Light Side, or Dark? That is The Question

ghosty wrote: there is right and there is wrong, with or without the force.

Is there? What is 'right' and 'wrong'? How is it defined? Who defines it?

if a tree falls in the forest, and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?
i still seek answer to this question.

Well, define 'sound'. If you mean 'sends a bunch of waves through the air', then science would suggest that yes, it does make a sound. If you mean 'something which is heard', the no, it doesn't make a sound as there is nothing around to hear it.

ghosty wrote: goodly gook.
there is right and there is wrong, with or without the force.
you can use, whatever metaphor you wish, and i support you, as best i am able.
i have been begging to ask this question...it seems you are correct person, if a tree falls in the forest, and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?
i still seek answer to this question.

For me - questions like these have multiple answers. If your looking for one specific answer in questions intended to help ya thinking of more than one answer - you may be in a boat with a hole and a bucket. Intention is sometimes the color of our saber or the color of our robes. Intention gives wheels or flight to thought- for me.

If something makes noise and I’m or no ones around to hear it - still makes a noise , I’m just not present to hear it - I missed it. Still makes a noise.
So many different people have different answers for this and many more ideas out there. How do you see it ? Does it make a noise? For you ? Why ask this specific question? What’s the intent? Force so time to be with ya.
https://www.templeofthejediorder.org/forum/Clergy/115769-the-block?start=380#348365

Check this out if ya got time

I remember reading a Norwegian book that tried to understand what "evil" was, written by a Norwegian philosopher (the book could be found here: https://www.bokkilden.no/filosofi/ondskapens-filosofi-lars-fr-h-svendsen/produkt.do?produktId=118248).

SPOILER ALERT:



That makes me philosophize that:
- You can also do evil to yourself, which is an important thing to remember, by doing things that are not good for oneself. That also includes "beeing to nice" and not stand for what's important for oneself.
- The evil got much depth, but it must always bee is seen in relations (both to others and oneself), the context it is done and what the outcome will be.
- Often there is no direct good choice, you can only make a less evil choice, either for person A, person B, yourself, etc.


The moral here is that evil is a highly concrete thing, and not an abstract/metaphysical thing.

I think the light side and the dark side come out in what I see as two paths of ascension. There is the path of acceptance and the path of rejection. acceptance is going with the flow, accepting our place in the world and finding the beauty in all things. the path of rejection is one of pain and suffering, also necessary in our lives but not something we should strive for. however many still do without even really knowing it I think

I think they are just statements of bearing relative to strengthening the complex of sub and super consciousness, and internalising and externalizing actions. Disrupt their functional coupling by focusing too much on one or the other, and one finds themselves taking backward steps in biopsychosocial health. So a dark side practitioner sacrifices aspects of the health and power for specific effect which has some useful merit to them. A light side practitioner balances to strengthen them all. So a grey, is just a normal person who wants the benefit of the light but keeps finding themselves walking a dark path... so in a way we are all grey, because the poles dance around and we're only human! But the labels stand as objectives and, if walked successfully, do have results.

Brick wrote:

ghosty wrote: there is right and there is wrong, with or without the force.

Is there?

I think its a mistake to expect objective, material proof to phenomena which are only relevant to the immaterial, subjective experiences of sentient beings. There may be no “right” or “wrong” for an asteroid, but we are not asteroids. Just because morality does not apply to every single thing that exists in the universe doesnt make it unreal.

What is 'right' and 'wrong'? How is it defined? Who defines it?

First, i guess its up to each of us to define it for ourselves as weve got to have some frame of reference by which to assess and choose our behavior. More broadly speaking, id expect many sectors to have input. Mental health professionals, social scientists, zoologists and evolutionary biologists, philosophers, theologians... the list probably goes on. A functional answer as to what is “right” might start with the idea of “win/win solutions” and build from there. To understand what is “wrong” maybe a sincere exploration into the myriad ways human beings have damaged and abused each other over the centuries.

Good and Evil are highly subjective. It often just depends on your point of view. In the bible the word "evil" is often translated from a Hebrew word that referred to calamity. A flood isn't evil but it can do more damage to your property than someone wielding a gun. A tornado isn't evil but it can definitely cause you to lose almost everything. However, even these events, as long as you don't lose your life or health, can be seen as positive things if it enables you to buy new stuff or get a new house, maybe move to a different city or state, find a new love, etc. Sometimes destruction is necessary for change to happen because we hold on to things, including the past. We get comfortable. We get complacent. We start yammering on about traditions and conserving the status quo without even realizing what harm that may be doing to ourselves and others but we don't know because we don't have the experience of something very new and different.

So in my perspective, relevant to my own life experience, I consider evil as actions that carry the intent to harm someone in a way that defies and denies our mutual human nature and connection and sacrifices them in order to fulfill some want. Like, forcing someone to have sex with you or murdering someone purposefully who never did anything to you. I consider these kinds of things universally evil because these are things we should all be able to agree, from our mutual humanity, that these are extremely bad and therefore wrong to do to each other. That fact that the majority can agree is what makes it universal. And no, everyone doesn't have to agree because there will always be someone who thinks in opposition or exception to the rule.

What is good and evil is something that can only be felt from within, in my view. You know in your heart (or soul) when you have betrayed your ideals and you know when you have lived up to them. Other than that, it is too difficult to categorize and quantify good and evil into a coherent and concrete philosophy. And we must always constantly be asking ourselves what is good and what is evil, and questioning and refining our own moral philosophies towards a higher ideal.

but what if the person doesn't have ideals? Or what if, in their mind, something you might consider evil is just fine as long as it benefits them? Is it no longer evil?

I believe everyone truly deep down has ideals and has some kind of moral compass. However, I think people who are hurt, angry, jealous, etc. lose sight of these ideals, and end up hurting others. I realize that may seem simplistic, but that is what I've come to believe.