04.02.2013 Views

GUIDE TO THE PHILOSOPHY 1938 - 1947.pdf - Rare Books at ...

GUIDE TO THE PHILOSOPHY 1938 - 1947.pdf - Rare Books at ...

GUIDE TO THE PHILOSOPHY 1938 - 1947.pdf - Rare Books at ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

A <strong>THE</strong>ORY OF GOOD OR VALUE 453<br />

generaliz<strong>at</strong>ion about the n<strong>at</strong>ure of things. If it were in fact<br />

the case th<strong>at</strong> the meaning of evil and the meaning of X<br />

always applied to the same things,<br />

and th<strong>at</strong> there was no<br />

case of the one applying and not the other, then one would<br />

have hit upon an important truth, and it would be an<br />

important truth just because we should already have a<br />

definite (though unanalysable) meaning for the word evil<br />

in our minds, which we could compare with the known<br />

meaning of X and recognize<br />

to be identical with it. In<br />

other words the proposition "evil is X", whether right<br />

or wrong, is a significant and not merely a verbal proposition.<br />

It is not a st<strong>at</strong>ement to the effect th<strong>at</strong> two words are<br />

being used in the same sense. Hence though the proposition<br />

may in fact be true, it does not give us the meaning of the<br />

word evil, and it does not do this for the reason th<strong>at</strong> there<br />

is no word X such th<strong>at</strong> the meaning of it is identical with<br />

th<strong>at</strong> of the word evil.<br />

It follows th<strong>at</strong> st<strong>at</strong>ements like "evil is disobedience to<br />

the will of God", or "evil is absence of good",<br />

are not<br />

dictionary definitions like the definition of a quadril<strong>at</strong>eral,<br />

but are affirm<strong>at</strong>ions about the things th<strong>at</strong> are evil. This,<br />

indeed, seems in any event probable from the number of<br />

different and incomp<strong>at</strong>ible definitions of evil th<strong>at</strong> have in<br />

fact been suggested. There have never been two incom-<br />

p<strong>at</strong>ible definitions of the word "quadril<strong>at</strong>eral".<br />

Th<strong>at</strong> Evil is Not the Depriv<strong>at</strong>ion or Opposite of Good.<br />

(iv) A word may be added with regard to the particular<br />

definition of evil as "the absence of", or "the depriv<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

of", or "the limit<strong>at</strong>ion of good," a view which, for reasons<br />

already given, is often put forward on theological grounds.<br />

On this view, wh<strong>at</strong>ever is, is good; starting from this<br />

assumption philosophers have endeavoured to prove th<strong>at</strong><br />

the world is all good. Spinoza, for example, says "by<br />

reality and perfection I mean the same thing", Now this<br />

view, in so far as it asserts th<strong>at</strong> evil consists not in the existence<br />

of something which is bad, but only in the non-existence<br />

of something which is good, equ<strong>at</strong>es the meaning of

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!