satyr wrote:For the human spirit, emerging into a cosmos that is not entirely known, nor benevolent, not kind - increasingly becoming self-aware - the matter of 'evil' is what he cannot deal with.
he may call it 'evil', in an Abrahamic paradigm of good/evil dualities, or if he is awakened further and becomes secular, he may call it 'chaos' in the more abstract (semiotic) order/chaos mathematical paradigm.
Chaos, Evil Satan, is what terrifies him. It is what he cannot reason with, rationalize, comprehend, and so cannot predict, nor fabricate strategies to deal with. It is beyond his ability, making him feel vulnerable and helpless.
well the theist's (of an anthropomorphic god of some variety) concern here is not with 'evil' per se, but with the personal consequences that might be experienced by one if they commit evil deeds. and an emphasis is made to this concern when in addition to the problem of evil, there is also the question of immortality. now one is especially concerned with the problem of evil because part of this theory of immortality involves the problem of being punished (eternally or not... as in the case of purgatory) if one commits evil deeds. you'll note here that a religion which does not profess immortality, but does believe in the existence of evil, is less concerned about it and does not consider it a real problem. why... because evil would only be a temporary condition of/in life... not something one needs to be careful to avoid for fear of suffering in the afterlife if they commit evil deeds.
in any case, you'd be wrong to say that they "cannot deal with it". the 'dealing with it' involves the same kind of theorizing that everyone does regarding philosophical and spiritual matters; believing is something which is consoling to them... something that justifies and makes bearable whatever distress they experience while living. everybody does this, including yourself. for you, the atheist pagan, redemption from life's absurdity comes in the form of conserving traditional values (let's say). however, in the language of stirner (if i may), this is just another form of the sacred, something which is alien to you and exalted involuntarily to gratify your ego. the idea that you 'belong' to some history, some ancestry and culture, some ideal, which you believe is the 'correct' one, is just another fixed idea... a spook... a distraction to keep you occupied in life as you deal with the absurdity of the human condition in general.
you might say only in the rarest occasions does one liberate oneself from the labyrinths of philosophy... and it takes a lot of work to do it. those of us who stick around among the philosophers are a kind of bodhisattva class of epistemology. we descend among you once in a while but usually just observe.
anyway, the difference between you and the theist is not in the form of belief, but the content of it. whether superstitious or scientifically verifiable, the purpose is the same; to provide material around which you construct some meaning and value which you then commit to while living to give your life purpose. here you admit this much:
satyr wrote:He will forever seek comfort in any ideology that promises a theoretical relief.
do not forget to include yourself. your ideology is merely another brand of the same stuff... an involuntary egoist's exaltation of something alien to him as a fixed and sacred idea he can commit to to keep himself occupied while living (often at the expense of his own advantage, or, to give him something to 'stand for' in the case that he needs some kind of struggle... so that he can experience some kind of success).
no shit... sometimes people actually and unwittingly invent imaginary problems and struggles in their head just for the sake of having an opportunity to be bold. in other words, if a man doesn't have a battle, he'll invent one in his head so he can play the role of the warrior he so emulates. and a 'battle', here, is anything the philosopher or politician (a type of warrior) believes is a matter of emergency. that is, when he believes something is happening in the world that is 'wrong', whether this be something directly and immediately at odds with himself, or a network of epiphenomenal mental concepts in his head that give him the feeling of cognitive dissonance. and neither of these are his fault; he is not responsible for being able to think in terms of 'right' and 'wrong', or for learning what he has over the course of his life. so, for instance, take any diametrically opposed ideologies... such as feminists and anti-feminists. neither of them is right or wrong (becase there is no such thing) and they're each doing the same thing; reacting to the contingencies of what they have learned, committing to a course of action that what they have learned dictates, and believing they are doing the right thing as such.
now all this is perfectly okay because that's what humans do. this isn't so much a protest as it is a revelation about what 'philosophizing' is. in a way it can be best described as nietzsche said; the personal testimony of one's own life. like an autobiography, one does philosophy and tells us nothing about the truth or even reality... only what one has learned, what has become fixed ideas in the mind, something they had no control over.
one can blame an ecmandu no sooner than one can blame an iambiguous or a satyr. each is doing essentially the same thing. living out in real time a philosophical autobiography with no more contact with the real world than a science fiction writer. well because if they had made contact they'd be writing in the natural sciences and not doing philosophy.
always remember what uncle wittgenstein told us: philosophy leaves everything exactly like it was before it got there.