Let´s start with some well-known examples of opposites:
What do all of these have in common? They do not exist.
Man is used to compare those events which he is confronted with currently with experiences he made in the past. But comparisons only can me made to something that is different. To find out whether something is bright or brighter than something else there is the need for definition of dark. Otherwise the comparison would fail. Let´s get a bit into theory first.
Let´s take the light as an example: light is an electro-magnetical wave (to the physicians: the wave/particle dualism does not matter here). When we take a glance at the universe it consists of absolute darkness - which is the absence of light. Darkness = 0 light. Now let´s light up a candle and compare its light to the background of the universe: the candle is much brighter than absolute darkness. Then let´s switch on a light bulb: it is already that bright that it outshines the candle´s shine, only the flame itself is noticibly visible. And finally we take our protection suit and make ourselves comfortable inside the sun: it outshines both of our previous sources of light. So, the sun is brighter than a light bulb which is brigher than a candle. Compared to the sun a candle is relatively dark. Compared to the darkness a candle is relatively bright.
The literal opposite of light is shadow. At the dimmed areas of a shadow arrives less light compared to its surrounding. Still the shadow is not a new feature but the lack of light. There is no darkness at all but only the absence of light.
Somewhat abstractly we can compare good and bad. Bad is the total absence of good. Bad = 0 good. If something is better than something else then there is simply more good in it. If something is worse then there is less good. This way we have relativised the opposite since there is no bad but the absence of good.
From this hair-splitting now let´s get back to practice: we can only tell by comparison whether something is brighter, darker, better or worse. We need at least one experience with this feature. Someone who sees light for the very first time cannot tell whether it is bright or dim light. Only with another sensoric contact with light the observer can now tell a difference.
But the relativity is not over yet: comparing different societies with each other one will find different morals. Let´s choose a tribe which lives far away from the western world for example: killing another tribe is good because it saves resources for the own tribe. Killing cattle is bad because it is devine. Now let´s imagine what happens if this tribe meets western civilisation: noone will understand the other world view. Members of the foreign tribe will ask themselves why we don´t kill our competition despite lack of living space and why we eat holy animals for dinner. Members of the western civilisation would try to teach the tribe: cattle is not devine and killing other humans is bad. Most likely none of them would find an easy solution for a peaceful basic morals that serves both communities.
Actually, we should consider any event being neutral. None of the moral decisions of both parties are good or bad. The existence of morale - no matter whether in a society or in the world view of an individual - is a sign of egoism. The same is to be said about the education of children. Parents teach their children a ready-made world view which is good in their opinion. Everybody thinks his point of view is the only true and best one. Everybody counts on his own knowledge, experience and conscience being good. Everybody rates everything with his own subjective standards - everybody acts egoistic.
Printed at http://www.darkbook.at/
Latest change of the current page: Austria 2009-04-12 23:08:04 / GMT 2009-04-12 21:08:04