it is up to the free choice of the would-be convert. So, on the classical account I'm articulating, this has nothing to do with the church's good. It is not a privation of some perfection within the church's nature that it has not succeeded in converting everyone, because, once again, whether a given individual converts is not up to the church but that individual. Moreover, it's not clear to me how this account of goodness as rooted in the nature or essence of a thing should be applied to social institutions like the church. I'm sure there's some application, but I'm doubtful that simply treating the church as an individual agent is the way to go. Anyways, I hope that clarifies things.
You had me at Boethius!
@@Padronfan 🙌🙌🙌
1:06:25 - metaphilosophical eudaimonism!
Hi Parker, I recently joined the Patreon for this since I wanted to support you there. When I click the link to the discord on your membership page, it takes me to a page with no channels on it. Is this an issue on my end or did something happen to the Discord?
Great video
🙌🙌🫡🫡
Just started getting interested in different types of philosophy... So many words, so little brain cells. I think I understood like 40% of this video. I have so much to learn still 😅
😂. lol it’s fine you’ve got time. Read your Bible 😠 first, lol I’m not mad at you but seriously the philosophical sophistication is undermined.
u lost ur substance dualism? wen bro?
Lol what? Never