What exactly is the knowledge of good and evil?

[friardchips]

The best way of describing the relationship between good and evil is to say that evil is a broken version of good. All evil has some good at its core, however messed up. Evil can’t exist without good, good can exist without evil.

So, an extreme example of what you’ve said here, might be: a man commits an act of evil, let’s say by gruesomely murdering a woman (for example, ISIS), and yet there is good in this evil act (?), because, somewhere further down the line deeply embedded in the subconscious is a desire for love, which in itself, because of brokenness, is selfishly manifesting via an extremely twisted means, outside of accordance with loving expression?

 

[Robert_Sock]

Yes, I’d be interested in that if you find it. “Very good” could still mean less than perfect-and so…? I’d like to see where that leads. Anyway, thank you.

NATURAL IMPULSE
THE good impulse (yetser tov) and the evil impulse (yetser ra) are pictured in Jewish literature as wrestling in perpetual conflict within the heart of man. Satan is usually identified with the yetser ha-ra, the evil impulse. In the book of Job, Satan’s function is described as that of testing the sincerity of men’s characters. In Talmudic literature, Satan’s function is to strengthen man’s moral sense by leading him into temptation. It has been said that every man living shall assuredly meet with an hour of temptation, a certain critical hour, which shall more especially try his mettle.

According to a midrashic statement (Genesis Rabbah 9:9), the existence of the yetser ha-ra in the heart of man and the struggle to overcome it lends high value to the good that emerges from the inner battle. The two conflicting impulses, the good and bad tendencies, are said to be implanted in man as a consequence of his having been formed from the dust and endowed with a soul (Genesis 2:7).

According to rabbinic thinking, the evil impulse is to be found in man at birth; the good impulse begins to develop when he is thirteen years old. The teachings of the Torah are referred to as the antidote to the yetser ha-ra. Similarly, Ben Sira (21:11) states: “The man who keeps the Law controls his natural tendency.”

In commenting on the two yods in the word " ", (Genesis 2:7), the rabbis declare that God created both the yetser tov and the yetser ra (Berakhoth 61a). The command to love God “with all your heart” they interpret to mean “with both your impulses” (Berakhoth Ma), since both human elements can be employed in the service of God. “Were it not for the yetser ha-ra, no man would build a home or get married or follow an occupation” (Genesis Rabbah 9:9). The phrase “very good” (Genesis 1:31) is therefore explained, as alluding to the yetser ha-ra, frequently used in the sense of the productive urge.

Taken from the Encyclopedia of Jewish Concepts

Genesis 1:31
And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, a sixth day.

 

[meltzerboy]

Yes, what you say is informative.

Note that we do not believe that God’s creation ended-up “good,” but “very good,” which to many Jews means “evil.” I have a Jewish encyclopedia article on the meaning of “very good” if you’re interested.

I do not know why, but I sense that the knowledge evil contaminated something sacred and pure, and that this knowledge would have led to a corruption of what was once purely good, Consequentially would may have led to their destruction, had God not intervened and banish them from the Garden.

I think to say that ‘very good’ means ‘evil’ is a little misleading. The creation of the universe was deemed by G-d to be ‘good,’ while it was only after G-d created humanity that He called His creation ‘very good.’ This means that only humanity is bestowed with certain characteristics that make it godlike: a high level of consciousness and reason, a capacity to accumulate and transform resources and power, freedom of choice due to free will, the potential for meting out justice and having mercy and compassion, a striving toward perfection in accord with G-d’s will. If humanity uses these abilities wisely, whether for itself in a selfish way or for others (people, animals, trees, the care of the planet) in a selfless way, then humanity has chosen the good. If, on the other hand, humanity abuses these abilities, then it has missed the mark, that is, sinned. Nonetheless it is the capacity for humanity to express freely its G-d-given characteristics that makes G-d’s creation very good only after humans were created.

 

[OneSheep]

I guess what I’m asking what is it that makes “evil” evil and “good” good? And, why did God care about this knowledge? I sense that this knowledge resulted in the contamination of the soul, but how? I also sense that God knew this type of knowledge would eventually lead to something undesirable, but what?

Hi Robert,

Knowledge of good and evil does not lead to something undesirable, does it? Of course, it depends on the definition of terms. If “good” means “behaviors that are good” which was demonstrated by Adam and Eve covering themselves (cover up because they were ashamed to be uncovered, because being covered had become a tribal moral good) and “bad” means behaving against tribal mores, then such “knowledge”, such development of mores is good.

NATURAL IMPULSE
THE good impulse (yetser tov) and the evil impulse (yetser ra) are pictured in Jewish literature as wrestling in perpetual conflict within the heart of man. Satan is usually identified with the yetser ha-ra, the evil impulse.

This is something that deserves a closer look, Robert. Could you give an example of what they would call an “evil impulse”. Or, could you give an example of an “evil impulse”?

God Bless.

 

[meltzerboy]

Hi Robert,

Knowledge of good and evil does not lead to something undesirable, does it? Of course, it depends on the definition of terms. If “good” means “behaviors that are good” which was demonstrated by Adam and Eve covering themselves (cover up because they were ashamed to be uncovered, because being covered had become a tribal moral good) and “bad” means behaving against tribal mores, then such “knowledge”, such development of mores is good.

This is something that deserves a closer look, Robert. Could you give an example of what they would call an “evil impulse”. Or, could you give an example of an “evil impulse”?

God Bless.

The so-called evil or selfish impulse is not bad provided it is checked, controlled, and not abused. In fact, it is necessary for mankind to survive in this world. It enables people to go to work to earn a living for themselves and their families, defend themselves when attacked by others, make an effort to stay alive despite the challenges and obstacles, and even discuss and debate topics such as this on CAF. However, when not used correctly, it can lead mankind down the path of self-destructiveness and can be dangerous to others. Humanity has the unique ability to re-create G-d’s creation; but this re-creation must be controlled and limited to beneficial behaviors.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, what you say is informative.

Note that we do not believe that God’s creation ended-up “good,” but “very good,” which to many Jews means “evil.” I have a Jewish encyclopedia article on the meaning of “very good” if you’re interested.

I do not know why, but I sense that the knowledge evil contaminated something sacred and pure, and that this knowledge would have led to a corruption of what was once purely good, Consequentially would may have led to their destruction, had God not intervened and banish them from the Garden.

What Genesis is trying to convey to humankind is that the power to decide what is good and evil is not ours.

That is, we don’t get to decide “it’s ok for 2 men to marry each other. That is good!” and “To say that 2 men can’t marry is evil!”

That’s beyond our paygrade.

As Pope JP2 so magnificently said: “With this imagery, Revelation teaches that the power to decide what is good and what is evil does not belong to man, but to God alone.”–Veritatis Splendor

 

[Robert_Sock]

The so-called evil or selfish impulse is not bad provided it is checked, controlled, and not abused. In fact, it is necessary for mankind to survive in this world. It enables people to go to work to earn a living for themselves and their families, defend themselves when attacked by others, make an effort to stay alive despite the challenges and obstacles, and even discuss and debate topics such as this on CAF. However, when not used correctly, it can lead mankind down the path of self-destructiveness and can be dangerous to others. Humanity has the unique ability to re-create G-d’s creation; but this re-creation must be controlled and limited to beneficial behaviors.

I agree that the world could not contain itself without an element of evil. I’ve read some of mainstream Judaism and what you say sounds familiar, but the Tanya does not seem to emphasize this, but it does emphasize the crushing of the sitra achra (the other side holiness, which is evil).

 

[fisherman_carl]

There are two ways of viewing this, both of them mentioned by Aquinas at one time or another. One is that the knowledge of good and evil means to take upon oneself the role of *determining *good and evil, Adam & Eve being a law unto themselves IOW, which is God’s province,alone.

The other view-which isn’t necessarily in conflict with the first- is based on the meaning of the Hebrew word for knowledge, which can mean direct, experiential knowledge, as to know one by sexual union, for example, which the bible uses the word for, or to know anything directly by actually *experiencing *it. In this sense Adam and Eve opened the door to knowledge which had never been theirs in their innocence. They had only known *good *prior to their own sin of disobedience (since that very act, itself, was evil by definition, being in opposition to God’s will). By that act they now stood “outside”, no longer in harmony with God, the universe, the truth, their very own natures. At any rate beginning with that first sin and all other sin that would follow, Adam & Eve would henceforth know evil, and by contrast, they would now know good, good previously being simply the *norm *in Eden as everything God made was good.

I think I am more inclined towards the second view you mention. Since Adam and Eve were already created good you would think they already have a knowledge of the good. In this case then might it not be better to call the tree simply the knowledge of evil. And therefore its distinction is compared with the good that they already know.

 

[Christianus_Dei]

So, an extreme example of what you’ve said here, might be: a man commits an act of evil, let’s say by gruesomely murdering a woman (for example, ISIS), and yet there is good in this evil act (?), because, somewhere further down the line deeply embedded in the subconscious is a desire for love, which in itself, because of brokenness, is selfishly manifesting via an extremely twisted means, outside of accordance with loving expression?

I mean, somewhere further down the line, the murderer wants to please his god, or serve his state, or just satiate his own impulses. Those are not evil motivations, yet they produce immoral actions. Like when a pedophile abuses a child, he wants pleasure. Pleasure is a good thing, but he does great wrong in achieving it.

What I’m saying is that evil doesn’t exist by its own power, but by a broken form of good. Pride is a broken form of self-love.
Lust is a broken form of sexual desire.
Etc.

 

[fhansen]

I think I am more inclined towards the second view you mention. Since Adam and Eve were already created good you would think they already have a knowledge of the good. In this case then might it not be better to call the tree simply the knowledge of evil. And therefore its distinction is compared with the good that they already know.

Yes, but maybe they didn’t really know good, as a separate reality from anything else, because everything was good. What could they contrast anything with in God’s creation so as to say, “this is good”, unless there was also something not good. IOW, they wouldn’t truly know good and evil, so that they could identify the two, unless and until they knew evil.

 

[OneSheep]

The so-called evil or selfish impulse is not bad provided it is checked, controlled, and not abused. In fact, it is necessary for mankind to survive in this world. It enables people to go to work to earn a living for themselves and their families, defend themselves when attacked by others, make an effort to stay alive despite the challenges and obstacles, and even discuss and debate topics such as this on CAF. However, when not used correctly, it can lead mankind down the path of self-destructiveness and can be dangerous to others. Humanity has the unique ability to re-create G-d’s creation; but this re-creation must be controlled and limited to beneficial behaviors.

Hi Meltzerboy,

What must enter into this, though, is that when we use the words “evil” “selfish” or “bad”, in the ordinary sense those words have an attached resentment. They are ordinarily emotional words. So, if I am labeling an impulse in this way, I am communicating resentment; if not, I am at least communicating that others can “rightfully” resent those impulses or “should” resent them.

Yes, the impulses can drive our destructiveness, but there is always the essential ingredient of ignorance (or blindness) in such destruction. The impulses in themselves are essential in destructive behavior, but the key factor in such destructiveness, for example, is the blocking of empathy that automatically happens in the mind in certain circumstances.

So, when you or someone else labels these impulses as evil, are we to resent the impulses, or are we not?

Thanks for answering the questions.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

It’s tempting to say that God the good and Satan is the evil, but notice especially that it does not state good versus evil, which would imply two Gods, and thus be heresy. No, we live in a world of good and evil. I feel that the good and evil work in conjunction with each other.

According to the Jewish Tanya, there exists two souls within us: The animal soul and the divine soul, which is similar to what Freud termed the id and superego, respectively. Our goal in life, according to the Tanya, is to crush the animal soul, similar to the way we are commanded to mortify the self in Christianity. This may be related to the knowledge of good and evil, but I feel that there is more to it.

Something tells me that to understand this is beyond our grasp, but well worth noting.

Robert,

Could you please provide an example where you feel that “good” and “evil” are working in conjunction with each other? Please explain why makes you think that “the good element” within your example is good and why “the evil element” is evil.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Robert,

Could you please provide an example where you feel that “good” and “evil” are working in conjunction with each other? Please explain why makes you think that “the good element” within your example is good and why “the evil element” is evil.

Just look at the world 150 years ago and look at it now. How could this possibly have happened if “good” and “evil” were opposing each other? Indeed, without evil our world could not sustain itself.

I’m not clear on your second request. Do you mean what I took from the Tanya?

 

[fhansen]

Just look at the world 150 years ago and look at it now. How could this possibly have happened if “good” and “evil” were opposing each other? Indeed, without evil our world could not sustain itself.

I’m not clear on your second request. Do you mean what I took from the Tanya?

Robert, our faith teaches that God allows evil to run its course for a time, presumably in order to ultimately bring a greater good out of it, but that evil will not be allowed to coexist with good eternally. Otherwise, if evil is necessary in order for our world to sustain itself, why shouldn’t evil be also allowed in heaven? And of what beneficial use is rape or torture, for example? The only benefit to evil, IMO, is for us to learn, by experiencing it, to hate and turn from it, to learn to value its opposite, good above the other, to value love above all else IOW.

I think it’s essential to keep good and evil as separate and opposed realities, with God opposing evil. To call natural impulses evil is to make God the author of evil. Or to consider evil, itself, natural and necessary, is to either water down the meaning of the term or to remove any meaningful difference: ‘it’s all good’ in the end if evil isn’t, well, evil.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Robert, our faith teaches that God allows evil to run its course for a time, presumably in order to ultimately bring a greater good out of it, but that evil will not be allowed to coexist with good eternally. Otherwise, if evil is necessary in order for our world to sustain itself, why shouldn’t evil be also allowed in heaven? And of what beneficial use is rape or torture, for example? The only benefit to evil, IMO, is for us to learn, by experiencing it, to hate and turn from it, to learn to value its opposite, good above the other, to value love above all else IOW.

I think it’s essential to keep good and evil as separate and opposed realities, with God opposing evil. To call natural impulses evil is to make God the author of evil. Or to consider evil, itself, natural and necessary, is to either water down the meaning of the term or to remove any meaningful difference: ‘it’s all good’ in the end if evil isn’t, well, evil.

I never meant to glorify evil, and yes, it’s temporary. It will not exist in Heaven, but God is indeed using evil to bring about a greater good; and if this is true, as you do state it is, then it would be an oddity to say that God opposes evil in our world.

 

[fhansen]

I never meant to glorify evil, and yes, it’s temporary. It will not exist in Heaven, but God is indeed using evil to bring about a greater good; and if this is true, as you do state it is, then it would be an oddity to say that God opposes evil in our world.

But if He didn’t oppose it, then He’s the direct cause of every one of the worst atrocities ever committed. He allows, but doesn’t cause, evil. He allowed Adam to sin; He didn’t will Adam to sin. And so we must believe that all sin is against God’s will, even as He endeavors to use it nonetheless-lemons out of lemonade as it were.

But the other mistake, in my opinion, would be to call natural impulses evil. Sin would be the abuse of natural and good impulses. A natural need and appetite for food is a God-given good; gluttony is harmful-*not *good.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Just look at the world 150 years ago and look at it now. How could this possibly have happened if “good” and “evil” were opposing each other? Indeed, without evil our world could not sustain itself.

I’m not clear on your second request. Do you mean what I took from the Tanya?

Actually, I did not have a second request, but only one. Please, from what you see that has happened in the last 150 years choose one specific example where you feel good and evil have worked in conjunction with each other.

To me it doesn’t seem impossible that opposing powers (I will not call one of them good and the other evil) produce by their opposition a result which might prove to be advantageous to many. Perhaps it will not be optimal, but sometimes it works. I will propose an example: in our city, the authorities proposed to build a big bridge in certain area. Many of the neighbors were opposed to the project. The authorities had to work harder on it to make it attractive to more people. In the end, the bridge was built and it incorporated several additional good characteristics which were not included in the original project. No one represented the evil side here. It is difficult to me to isolate the evil wherever I turn my eyes; but perhaps you can propose a good example in which evil and good are clearly distinguished and, nevertheless, it is possible to see how they collaborate.

 

[Robert_Sock]

But if He didn’t oppose it, then He’s the direct cause of every one of the worst atrocities ever committed. He allows, but doesn’t cause, evil. He allowed Adam to sin; He didn’t will Adam to sin. And so we must believe that all sin is against God’s will, even as He endeavors to use it nonetheless-lemons out of lemonade as it were.

God does not oppose evil in today’s world for two reasons: 1) Our world today cannot sustain itself without evil. 2) Evil is being allowed to bring about a much greater good.

God never wants us to choose evil over His goodness.

But the other mistake, in my opinion, would be to call natural impulses evil. Sin would be the abuse of natural and good impulses. A natural need and appetite for food is a God-given good; gluttony is harmful-*not *good.

You would need to take this up with a Rabbi. As for me, I make a lot of notes from the from reading about Judaism without necessarily rejecting any of it.

 

[fhansen]

God does not oppose evil in today’s world for two reasons: 1) Our world today cannot sustain itself without evil.

And this is not at all apparent to me.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Just look at the world 150 years ago and look at it now. How could this possibly have happened if “good” and “evil” were opposing each other? Indeed, without evil our world could not sustain itself.

]?

I don’t understand what you are saying here at all. Good and evil are always opposing each other. What do you mean about the last 150 years? What is more special about them than the last 3000 years? Technology? Moral depravity?

I say our world is sadly falling to ruin, because evil is getting a very firm hold. Good is being thrown out as being silly. What makes you think otherwise?