The meaning of the word "evil" in 12 dictionaries

Bad people do bad things, and if people and actions are truly bad, we call them “evil.” Other words can be used - immoral, depraved, vicious - they all describe the same situation of violating moral boundaries. But the word “evil” has a specific connotation, a certain metaphysical connotation acquired as a result of centuries-old associations with religious concepts.

Evil, which is in irreconcilable cosmic opposition to good, is inextricably linked with the idea of sin, violation of the Divine will. The supposed opposition to God (or gods) is often personified by the figure of the devil (or devils). In the Christian tradition, the supreme embodiment of evil is Satan, the crafty enemy of God, whose minions, demons, inhabit people in order to incite them to various kinds of atrocities.

What is considered evil?

At first glance, the close connection between evil and sin is a ready answer to the question about the definition of evil - what it is. From this point of view, an action or phenomenon is considered evil simply because it violates Divine law: morality is based on the Divine will; good is good and evil is evil for the simple reason that God has decreed that it should be so. And since the word of God is preserved in the Bible and other sacred texts, we have a detailed account of what God likes and dislikes, and therefore we have an authoritative guide as to what we should and should not do.

The Supreme Incarnation of Evil is Satan

Most people throughout human history have certainly accepted this concept of morality, good and evil, without question. But, nevertheless, problems remain. First, the various religious texts through which the will of God has been made known to people contain many contradictory and/or rather unpleasant statements. And therefore it is not at all easy, using the instructions of God himself, to build a consistent system of morality. The second problem, questioning the nature of Divine authority, was first formulated by Plato approximately 2400 years ago in the dialogue Euthyphro. Suppose good and evil are determined by God's approval or disapproval. But then is evil vicious because it is displeasing to God, or is evil displeasing to God because it is vicious? If the first, then it turns out that God could have decided differently - he could well have approved genocide (let’s say), and then genocide would have been considered good; in this case, morality is no different from blind submission to despotic power. And if the second statement is true—God does not like evil, because it is vicious—it turns out that its viciousness does not depend on God; in this case we don’t need God at all. So, when it comes to morality, God is either a despot or has nothing to do with it at all - a sad conclusion for those who seek to make God the official guarantor of their ethics.

“Evil cannot cease completely, for there must always remain something opposed to good” Plato, 4th century. BC e.

Punching bag and dancing until you drop

In fact, there are a lot of ways to relieve tension that are harmless to others: you can, for example, beat a desk punching bag (many bosses, by the way, are given one of these), run five kilometers, tear up a stack of newspapers, dance until you drop, wash the floors, yell at “ scream bag” (just kidding, it’s for kids). Breathing also helps a lot: take a deep breath and slowly, carefully exhale, inhale - you-s-exhale, inhale - you-s-exhale.

But the main thing that needs to be done when the rushing aggressive energy is about to destroy all living things is to track your state, realize it and speak out the feelings that arise (“so, I’m angry now, oh, I’m very angry, I’m just indignant, I’m torn with rage, here I’ll explode now.” It is also useful at this very moment to try to describe your physical sensations: everything is compressed here, tense there, goosebumps all over your body, hands clenched into fists, lips trembling... While you are choosing expressions, you will begin to calm down. And in general, it’s worth bringing more healthy indifference into your life: train simply, without emotions, to perceive what is happening around you, and not react in any way to what is happening. “Turn on” the philosopher - then you will no longer be affected by many life circumstances and minor inconveniences.

Everyone, of course, is still concerned with the question of what to do with the aggressive environment around us? How to react to everyone who interferes with your life? Mental maturity is, of course, good, but when everyone around you is on edge, you involuntarily become the same, right?

There is an opinion in psychology: what kind of person is - such situations “come” to him. And another opinion, close: everything that I see in others is all mine. If I notice envy, indifference, contempt or anger around me, it means it’s in me too. If I didn’t have this in me, then I would have no way to see it in others, you know? So changes in the outside world always begin with changes in yourself. In order for there to be fewer aggressive and embittered individuals around, you need to smile more yourself.

And further. Very often, what lies behind hostile, conflictual behavior is not natural aggressiveness or increased irascibility, but simply fear. Fear of being rejected, misunderstood. Fear of being ridiculed, of appearing stupid or incompetent. Remember this when someone says something unkind to you. If behind the next rudeness you see not an ill-mannered blockhead, but a person alone among the crowd, you will no longer want to say nasty things in return.

You will be sorry.

Not himself - him.

The Problem of Evil

Among the questions about good and evil and God’s attitude towards them, the most insidious is probably the so-called “problem of evil” - how the existence of God and the presence of evil in the world are combined.

The world is obviously full of evil: hunger, murder, earthquakes, disease - the future of millions of innocent people is being destroyed, children are becoming orphans, thousands of families are left without a roof over their heads, babies and old people are dying in terrible torment. Anyone who is able to stop a series of suffering with a wave of his hand, but does not do this, is a heartless monster. And yet it is assumed that God, who has the power to stop all this horror, is an infinitely wise and merciful being. Evil is everywhere, but how can it exist in parallel with God, who, by definition, is able to put an end to it?

This problem arises as an inevitable consequence of the concept of God in which certain properties are attributed to him. Traditionally it is believed that God:

omniscient: he (or she, or it) knows everything;
omnipotent: he is able to do anything;
all-good: he strives to do all good.

But it follows that God knows all about the pain and suffering in our world, that he is able to prevent it, and that he strives to do so. It turns out that if we do not deny the presence of evil in the world, then either God does not exist, or he does not possess the listed properties: he does not know what is happening; he just can't do anything about it; he doesn't care.

Is it possible to explain how evil and God, with all his supernatural qualities, can coexist? It is usually argued that there are “morally sound reasons” why God, while remaining a morally perfect being, does not always relieve us of suffering. In a sense, it is in our best interests—for our benefit—that God allows evil to exist in the world.

So what is this greater good that justifies the suffering of countless people? Perhaps the most powerful and convincing answer to the problem of evil is the so-called “free will argument,” according to which our suffering is the price (and a reasonable price) for the ability to make free choices. Another important idea is that true morality is forged on the anvil of suffering: only by overcoming difficulties, helping the oppressed, opposing tyranny, etc., does a person turn into a saint or a hero, illuminating the world with an unfading light. However, such arguments look superficial next to the obvious injustice of life. The point is not only that the total amount of evil and misfortune is such that it is difficult to explain it with “educational” goals, but the greatest suffering falls on the lot of virtuous people, while vice remains unpunished.

Evil in European artistic culture of the late 20th - early 21st centuries

The books of Antonin Artaud are read and practical attempts are made to create a “Theater of Cruelty”.
Jean Genet sets out in his work - according to J. Bataille - in search of Evil. And J.P. Sartre at the same time called Jean Genet a “saint.”
The artistic logic of both examples given lies in line with Nietzschean metaphysics: if a person is not able to “get” to unconditional good, then perhaps his fate lies on the other side of good and evil.
The cinema of the late Alfred Hitchcock depicts a respectable, godless world shaken by vague but all-powerful anxiety and evil.
In the midst of serial production of horror films, peculiar neo-romantic masterpieces emerge (for example, Ridley Scott's Alien).
“The Matrix” by the Wachowski brothers presents a picture of a fictional, machine-like “good” world, deprived of free will.

Unlucky to be bad?

To what extent are the evil intentions we attribute to people and their actions due to luck? We can manifest bad or positive character traits only if circumstances provide us with such an opportunity: in this sense, we are all at the mercy of luck. We may think that we are incapable of cruelty similar to the Nazi atrocities at Auschwitz, but we cannot be completely sure of this. The only thing we can say for sure is that we are very lucky that we will never know for sure.

In defense of free will

The existence of evil is the most serious problem facing proponents of the idea of an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God. Historically, the most popular and compelling version—showing that there are good reasons why an unconditionally moral God allows evil to exist—has been the so-called “free will defense.” Free will, it says, is God's greatest gift to humanity: the freedom to make informed choices allows us to live a truly worthwhile life in deep, loving, trusting inner contact with God. However, how we use this gift is a matter of our conscience; The freedom given to us can be used for evil. This is a justifiable risk, for God could not destroy the deceit and meanness of human nature without simultaneously depriving us of the ability to consciously do good.

Share link

Notes

[terme.ru/dictionary/180/word/zlo/ Evil] // Philosophical Encyclopedic Dictionary. - M.: Soviet Encyclopedia, 1989.
[terme.ru/dictionary/194/word/zlo Evil] // Solovyov V. S.
Explanatory dictionary of philosophy.
[terme.ru/dictionary/180/word/zlo/ Evil] // Philosophical Encyclopedic Dictionary / Ed.-comp. E. F. Gubsky and others - 2003.
Skripnik A.P.
[iph.ras.ru/elib/1135.html Evil] // New philosophical encyclopedia / Institute of Philosophy RAS; National social-scientific fund; Pred. scientific-ed. Council V. S. Stepin, deputy chairmen: A. A. Guseinov, G. Yu. Semigin, student. secret A. P. Ogurtsov. — 2nd ed., rev. and additional - M.: Mysl, 2010. - ISBN 978-5-244-01115-9.
Solovyov V.S.
Evil // Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Efron: in 86 volumes (82 volumes and 4 additional). - St. Petersburg, 1890-1907.

Essence of the term

The lexical meaning of the word “evil” helps to reveal its content more deeply. More broadly, evil can be characterized as a certain mechanism that awakens violent elements inside a person, causing destructive states. From this point of view, the term reveals its meaning in all manifestations in which people have an unpleasant evaluative reaction and negative perception. Let's say that deception and hooliganism fall under this interpretation. Viewed more narrowly, evil can be defined as the suffering of sentient beings and the violation of moral standards.

Thus, evil is an evaluative degree of moral consciousness, the opposite of the term good, generally denoting what is morally negative and impermissible in the actions and thoughts of people and in the phenomena of reality.

The most accurate practice of forgiveness

Orthodoxy reveals the essence of the methodology in quite detail, concealing some points. Principles:

Forgive the offender, the enemy, the sorcerer. Internally abandon the idea of vengeance. Preferably out loud, calling the enemy by name.
Wish your enemy the happiest, best, dream come true.
Forget about the trouble that happened. Forever. Never return to the past with angry thoughts or regrets.

The Orthodox say: “You hit one cheek, turn the other.” But we are not satisfied with this version of softness. It is advisable that the offender be unable to eat or sleep.

The psychological treatment of forgiveness, which translates it into a targeted blow, is now available. Please read and use carefully. It is safe.

We need to put aside our annoyance and look at the situation “from above.” Step back from your own emotions. Just move it away for a while. Now do the instant ritual:

The intent to harm is imbued with eerie horror. Try to understand what brought your opponent into a state of panic. It is advisable to get to the bottom of the truth, which is not difficult.
Imagine this pitiful creature, trembling with fear. And yourself next to you - a harmonious, balanced personality, slightly affected by slander. Who's worse off now?
Have pity on the envious person, languishing from fear, trying to rely on your strength.