What is evil?

I’d rather not address this question directly, as I feel to do so might sell us all short. In fact it begs the question – it assumes that I already believe that there is already some thing such that it is evil. Heidegger would probably have me ask how is evil, but I’m not sure I’m going to take that train of thought either. Nonetheless, in a truly phenomenological spirit, I am prepared to juxtapose my idea of this so called evil with my thoughts on the becoming of the good. How is the good? Here I ascribe to Spinoza, when I say that the good is activity – it is rigorously and incessantly enacting ones reasoning and critical powers. But I will waver from Spinoza’s as to where I suggest this critical application might take us. Whereas Spinoza sees truth in nature, I see no truth except in man’s nature – a nature not posited in god, his essence nor his thought, nor in any eternal anything for that matter – but in the very becoming of his being and hence the becoming of his goodness. Now I know all this probably doesn’t make any sense, but it does in my head, and besides it makes me feel good about myself. Where I’m going with this is good for goodness sake, where man is already good in as much as he is actively seeking goodness.

Now goodness has no center, in fact it’s a sort of Foucaultian truth. Goodness is arrived at when one approaches an understanding of where one thinks one’s goodness is headed in the first place. Thus an account of the good also requires an account of itself. It is the accounting itself from which we derive goodness. The process of seeking, of performing an archeology on our good, is precisely the point from which goodness blossoms – as we open up other more fantastic or mundane possibilities. Goodness grows. In our search for the good, we create the good – but we only become aware of this creation by formulating an awareness of how we feel this goodness grows. The point here is the formulation itself – an occurrence that can only play itself out in activity. Hence the arbitrary expositing of the good for goddness sake, and for the sake of activity.

Now, as long as there is becoming, an activity, there is no evil. On might call passivity evil, as Spinoza does, but I don’t think this is the case. Passivity is just neutrality. You see, with no obvious final destination, to not strive for this destination is not a problem, merely a missed opportunity. For Spinoza there is some ultimate truth. The truth in my understanding is completely derivative of man in relation to himself: individually, socially, and materialistically. And to follow Marx, always changing.

Anyways, that’s all for now – maybe I’ll take this up again another day.