Listen to Etudes ex abrupto about the good and evil of, or perhaps and there is no GOOD AND EVIL? And if is: where then the GOOD comes to an end and the EVIL begins? Where this invisible side? Perhaps it where for one begins GOOD and for others is inevitable, as a result of the beginning of GOOD, the EVIL and vice versa begins? (The chief allowed one of employees not to come three days to work in connection with a wedding, a funeral, etc birth. For this employee the chief and his act personifies the kind beginning. For the colleague of this employee the chief with the charity is the EVIL because the part of duties of the first employee lays down on shoulders of the second. In other words “Where freedom of one begins, freedom of another comes to an end).
After creation of the world and the person, suffering and a grief - the EVILS did not exist. But through Adam and Eve`s fall both the grief, and suffering - the EVIL came to the world. I will assume that after that to the world God released equal quantity of the inexhaustible GOOD AND EVIL (or if you want, the PERSON himself created the EVIL), which later, by affairs kind and angry it was hopelessly fragmented, mixed up, redistributed, and now in one place the GOOD prevails, and the EVIL in absolute minority, and in other place on the contrary - obvious overweight of the EVIL and an acute shortage she is KIND. Temples (in general God`s houses, whether it be orthodox church, the Muslim mosque or the Jewish synagogue) as an inexhaustible pure spring &ndash can be an example of the first; source of BELIEF, NADEZHDA, LOVE, and, therefore, ETERNAL GOOD, example of the second of war, as black clot of the universal EVIL, as, also, perennial spring of DEATH, GRIEF, HATRED, and, therefore, ETERNAL EVIL.
If to trust the ancient writing of many people of the world, in the world identical quantity of the GOOD AND EVIL which cannot neither increase, nor decrease and whose balance is broken for a long time by the person, then, being good to one, you simply take away part of GOOD from another, and, therefore, being good to the first, you make the EVIL for the second as, having taken away from it its share of GOOD, its place is taken right there by the EVIL because, as we know, the nature does not suffer emptiness, and if it arises, then the nature right there tries to fill it.
Imagine group of people on the desert island which initially gave two crystals - a crystal of good and a crystal of the evil, in each of which on 1000 grams of weight. In a pursuit of GOOD, in infinite fights and intrigues, for the sake of themselves, the family and darlings, people hopelessly hurt them into small pieces. Parts of both crystals mixed up. Someone had more crystal of good and less crystal of the evil, at someone on the contrary. And now, taking away from someone from the tribespeople part of a crystal of good, it is necessary to give the same part of a crystal of the evil (part of a crystal of good in exchange you will not give as the required effect is leveled), that is, adding itself GOOD, you inevitably return to someone ANGRILY. If GOOD somewhere increased, then, so it somewhere and it was lowered. Immutable law of physics, law of life.
Therefore, quite naturally arises a question: and whether it is necessary to do good in general? Back, being good to one, you, thereby, will do the EVIL to others. Raising two children, and giving a maximum of time and attention to one to bring up in it the worthy adolescent, you, thereby, on as much deprive of time and attention of other offspring, or even if you evenly distribute the forces, time and attention between them two, you, without fail will deprive of both of them that maximum of forces, time and attention which could give them. That is, making GOOD in relation to one, you, thereby, make the EVIL with what this EVIL would not be - considerable or not, in relation to another. Therefore, so often, in families where two and more children grew, one grows up with feeling of deprivation, offense that to it gave short love, attention, formation of et cetera though often happens and vice versa, but in most cases it is only an external mask, following to the standard norms of society.
is Only not necessary, it is sorry, stupid to repeat since the childhood to a soreness of the mouth the learned mantra that it is necessary to do good, simply to do good and to throw it into the river. Drummed certain “truth“, but why we blindly have to follow them into us? Unless there is only one point of view, or, nevertheless them a little, hundreds and thousands? In the people speak: “If you do not want the evil, then do not do good“, and it is evil not only itself, but also others, in general. The modern person understands it better, than our parents, for example, and does not hurry to do good deeds not to receive to himself the EVIL.
Another the moment is that the EVIL is ineradicable and it is necessary. V. Shukshin`s hero in the movie “Guelder-rose Red“, “accountant“ from ruchishcha in headdresses who at one of the truth moments, at the moment of the highest sincere heat, exclaims something it seems is remembered: “Criminal I! Recidivist! Was born the criminal, the criminal and I will die!“, being the evil beginning, though against the will (because the destiny does not ask whom and what you want to be). Its attempt to break through from a dark half of the EVIL in a light half of GOOD comes to an end with his death because to move such amount of the EVIL from a dark half of the EVIL on a light half of GOOD, it is necessary to force out uniform amount of GOOD from a light half of GOOD on a dark half of the EVIL, and it to it, even by means of GOOD of the girlfriend, it is not possible.
I in general, “the dobra will not be enough for all“, there cannot be all of us kind. In the world it is as much EVIL how many she is KIND, and someone has to be the “walking“ EVIL. Not to avoid it. Also, if there is no EVIL - means, is not present and she is KIND. GOOD only then GOOD when the EVIL is near. Therefore, it is ANGRILY necessary. It is necessary for the GOOD. Therefore, it can is necessary to try to perceive the EVIL as something necessary and “normal“ without what it cannot be KIND.
One more, very interesting moment of this subject of conversation, is that the vast majority of homo sapiens sincerely believes that they without fail are carriers she is KIND, but is not ANGRY. All assumption of presence at them of the evil beginning revolts them. They sacredly believe that in them not that, the kind beginning, and that they, in general, walking good, all white and with wings prevails. Also they behave respectively, showing to all to themselves only to the best advantage, according to the standard ideas of the GOOD AND EVIL to society. Any manifestation of the EVIL in society is strictly and stupidly punished. As if, having punished ANGRILY ANGRY society, hopes to receive GOOD.
Grew the boy in children`s home. Underate, did not fill up. He was beaten, humiliated, perhaps, he underwent sexual violence. Could not arrive anywhere - unsuccessful do not take. “Normal“ could not find work - it is not worthy. To years to eighteen made the first trip where again, it was “re-educated“. He did not see the humane relation though itself still remained the person. That is, for years, persistently in it destroyed the PERSON, drove the EVIL in it, bad it or good - it is unimportant, society drove in into it in all ways EVILS, of course, hoping to receive in exchange GOOD and what else? When the society DOBRA did not receive, it was indignant: “How so? So many forces are spent, and you the PERSON did not become. It is necessary to punish further you and a post-ugly face“. It is asked and from where to undertake to GOOD? Who will offer the GOOD, and in exchange will receive the EVIL? There are no fools.
Other moment: in the Writing Jesus taught not resistance to the EVIL. “If to hit you on the left cheek, substitute right“. What is it? the Majority incorrectly interprets this deep thought, taking such behavior for weakness manifestation. Nine of ten inhabitants will condemn any who will not answer blow in a face. Also Jesus learns to love the enemies and to pray for them. This deep thought is also obscure to the modern person and if it is clear, then very few people hurry to follow it. The majority will follow Moiseyev to the doctrine “eye for an eye, tooth for tooth“ rather. It is closer and more clear to us. So, all - Jesus from Nazareth wanted to tell these? He wanted to tell that he ANGRILY surely generates the EVIL, and the GOOD is KIND. Therefore, having answered with blow blow, you will be a successor of the EVIL, its transmitter, and often bigger EVIL as reciprocal action usually carries big force, than initial. Almost increasing wars began here with such “slap in the face“. You remember, at D. Swift on “Gulliver`s Travel“ one folk of Liliputians was at war with another only from - for the fact that one broke egg since the sharp end, and others from stupid. From - for such trifles, “slaps in the face“, thousand-year war began.
But Jesus Christ`s doctrine, only one of many doctrines about the GOOD AND EVIL. As we know, the same Moisey received several other “manuals“ from God (all this in the same Bible). Islam, for example, teaches us to the same to what and the Old Testament, that is to the fact that blood can be redeemed only with blood. That to ancient, their gods and their customs as it is well-known, were famous for the bloodthirstiness.
often understand the EVIL As GOOD, and in the EVIL see GOOD. Really, if mother brings up the child in excessive caress and care, she does it “a disservice“ as, having grown, and having turned from the child into the husband, the person will be of little use to life owing to what it will become unfortunate, or at all will die. And, on the contrary, having brought up the offspring in severity and even Spartan rigidity, parents will prepare the child for future independent life. He will grow up strong and clever, and will bring good to the state and people. And earlier, in general, careless children were beaten birches and put on peas, thereby, generating GOOD … or ANGRILY?
our school “kind“ teachers were “angry“ subsequently, and “angry“, on the contrary, “kind“ as well as parents, friends, wives of etc.
Is remembered when James Cook arrived to the archipelago to Paumot, he saw how natives deal shortly with the prisoners, chopping off big sharp knives of subjects of the head, he was indignant with cruelty and the EVIL which reigned on islands. Explained to him later that natives were “very soft“ with the captives, having just chopped off that the heads because usually the soldier of the enemy tribe taken prisoner in fight was exposed to the most severe tortures. Thereby leaders of the won tribe bore GOOD to the world. Having given
to the beggar ruble at church which in nine cases from ten, will spend on drink it or will let on “çàêóñü“, you make GOOD or the EVIL? For KINDLY, and for it? Having forgiven to
your offender, you make GOOD or the EVIL? And for whom KINDLY, and for whom ANGRILY?
So is the GOOD AND EVIL? Where one begins and another comes to an end? Whether exist, in general, the GOOD AND EVIL? Who will answer?