The question of evil.. no, the other one

        In class on Thursday, the topic of Plato's "theory of forms" was covered in discussion. As it was explained and as I understand it, this "theory" incorporates an understanding that all objects, qualities, and concepts have a perfect, unchanging, and immaterial essence. This essence is what is referred to is a form. All things, when properly ordered, then participate in and draw nearer to the form of the Good.

       Remarkably absent from this model (or at least from our conversation of it) was an understanding of evil. I find it very interesting that there are many potential ways to think about what I consider evil in light of this model. As I see it, there are two primary ways to consider evil.

        First, evil is not a unique concept, but is instead just a word given to describe things that are absolutely devoid of any participation in the Formal good. Earthly things that are not as simple to understand as a mono dimensional consideration of participation in the good are described as evil due to their lack of glaring characteristics that accompany the good. For example, a thing that is good will have courage, wisdom and temperance. Lacking these qualities, then, earns the title of "evil."

       The second way to look at evil is as a distinct idea, existing independently of the good. This model is compelling because it allows for things to exist outside of a simple two-poled spectrum. Consider duty, cruelty and mercy. There is a difference between a soldier taking the life of his enemy because it is required to protect his friends, family and way of life and acting violently because he is a sadist. It would not be good for a soldier to violate his duty, but his merciful actions can hardly be considered evil in the same way sadistic, brutal, and cruel acts of violence would be. By accepting that there is a "Form" of evil, you can explain the way that the soul reacts to corruption, betrayal, cruelty, and selfishness much more completely than by simply saying that the soul recognizes the absence of the good.

        I am neither buying nor selling either of these views, as I have yet to cobble together anything but the haziest thumbnail sketch of either position, but I find the process of inquiry engaging and stimulating. The allure of logically (dare I say it: Socratically??) picking apart the implications of both sides until a satisfactory explanation is generated appeals to me as immensely satisfying.