on context

Recently, in class we have been discussing the existence of evil. It seems that nothing is, in itself, evil. Evil results from an individual's dissatisfaction with something. For example, fire in itself is not evil. However, one might see fire as evil if it burns down an entire city. The evil is found within the context the object (fire) is operating within. The same fire that burns down a city can also be seen as good, as fire is necessary for the environment to promote diversity in plant species and topsoil renewal. So, clearly the fire is not evil. The perspective from which one views the fire is where evil is derived. Professor Devitto discussed an example of evil where a mountain lion attacked a woman. How could this situation be anything but evil? To the woman and her friends, the attack was clearly unwarranted and evil. However, consider that to the mountain lion, the woman could have been a threat, Perhaps, the mountain lion had cubs near by and was afraid that the woman might be a threat, or maybe the mountain lion was starving. From the mountain lion's perspective, the attack was not evil, but a necessity. Who's perspective is correct, the mountain lion's or the woman's? An object or situation cannot be both good and evil at the same time. Clearly, good and evil are products of a context or perspective. Evil, like love, is an intangible concept that is derived from the mind. Something is only evil if one thinks it to be evil. Many diffrerent people will have varying opinions regarding whether the same object or situation is good or evil. The evil comes from an individual's perspective; therefore, evil must come from the self. Can we choose whether or not we see evil? There are always different ways to look at the same situation, and perhaps we can choose to focus on the good, therefore eliminating the evil. Thus, evil is derived from a context and is not inherent within objects or situations.

The notion of context also applies to the conflict between science and religion. Science and religion can absolutely be compared because they are attempting to do the same thing, explain reality, merely from a different perspective. Science is perceived to be the ultimate authority regarding the nature of reality; however, one must consider that even science operates within a context. Science is based upon observations. Man is greatly limited in his ability to observe, and he only knows his limitations once he has surpassed them. We only knew that the earth was not flat once we were capable of observing it as round. Thus, science is ever changing and we are unable to know exactly what our scientific limiations are. In addition, science measures what can be observed, but much of what rules man is unobservable. Where is love or hate or pride and how do we measure it? Something should not be discounted or discredited merely because it is unobservable. The most important things in life are unobservable. Why should we look to science as the ultimate authority to explain reality when it cannot even measure the most important and influential things?

It seems that everything is based upon context. Something can be an emergent property or extrapolation depending upon who is observing - namely, the context in which it is being observed.