Notes

ISCR “San Francisco Javier” / CSET “San Miguel Arcángel”, Pamplona
1. THE ORIGINARY CONDITION
The experience of evil is universal and perennial. Within the cultural invariants, the experience of the evil committed and the evil suffered is a constant. But being his obvious presence, he has something paradoxical that poses a challenge to thought.

♪ Evil is part of our condition: to suffer evil, to commit it, not always to do what we want, to want something and then repent...
♪ This experience contradicts man's deep longings: it is something strange to deep human desire. We want fullness, peace, serenity, sense, to be loved.

I miss and, at the same time, forming part of our way of being, of our nature. The Christian tradition unites these two characters in the expression fallen nature: that is our current state. But, if it's a fall, it wasn't the original. And it's this sum of paradoxes that's going to pose a perennial challenge to reason.

In scheme, we can say that in our tradition there are two basic ways of trying to explain/describe this problem.

♪ Ecclesial, Christian characterization, roots in the Bible. Biblical reflection is a reflection attached to the experience. He's talking about combat, the forces they're against. St. Paul will express it in a masterful way: the law of sin, the law of grace (carta to the Romans chapters 7 and 8).
♪ Our philosophical tradition will express it differently in modernity: we are good or bad by nature. This formulation is poor, simplifies the problem. It's not about us being good or bad morally by nature, so, no more. There are tendencies, sometimes opposite, reason plays a role, grace, freedom, habits and attitudes... play a leading role.
♪ And if some current philosophies deny the same human nature, the problem in question no longer arises, or arises in a way that will hardly find a clear answer.

And together with this, rational inquest will not stop wondering about the origin of evil.

♪ If it does not belong to the original condition (and we assume it because it goes against the deep desire), why does it appear? If we lived in harmony, how do we explain the fallacy?
♪ And why doesn't https://jbhnews.com/muscle-in-video-games/41783/ go away? What is the strength of evil? Is not virtue sufficient, good moral conduct, to overcome the strength of sin? How is it possible that it's not enough?
♪ If evil influences, how is our will? Do we know how to love well? Can we reach a loving ord?

The Bible teaches us, “what to think.” In fact, in this subject philosophy, being necessary, reveals its limit.

We serve ourselves from philosophy, if we understand this as what is and the only thing that can be: the meditation of the human spirit on the basis and causes of this concrete world, which, as the Revelation points out, was never a “purely natural” world, but a world created by God, within the supernatural grace, with a view to a single ultimate, supernatural purpose: the contemplation of God; and that does not fit in the original Fall, but is converted by Thus, the object of philosophy is always more than philosophy (if it is considered grace and Revelation as belonging to the specific object of theology), especially because reason, which is both object and instrument of philosophical work, cannot have been or become “purely natural”, nor is it the “nature” of which it proceeds. To this point it is not, that, even if it is to apply and formulate the concept of a Nature detached from all supernaturality, it is not possible for the philosopher to constructively elaborate this concept because of lack of sufficient data of experience and intuition. The Nature we know is the one that is moved and moves between the Fall in original sin and Redemption, being affected to the most intimate by these two modalities. (Balthasar, H. U. von, The Christian and the Anguish, Guadarrama, Madrid, 19642, pp. ).

We have thus defined our framework of reflection. Let us be guided by the Revelation that defines the fundamental coordinates of the problem.

The stories of Genesis

Let us summarize some fundamental ideas present in Genesis that illuminate our reflection.

Genesis 1. Being very good, being image, being in relation.

♪ This beautiful account tells us that for God, and for itself, creation is good: what it is, is good. In the case of the human being, especially: “very good”. The first qualification, the original one, is that reality and, in it, man, is good. St. Augustine will draw the conclusion -inevitable- from this text; being and being good is the same, being is good.
♪ Another fundamental affirmation is that man is created in a special way. The whole text speaks of a predilection on the part of God that creates it “in his image and likeness.” Being JBH News of God will be the fundamental trait to characterize man as Guardini reminds us.
♪ And God establishes a personal bond, a harmonious relationship with the human being. Man is not understood without God, without the relationship with God. For the human being, being in relation to his equals and with God in a special way. And God is God with us, who seeks and establishes our relationship with Him.

A positive vision comes from all this: the created is good, and in the human being, this ontological goodness develops in a personal relationship.

Genesis 2. How to live

This chapter focuses on man, how he has to live, his task. In line with the previously stated idea of the identity between being and goodness, we could say that now the story speaks of living is to realize the very goodness in which we consist. Operari sequitur esse: the work follows the being (before the essence, to nature).

In a suggestive way we are told that the fundamental commission is to give name to what is created that is put to your care. And this, together with others, in collaboration. This commission, this work, is not a solitary action, but a collective action that, internally, manifests that human relations are based on equality.

The account expresses that man knows how to live: he lives cohesive internally, with his equals, with his surroundings. The key to cohesion is to recognize the center as a center: God. That sorts his life. And recognizing God as a center is to recognize his most honored condition: he is a creature, a creature in the image of God.

Genesis 3. Tent and fall

The problem of evil already appears in the first chapters. JBHNews is almost original in human life, although it is not the first word.

In the account of temptation and fall Scripture gives a non-fatalistic view of evil: evil could not be. We are told two fundamental aspects (can be seen Gesché, The Evil): we are victims and guilty.

♪ There is a consent on the part of the human being (both Eve and Adam) that leads us to see the real responsibility of man.
♪ The human being, being responsible, is not protoculpable, since it is tempted.

And also, following this account we are knowing evil and sin for their effects. Evil is a misfortune that opposes the goodness of creation that is not as it should now. The effects that Revelation points to go through all dimensions of human nature. Let us group these effects under two labels: fracture and new knowledge.

https://jbhnews.com/oral-anadrol-pills-benefits-over-shots-or-injections/41224/ . jbhnews.com start in chain: she tells him... And those accusations express and perform the rupture of harmonious relations. The other (God, nature, others) are perceived as threats: not only does the relationship break; it is that the relationship is perceived by sin as harmful, threatening, causing loss of integrity.

♪ With JBHNews , I hide.
♪ With the others: enmity, accusation (“you will find the heel”).
♪ With nature (both, sweat)
♪ With oneself: between what is and what is mistakenly portrayed that can be because you want to “be as God.”

New knowledge. It opens to a new perception of itself that integrates the knowledge of evil. It is a perception, of an experiential knowledge, not merely theoretical. Being linked to experience, this knowledge, this vision, transforms us, has practical effects on our life.

♪ From itself: I find out that I am vulnerable to the experience of a reality that appears as threatening. I hide, I protect myself.
♪ You can no longer see the truth: everything is alien, dissociated; we do not see the gravity of the evil that, by its own logic, hides, is hidden (we believe it is normal).
* Forget your creature nature. The creature character essentially defines the being of man.

Regarding the character of a creature, it is good to bring a commentary from Heidegger (The Age of the Image of the World, 1938): modernity passes from considering the human being as ens creatum to consider him as a subject. Certainly the change of perspective can be emphasized to make the creature forget. We are subject to acts, property... But if we forget our character of creation we can self-understand as a pure principle: as being independent from others and God (consummated fracture). To assert that we are created is to assert that our being is given, received, is to affirm that we are dependent constitutively. In abstract terms it could be said that with sin the passage of self-understanding of the human being as a creature to perception as a subject (taking into account the above-mentioned nuances).

Many questions arise from here. How can we understand this origin of evil?, how does a life in harmony have such a falsehood? Evil hides, is excessive, it goes beyond rational; in fact, it will be better understood in the light of grace (cf. CCC 385). What is your strength of evil?, what is your nature?, what JBH News does it produce?

The Christian tradition will express this problem with St.Paul using dynamic words: the polarity of the law of sin (which abounds) and the law of grace (which overabundates) in Romans 7 and 8. The Christian doctrine will define human nature as in a state of fallen (inclined to evil, concupiscence); but also open to grace (capable of God, obedienceal power). This opposition illuminates us not to fall into an evil error: we must not oppose sin to nature, but to the grace of Christ.

♪ It is grace that, healing our nature, allows us to call God “Father” with conviction and piety.
♪ Grace restores our image by taking it to its fullness, reproducing the image of his Son.
♪ It is grace that bestows hope that in Christ grace overcomes (“who against us?”).

Back to index

2. EXPERIENCE OF Evil: THE RIGHT AND HIS REEL
Our reflection will follow the clear and basic distinction between suffering, suffering, suffering, who speaks of our character as a victim, and misinduced, committed, which speaks of our being guilty, responsible for a wrong voluntarily executed.

The division is clear. But between the two dimensions there are interferences. For https://jbhnews.com/clenbuterol-for-sale-usa-buy-50-100-up-to-500-tablets/56950/ , if I suffer an offense, I often come, I am a victim who becomes guilty. And to be guilty leaves the posture of suffering: the same feeling of sorrow that consists of the guilt that can be surrounded by sadness, anger...

It is about seeing the dynamism of sin in us, how evil is present in our personal reality, in our nature.

A) Evil suffered, suffered

We all have varied experiences of suffering. In pain, in suffering, we experience an evil that impoverishes our being, which consists of a loss of integrity in some sense. And we will distinguish two kinds of looks with which we interpret and therefore live, that experience of evil. It is in that look where the dialectic between sin and grace is manifested.

1. On the Experience of the Finitude

One of the classic debates in this problem is whether finitude is, in itself, a kind of evil. Leibniz tells us about “metaphysical evil”. This thesis has been answered many times by stating that it is not such a bad: at the finite it is not missing something that should have (the characterization of evil by St. Augustine of Hippo against Gnosticism).

This argumentation of a metaphysical character runs in parallel to the experience that we do of finitude and in which we value it positively or negatively. From the adopted Pauline optics, we affirm that finitude is not evil, but the proper condition of our nature, although sometimes we live it as evil by our gaze that follows the logic of sin. Let's see basic forms of finitude at this point.

(a) Impotence (limited strength)

We experience limits of many different types. We can describe the experience of impotence as the one in which our want is greater than our power. It is a clear experience of our finitude, of our limited being: we cannot do everything we want. But this cannot admit various looks, readings, interpretations.

1. The bad look that follows the logic of sin

We look at and interpret the finitude of impotence as bad when we interpret it subject to evil. The finitude seems to be detracting from something we considered to be due (“you will be like gods”). Sometimes we want evil, we want what is not right for us: that everyone appreciates us in a magical way, that everything goes well without effort...

jbhnews.com makes us see something essential: evil deceives us. https://jbhnews.com/what-are-selective-androgen-receptor-modulators-sarms/32326/ makes us err on the orderly measure of our finitude. We forget a first truth: we are creatures.

As seen, sin submits our gaze until it is transformed by grace.

2. The good look that follows the logic of grace

Let us remember the thesis: nature makes its sense to the extent that it is informed by grace. Gratia supponit, non destruit, sed elevat et perficit naturam.

To receive the gift of God, to consent in a grateful way to our condition of being a creature that is the image of God, reveals to us that we cannot all. jbhnews.com : it allows us to see that finitude is not in itself bad but, simply, a property that defines our creature condition. The action of a free finite being is the action in which impotence is lived, yes, but it does not have to live as an undue evil.

We also want more than we can for ourselves, in a proper way: we want to be happy, saints, that reigns peace and justice throughout the world...

But we can be more than calculated by purely human measures that do not take into account our essential reference to God. By https://jbhnews.com/marine-muscle-cutting-stack-review/38965/ , finitude reveals its ability. For JBH News , Mary's yes, without sin, which wants good in God's way: to live in a grateful way by knowing oneself given away. It sees what human nature can give of itself and that it alone cannot become. This look makes us see that human finitude is capable of harboring God who is everything (homo layerx Dei).

Grace restores the radical opening that defines human finitude. The openness to being in general is dilated as opening to the gift of God, an opening that defines man as that being able to freely receive a gift that fills (Marcel). And hosting is an act, not mere passivity.

Our “impotent” power expands by accepting the gift, by transforming itself according to the logic of generosity and not that of dominion. We tend to think many times that power is dominance-over. And this is just a facet, a mode of power. More powerful than that of the domain, it is the action that makes, that creates, that feeds, that makes it (God causes causes causes). https://jbhnews.com/what-is-the-safest-steroid-cycle-for-bodybuilding1/20674/ is more powerful than destructive anger because it is fruitful.

The natural, anthropological seat of this “perfection” of our nature by grace, we can observe it by analyzing the experience, which in normal circumstances we experience at birth. The first experience of the child is that of a relationship in which it feels welcomed. Being's a good thing. The child experience corroborates and illuminates the metaphysical notion of good as a transcendental that speaks of being as a gift, as the first generosity in the entity (analysis of Balthasar and Siewerth).

(b) Fragility (endure as power not to be)

The experience of fragility accompanies our life. Crisis, disease, failure... reveal that we are vulnerable beings. Here we experience what goes against our desire to be and to be fully. It seems something strange to our nature even if we recognize it as our own.

We're brittles, vulnerable. These characteristics tell us of a more acute unit that asks for care. Fragility and vulnerability refer to a loss of integrity: being able to break, being hurt. That is also finitude: not only limit but power to be, contingency. The possibility of loss of integrity is a clear manifestation of our finitude.

The term “contingency” of clear classical roots can result in modern ears a term echivoc and separated from the experience. Not so the mentioned “fragility” or “vulnerability”. In the strict sense, contingency is a mode of being whose strict opposite is necessity and which speaks of that way of being the entity that is but may not be. This non-being power is part of the being of the finite entity.

And two fundamental ways of looking at this reality come back.

♪ In existential terms, Sartre carries to its last consequences this evil way of looking: a life, a radically contingent existence (as well as that of all that surrounds us) is a reality that is “more” free. And that causes the protagonist of the novel the visceral reaction of nausea.
♪ At the other end the experience of the child cited. The child is the emblem of vulnerability and fragility: he lives them sustained, welcomed, protected. In metaphysical terms, admitting that the finite entity, contingent, is founded, sustained is, in front of Sartre, highly dildo.

(c) Unit (endure as originated; finitude as a condition of loss)

Dependency is another of the fundamental experiences of our finitude and is a sign of our creature condition. We are originated, founded, sustained. This ontological dependency crosses our natural being.

♪ Dependency is a natural thing, consistent with our being a creature. Talk about we're finite, grounded. We are sustained: and that sustainment makes us capable because it makes us. The help of others in different orders of life trains, impodera, increases.
♪ The religiosity and the theologal character of the Christian experience tells us about the priority of letting it do about doing. Remember also Plato's teaching on enthusiasm: man attains his measure when he lets himself be dragged by the good and beautiful (Fedro).

All this tells us that passivity is constitutive of our nature: to receive the being and to let them do that train speak of dependence. We don't have to consider this to be wrong. This would be one of the mistakes of individualism in interpreting human existence as that of a delinked, self-sufficient individual.

Dependency is a human property. It happens that the degree of dependency is variable: large in the newborn and in the child, although it is diminishing, and growing also in the situations of decline: disease, old age... The tension between autonomy and dependence is one of the major vital issues. The child lives in need and in confidence; he does not suffer from high dependence. The essential, moral problem is presented to us in the decline.

We jump when we move from contingency to loss, when we experience the lack of something that belongs to us. It is the experience of the merma, of not being introduced into our being. It's a merma of our integrity, a decline by which we can't do what we could (here impotence is intensified). It is a dependency added to our own condition: it is a loss.

That intensified dependence can degenerate into dependencies that we call “insanas”. Unhealthy units in human relationships (children who do not take off their parents, educating their educators...); addictions to substances or activities such as gambling, pornography...; rigid thinking. Here is the sin that incites us to justify a weakness that we should face.

2. On the Life of Suffering

With the analysis of dependency, we have already passed from the power to experience the breakthrough. We can distinguish two paradigmatic situations that cause suffering.

♪ The disease. Some diseases are severe, chronic, at early ages... They're a blow to our quiet way of being in the world. It is the experience of “no fault” suffering. We are victims even though we cannot point to a guilty cause (in a moral sense).
♪ But there is a suffering “with guilt.” To be victims of offenses. We are recipients of intentional offensive actions both external and own. And this intentionality adds evil to the damage received, adds suffering.

It is proper to the pain experienced, suffering, that it curves our subjectivity, that it closes. This folding on itself adds difficulty to the understanding of evil, already difficult because it hides. And the gaze with which we interpret these situations can be ambivalent (John speaks of light and darkness; cf. Jn 3:19, for example).

( https://jbhnews.com/dbol-trenbolone-cycle-dosage-for-best-cycle-results-advice-for-success-gr/43069/ ) Darkness

If this self-relief of suffering is modified by sin, I become judgment criteria. And so the judgment is distorted about the evil received.

To judge objectively the evil suffered, to judge well that it is an offense and its gravity will depend on susceptibility and sensitivity. Following the logic of sin, the empathic gaze of pride will lead us to judge that even any discrepancy is an offense. The pride leads us to distort the judgment of the evil received.

Another deception is to interpret the offense received as a well-deserved punishment when it is not. You would see here an equivalence seen as an act of justice by believing me worthy of a penalty. In situations of “blackless suffering” (infirmities...), the miscarriage can be read as punishment in an exercise of apparent equivalence, or it can lead us to see guilty where there are no.

(b) Light: I need something to get me out of the overweight curvature

We know of the reasoning of Socrates (Gorgias 474b) to the alternative about what is best, whether to commit an injustice or suffer it. And we know the answer: it is better to suffer because doing evil makes us bad. In fact, the alternative is undesirable despite the nobility of the argument. The ethics of virtue is a very high proposal. But wanting to realize values, acquiring virtues, strengthens our nature but not to the point of overcoming the strength of evil. The battle against evil present in our nature overcomes our strength.

In order to overcome the centrality of the self that disorders love, to overcome the pride that directs our gaze, we need an opposite movement. A abandonment, a let to do: a welcome to the grace of Christ that brings our freedom to fullness.

♪ Already the same ontological constitution of the human being reminds us that this is the true way. It is the merit of Nédoncelle to have opposed the Cartesian solipsist cogit the reciprocal character of the cogit as a basic data. reciprocity, the communion of consciences, is a starting point, not a conclusion. There is a “minimum reciprocity” at the base. As he says, “the perception of the other always carries a minimum of abandonment” (see Perez-Soba’s good analysis).
♪ “If it is intended to use the critical term, then the only critical attitude for the acceptance of this gift would be a happy heart that says thanks, without stopping in itself. And this is so much more since, according to the Christian message, the gift offered is really the love of God crystallized (and at the same time fluent): God in the form of his surrender. Gift size, as stated, can only be accepted by those who, in turn, adopt the same form of delivery, configured in luck that becomes a pure yes, in gratitude and consent.” (Balthasar, H.U. von, Christianity is a gift, Paulines, Madrid, 1973, p. 14)

If suffering catches us, we lose freedom. The welcome grace liberates, strengthens our nature and brings it to fullness. Freedom is at stake in this fight.

B) Misdemeanour, guilty action

When we think of the subject that concerns us (the presence of evil in human nature) the reality of the evil done, committed by us, emerges with strength. We can analyze two kinds of fundamental situations to see this dynamic. JBH News of good” (situation 1) and the “bad of evil” (situation 2). It is a progressive investment of moral life derived from the influence of sin.

Situation 1. “The Evil of Goods.” I do the evil I don't want and I can't do the good I want.

The analysis of this situation focuses on those people who do not want to consent to evil; who are dominated by self but, in turn, attracted by good, for God. That is, open to good but in combat to overcome evil. This existential situation introduces us to another aspect of the evil we can call as “the evil of the good.”

The fact that this is a fight makes this situation, like every human situation, dynamic, argumental, dramatic. There is no case for equivalent options on which you can choose clearly and equally indifference to both. The very thing about moral and theologal life is that existential openness, the perception of the beauty of good, of grace, is changing. As we move forward in the life process, we are dilating or countering the sensitivity that makes us more or less blind or clairvoyants, as Hildebrand analyzed very well (Basic moral Attitudes -Palabra, original Madrid of 1965).

If we do not accept the gift of grace, we will become worse, we become more blind even without realizing it. Either you choose and accept the gift or you're catching the evil, sin: that's the dramatic alternative. If you receive the gift, good, we are increasingly attracted to good. If you choose evil, you become more and more trapped by evil.

By nature we are inclined towards good. Thus, Aristotle begins his Ethics to Nikomaco: good, which all the entities appeal. The medieval development of this was the affirmation of two dimensions of the will: the will as a tendency to the good in general (voluntas ut natura) and the rational, elective will that wants the well-known that the prudent practical reason points to him (voluntas ut ratio). This basic orientation to good is natural. But it modifies itself by sin or the acceptance of grace.

The fallen state of our nature is shaping here with relative clarity: I see good and I cannot/want to. These situations show the perverse logic of evil. Evil adds nothing. In fact, he invests good. Preferring a minor good is an investment in the orientation of the will. In the light of this, St. Paul tells us of the farceous will to be saved by satisfying the law (glorifying). It is slavery, understood as the renunciation, sometimes already forgotten, to pursue greater property.

(a) Combat

We all have experience of the internal struggle: that of wanting to overcome the force of desire that I consider inconvenient. I love myself more than the good to do now. Some explanations worth taking into account.

* Moral impotence. The analysis that Aristotle performs on akrasy, impotence. The experience of acknowledging that what I now desire is not good for itself even if I continue to be attracted to it. There is an internal struggle linked to knowing: I know in potency what is good to do in this situation, not in act ( giving the reason partially to Socrates, which St. Thomas will also do).
* Selfish attitude. Hildebrand develops the category of “fundamental attitude” that would be at the basis of moral work, at the basis of moral habits. We can highlight two: selfishness and respect (which recall the two loves of Saint Augustine). The fundamental attitude of selfishness can be characterized by the preeminence of self-interest over the transcendent good of the subject.
♪ Fight between background options and current wishes. Something similar to the above: the “fundamental choice” that we can do for justice, the option of being good in general. It is a good moral category: it speaks to us of a decision about a way of being. But concrete situations, decisions here and now, must corroborate it. The base option illuminates, motivates, but does not guarantee that we are always consistent with it.
♪ Donor fatigue. The pain of compassion can lead us to a limit: I cannot endure so much suffering. I can't keep doing good even if I want it in the background. There is a loss of sensitivity, a loss of freshness of the good to do.

All this happens if we do not maintain a vigilant attitude of struggle, if we do not let the desire for good be educated, if we do not let ourselves be filled beyond calculation. In the event that we let ourselves be led by good, there is another experience in which sin ceases to have coercive power over our life and develops in us a facility, a connaturality for good (a “new life”).

(b) Separation between the theoretical and the practical

We take one more step: here is a greater loss of moral sensitivity. A theoretical rational view of moral good can be given for making it understood as ideal, as value. But https://jbhnews.com/does-boxing-build-muscle/31777/ is good in its abstract universality. The self-concretion of life would be detached from this ideal which, in fact, does not concern me. We do not see good and attractiveness in the particular circumstances. And that is why we do not know how to distinguish the good of evil: the practical reason does not perceive good.

♪

With the following two forms we enter full in the non-occasional presence of the desire to do evil to others. Some examples.

(c) Mezquindad, estrechez

♪ You're winning. Sometimes without concrete motive we like and enjoy seeing the evil others suffer. Unknown people and known people.
♪ Small revenge on people who have bothered us, disturbed, offended.
♪ In general, look closely.

(d) Malefic will

We arrived on this journey to a greater dominion of the human heart by sin. We stand at the indefinable bottom of the heart, inobjective, where the law of sin is more intense and powerful.

In the process of intensification of the investment of moral life (that good be evil, that evil be good) we take a step when we realize the fascination for evil. If evil attracts us, we perceive it as a good in some respect. To hurt, to destroy... you talk about the good of our power? The evil will that seeks to order reality according to my idea, my desire, my love. Me and his power as a measure of morality.

In the sporadic remembrance of good, its attractiveness no longer has the force that does have the fascination to do evil knowingly by seeing in that evil the character of good for me in some sense, where moral validity pales. That's why we can say that I see good but I prefer evil where its character of evil is very clear already because, even if it is wrong for itself, it is not clearly a bad thing for me now.

We are in the situation in which good is not seen, in which I disobey the possible good and prefer the evil that dominates me. This means a deep disorder of our nature created for good, practically an investment of our natural order.

* Cruelty: to enjoy with the evil that I provoke.
♪ Codicia that leads us to take away the necessary things.
* Indifference and blindness blamed for the needs of others.

Situation 2. “The evil of the bad.” The abyss of evil

In Mc 3, we are told an extreme story and in which Jesus judges this evil as the worst. This evil that only God knows: the evil action, the evil heart of that willing to destroy Jesus. It is hatred for God, true decision and demonic pride. It is the unfathomable mystery of iniquity, revealed to him that we have access only through Jesus in the gospels and the saints.

They accuse Jesus of having Satan within. It is a blasphemy against the Holy Spirit that Jesus claims to be an unforgivable evil. They are very hard words and that it is hard for us to accept. We always affirm, in a row, that God is merciful, that His grace will open us and bring us out of pride and therefore God will forgive us. But in the Gospel account that part is not said in a row. Here the words are tajantes. The statement is clear: there is unforgivable evil.

Manifestations of this evil.

♪ A dark look that projects the darkness itself. I see good, grace, the greatness of Jesus and interpret it as evil, as something of Satan.
♪ Words, acts that manifest the evil of the heart to the point of ending by killing Jesus.
♪ From another perspective, here is the brilliant analysis that Arendt does about this evil that he calls “imperdonable”: the investment of the moral life of the extermination camps (Eichmann in Jerusalem: a study on the banality of evil, 1963).

Back to index

3. THE TRANSMISSION AND PERMANENTITY OF Evil
After analyzing various facets of the presence of evil in us, of how sin is invading our being, let us now see, more abstractly, universally, the logic of evil, its transmission. They are different figures of the victim's envilence that, after suffering an evil, it does so as an answer.

Marcel talked about the “females of envy” that, especially the Nazis, used with people. By influence of these techniques we lose consciousness of our value, we lose contact with ourselves, so we are no longer owners, we are not free.

(a) Revenge

Jean-Luc Marion clearly explains that the logic of evil is that of revenge. In this vengeance, the appearance of justice is given by the presence of the idea of equivalence: that of the victim of an offense when returning and doing a wrong to his aggressor.

That revenge for which evil is perpetuated keeps a strange analogy with the classic idea of the diffusive character of good (bonum diffusivum sui, axiom traditionally attributed to Pseudo-Dionysius). But while good is fruitful, builder (it is), evil is destructive; and it is not defamative of its own, by itself. Revenge is an answer from the other, from the victim. And only forgiveness would paralyze this spiral.

This spirit of revenge begins with the denial of the cause that causes me suffering defending my cause, my position. JBHNews seems the only way out for the victim. A more or less identified, more or less universal cause.

And so the logic of evil is established: the vengeance that breaks relationships. In his analysis, Marion reaches the end of the suicide that expresses this logic of evil: to prefer the nothing that I produce to the infinite gift I receive. Although it should be said that this situation does not in fact have any preference: it does not see the gift I receive.

The figure of Satan is explained as that of him who wants the impotence of will (defined by wanting good). Want evil: investment, impotence that destroys by asserting itself. In front of this 1 Jn 2, 1: we have a defender, a lawyer before the Father. And this expresses the liberating dependence on the proud autonomy.

(b) Repetition

Another transmission figure is repetition.

♪ Repetition in memory where the sufferer is fixed in the evil suffered in an abuse of memory: resentment (which so well analyzed Scheler in Resentment in Morality, 1912).
♪ The repetition of what you've lived: I do what you did to me. I interpret what was lived as what is creating an enigmatic and perverse compulsion.

(c) Structures of sin

John Paul II speaks of “structures of sin” (Sollicitudo rei socialis, 36) that make it difficult to realize an easy good. The social dimension of sin that crystallizes in structures of action that promote the realization of evil as something “necessary” or as a “quasi-good”.

♪

It is the merit of grace to recognize that I am a sinner, when I recognize the revelation of Jesus Christ, that God is merciful. That's where I recognize the impotence of saving myself. We remember our being creatures, our greatness (in our misery): we are able to harbor the gift of God that overflows (God Himself Who gives Himself) and overcomes sin. With salvation, the person meets reality and unfolds the call to be good.

Back to index

4. If the man is good or bad for nativity
In conclusion, we will briefly address two acute and perennial philosophical-theological problems: on the qualification of human nature (good or bad by nature) and on the falsibility, the possibility of the fall, of sin. We can serve as the basic distinction between being and operation.

From the point of view of being. The answer is clear for the Christian vision. Man is good by nature. God has created it in his image. And from here, medieval theology naturally included the metaphysical idea that being is a good thing (the good as a transcendental that the child experiences at birth and being welcomed as we have seen).

Derived from this ontological goodness is the orientation to good from the operational point of view. With https://jbhnews.com/gynecomastia-surgery-reviews-types-of-procedures-costs-side-effects/30027/ appears as Aristotle says. And good is what everyone likes. So do we. The measure of the realization of man is the good realized which is naturally oriented.

But this orientation is complicated by the appearance of sin. Emerge with strength the self as a criterion of the good that opposes the good itself (and more so, at the will of God). We live in tension, with the presence of opposing forces: that of sin we oppose when we receive the gift of God.

But our nature is historical, social. We settled into a socio-historical situation that is a precipitate of the accumulation of decisions of humanity. There are structures of sin and structures of virtue that influence us, that modulate that orientation to the good that needs to be redirected by the presence of sin.

Historically, facts and situations seem to give reason to Hobbes. Man is a wolf for man especially when there is competition for scarce goods (which is very common). For this author, we are all equal in our natural avidity. Avidity will not be natural as Hobbes thought, in the sense of having been created like this, but the current human condition has in the basic desire of having a force that falls very soon into abuse. The selfishness and fear that Hobbes points out also seem to describe the human being well. Another issue is that the Olympic policy is the only possible response to this situation (although politics has to be part of the solution as we are politicians by nature).

The famous phrase that made famous Hobbes is drawn from Plauto who, in a play, Asinaria, states that “wolf is man for man, and not man, when he is unaware of who the other is.” The sense of the phrase in Plauto is different from that which makes us see Hobbes. It's a variation of the golden rule.

Rousseau is the other modern philosopher who has popularized the opposite response. Man is good by nature. But what does this mean? Have good feelings? Would we work well if we didn't get in touch with others? Moreover, the contrast between nature and culture posed by Rousseau is excessive and simplistic. Human nature is cultural, not something prior to it. And besides, is culture bad? Is every man's work bad? It is an approach to the confusing problem.

Back to index

5. ON THE ERIGEN OF Evil. THE HUMAN FINITUD: “THE NON COINCIDENCE CONSIDER MEMORE”
Revelation tells us about the origin of evil but leaves questions unanswered. How, if he lives in harmony, man sins? Because it's missing. But that fallability is also of a moral character. The theologal, isn't it as strong as for man to remain in good? Mystery of iniquity will St. Paul say. And here “mystery” seems to say that even St. Paul himself had no answer.

Do we plan the question well? And if it is well raised, do we have the right to raise it if the Revelation does not respond? And if “grace perfects nature,” why does it not eliminate the “fall” character that characterizes it?

Failure is natural, it belongs to our created nature. It's not the fallacy to be cured. As we have already said, it is a name of the finitude of a free being. What needs to be cured is sin and strength.

Human finitude is peculiar: it is the finitude of a being structurally open to the totality of the real both from reason and from will and affections. Being finite, limited, is unrestricted. Given this tension between limitation and openness, we can say that in finitude there is a disproportion between an ineliminable finitude and an infinity to which it is open.

We owe Ricoeur the detailed and nuanced study on this issue. Ricoeur glosa a Pascal in his statement about the greatness and misery of the human being and to Maine de Biran in his synthetic aphorism: homo simplex in vitalitate, duplex in humanitate. (“The Weak Man”, Part Two of Finitude and Guilt, 1960).

The human being is a disproportionate being, synthesis of finitude and infinity. For example: the finite perspective that defines our knowledge, our cognitive angle of openness to reality (influencing our biographical situation, convictions, knowledge...) and the transcendence of the perspective (the infinity) by which we are able to judge the perspective as to what perspective (so, not enclosed in it).

This disproportion is an intimate breach and speaks of an inner distance, of a non-concurrence with itself. This is where you can see the possibility of falling, fragility, lability. But it is his condition of possibility, not his cause. There is no identification between finitude and guilt.

On the other hand, Balthasar tells us about the “pressure of finitude” in the Theodramatic. It is the intention of inserting the absolute in the relative, the definitive in the transient. If that desire, inexhaustible, is not acquitted in God, the figures of Faust and the Superman emerge. If we absolutize the pole of autonomy that characterizes the human being (neging our gifted being), our freedom becomes the norm of good.

These reflections, in keeping with classical thinking, allow us to see that the unrestricted opening of a limited being is both a condition of possibility of falling as a condition of possibility of acceptance and acceptance of the gift of God. The natural desire to see God who speaks of the Christian tradition, the obedienceal power that names the orientation and possibility of receiving grace is also a “not coincidental with itself”. The being who is able to sin is the being who can accept grace, who can live the presence of God (inhabitation) to transfigure his life theologally (divinization), to bring to fullness (God and man's counsel) the creature being in the image of the incarnate Son. It is the natural structure that culminates with grace.

See Guardini's beautiful writing on melancholy, about the dissatisfaction of the one who aspires to a whole who does not possess and suffer because nothing concrete calms that yearning. Or as Ricoeur says: “Man is joy of himself in the sadness of the finite.”

Balthasar, reflect on the anguish arising from this no coincidence with himself. Our author distinguishes two fundamental types of anguish: the anguish of sin and the anguish of the Cross.

♪ The anguish of sin that is experienced and experienced as isolation, such as a desire (conscious or not) to be forgotten by God.
♪ And in opposition, the “angustia of the Cross”. It is the anguish of Christ, a fruitful distress derived from carrying sin but without consenting to it. It's a fecund anguish that spreads love. And this fertile anguish is observed in us in facing the valuable, in the willingness to sacrifice for others, in taking the place of others.

And already, from a metaphysical point of view, Pieper poses this problem with the hand of St. Thomas. And with him, he appeals to the contingency that speaks of the presence of nothing in everything created as a creature he is. The possibility of not being, the possibility of losing integrity is a reflection of the fact that we are created from nothing. And it is that possibility, this contingency, the condition of possibility of the fall (although Pieper himself says that this is not a finished answer; there cannot be it).

Back to index

COROLAR. OBEDIENCE AND FREEDOMS
It is only truly free to choose good, the one who loves. The one who surrenders, the one who trusts, the one who obeys, has himself in the opening to the other who makes himself. Our relational being allows us to accept these two words together in mutual enlightenment.

It is only truly free to receive grace, the gift of God that fills the deep desire that the same gift reveals. Knowing us creatures, linked, illuminates the understanding and experience of freedom, the understanding that the good to do is valuable by itself, and that wishing and accomplishing it is one of the names of our vocation.

Back to index

Bibliography
BALTHASAR, H. U. von, The Christian and the Anguish, Guadarrama, Madrid, CABADA, M., The Endurance of Love. Affectivity, hominization and religiosity, San Pablo, Madrid, 1994. (Excellent study on the importance of affectivity in the development of the child in its first chapters).

https://jbhnews.com/legal-steroids-for-bulking-crazy-bulk-stacks-for-bodybuilding1/39770/ , B., The eternal in time. Rehearsal of sacramental anthropology, Follow me, Salamanca, 2000 (In particular chapters 3 – “negative anthropology” and 4 – “open anthropology”-).

GESCHÉ, A., God to think I. Evil. The man, Follow me, Salamanca, 1995 (This is a set of articles that were regrouped under that general title, “God to Think.” Those concerning evil are highly recommended for this topic.

GUARDINI, R., About the Meaning of Melancholy. Available in: /acerca-of-significated-of-la-melancholy/

PÉREZ-SOBA, J. J., “Personalism or Morality? The answer of the metaphysics of communion. (Access of the analysis of Maurice Nédoncelle)”, QUIRÓS, A., SARMIENTO, A., MOLINA, E, ENÉRIZ, J., PEÑACOBA, J., The primacy of the person in contemporary morals, 1997, . Available in: /bitstream/10171/55/1/63JUAN%20JOSE%20PEREZ%20SOBA.pdf

PIEPER, J., The concept of sin, Herder, Barcelona, RICOEUR, P., Finitude and Guilt, Trotta, Madrid, 2011 (there was a previous edition in Taurus). Part Two: The weak man, studies the disproportion and possibility of evil.
Here's my website: https://jbhnews.com/gynecomastia-surgery-reviews-types-of-procedures-costs-side-effects/30027/