4 ms·

> the devil is evil by necessity That's the first time I read this one. Isn't the devil "fallen" in some way, or rejecting/splitting from heaven in most cultur

• woodruffw 4y ago
  There are different characterizations of the devil in different cultures and faith: a "fallen angel" is a common one, and "personification of evil" is another common one. My interpretation of the latter is that you can't really "personify" evil unless you're necessarily evil, which in turn precludes the possibility of any agency.
  • remram 4y ago
    I see the "personification" as the addition of agency. In fact I would say the the exact point of personifying evil is so you can blame it. Turning around and saying you can't blame it because we personified it seems a bit backwards to me, as if what you are really objecting to is the personification in the first place.
    • woodruffw 4y ago
      In what sense can we blame the devil? Isn't that a bit like blaming rain for being wet? Put another way: the defining aspect of the devil is evil; the devil can't not be evil, because to be the devil is to be evil. This is effectively a stripping of autonomy: if you can't not be something, there's no meaningful sense in which you can blamed for being that thing.
      • remram 4y ago
        But that applies to everything you choose to define after what it does. By the same logic, I shouldn't deplore that gangs are engaging in violent activity, because we define a gang as a group that commits violent activities. A gang is violent by necessity, or it would be a regular group.
        • woodruffw 4y ago
          The point was about autonomy: you can argue about the necessary definition of a gang, but a gang is filled with human beings making decisions as rational agents. The devil, as characterized, is incapable of making the sorts of decisions that humans make (such as whether they should join a violent gang). In other words: there's no contradiction in deploring a violent gang, because the actual object is a product of autonomous behavior; the gang could always cease to exist if its members chose to behave better. On the other hand, deploring the devil is a contradiction in terms: what else would the devil be but the devil?
          • remram 4y ago
            Why couldn't the devil cease the be the devil, like a gang ('s members) can cease to be a gang? Of course he wouldn't be the devil anymore, but that's fine by me. Just like the rain can stop. It doesn't stop being wet, the concept is not redefined, it just ceases being there. My point is that you are adding that characterization onto the concept, it does not logically follow from our definition of the concept, "the devil is the personification of evil", that it is evil by necessity. It might be that it is a being incapable to stop (no way for me to disprove it, unless someone can meet him; you can certainly write the story that way, or you can write it another way, with fallen angels or a Santa Clause) but it is perfectly imaginable that it could. Of course, it would stop being the devil as to the common definition. But nothing in the definition of the concept says that it doesn't have the agency to stop.