Good is positive. Evil is merely privative, not absolute: it is

Good is positive. Evil is merely privative, not absolute: it is

22/09/2025
15/10/2025

Good is positive. Evil is merely privative, not absolute: it is like cold, which is the privation of heat. All evil is so much death or nonentity. Benevolence is absolute and real. So much benevolence as a man hath, so much life hath he.

Good is positive. Evil is merely privative, not absolute: it is
Good is positive. Evil is merely privative, not absolute: it is
Good is positive. Evil is merely privative, not absolute: it is like cold, which is the privation of heat. All evil is so much death or nonentity. Benevolence is absolute and real. So much benevolence as a man hath, so much life hath he.
Good is positive. Evil is merely privative, not absolute: it is
Good is positive. Evil is merely privative, not absolute: it is like cold, which is the privation of heat. All evil is so much death or nonentity. Benevolence is absolute and real. So much benevolence as a man hath, so much life hath he.
Good is positive. Evil is merely privative, not absolute: it is
Good is positive. Evil is merely privative, not absolute: it is like cold, which is the privation of heat. All evil is so much death or nonentity. Benevolence is absolute and real. So much benevolence as a man hath, so much life hath he.
Good is positive. Evil is merely privative, not absolute: it is
Good is positive. Evil is merely privative, not absolute: it is like cold, which is the privation of heat. All evil is so much death or nonentity. Benevolence is absolute and real. So much benevolence as a man hath, so much life hath he.
Good is positive. Evil is merely privative, not absolute: it is
Good is positive. Evil is merely privative, not absolute: it is like cold, which is the privation of heat. All evil is so much death or nonentity. Benevolence is absolute and real. So much benevolence as a man hath, so much life hath he.
Good is positive. Evil is merely privative, not absolute: it is
Good is positive. Evil is merely privative, not absolute: it is like cold, which is the privation of heat. All evil is so much death or nonentity. Benevolence is absolute and real. So much benevolence as a man hath, so much life hath he.
Good is positive. Evil is merely privative, not absolute: it is
Good is positive. Evil is merely privative, not absolute: it is like cold, which is the privation of heat. All evil is so much death or nonentity. Benevolence is absolute and real. So much benevolence as a man hath, so much life hath he.
Good is positive. Evil is merely privative, not absolute: it is
Good is positive. Evil is merely privative, not absolute: it is like cold, which is the privation of heat. All evil is so much death or nonentity. Benevolence is absolute and real. So much benevolence as a man hath, so much life hath he.
Good is positive. Evil is merely privative, not absolute: it is
Good is positive. Evil is merely privative, not absolute: it is like cold, which is the privation of heat. All evil is so much death or nonentity. Benevolence is absolute and real. So much benevolence as a man hath, so much life hath he.
Good is positive. Evil is merely privative, not absolute: it is
Good is positive. Evil is merely privative, not absolute: it is
Good is positive. Evil is merely privative, not absolute: it is
Good is positive. Evil is merely privative, not absolute: it is
Good is positive. Evil is merely privative, not absolute: it is
Good is positive. Evil is merely privative, not absolute: it is
Good is positive. Evil is merely privative, not absolute: it is
Good is positive. Evil is merely privative, not absolute: it is
Good is positive. Evil is merely privative, not absolute: it is
Good is positive. Evil is merely privative, not absolute: it is

The words of Ralph Waldo Emerson—“Good is positive. Evil is merely privative, not absolute: it is like cold, which is the privation of heat. All evil is so much death or nonentity. Benevolence is absolute and real. So much benevolence as a man hath, so much life hath he.”—resound with the clarity of ancient philosophy and the fire of eternal truth. In them, he teaches that good is not simply the absence of wrong, but a living, radiant force. Evil, on the other hand, is not a power equal to good, but a hollow absence, a void where life should be. Like cold without heat, evil is a negation, not a creation. Thus, Emerson proclaims that only benevolence, kindness, and love are real, eternal, and life-giving.

This teaching has its roots deep in the soil of earlier philosophy. Augustine of Hippo, the great thinker of late antiquity, wrote that evil is not a substance but a privation—a lack of goodness, much like darkness is the absence of light. Emerson echoes this, clothing it in the language of natural imagery: cold without heat, death without life. What we call evil has no lasting essence; it is parasitic, feeding upon the absence of good. Good alone is creative, good alone builds, and good alone endures.

History offers us examples that illuminate this truth. Consider the fall of Nazi tyranny in the twentieth century. Its cruelty, its hatred, its destruction—all appeared for a time to dominate the world. And yet, like darkness before dawn, it vanished when the light of justice, courage, and compassion prevailed. The evil left behind only ruins, graves, and memories of horror, but no living seed. By contrast, the benevolence of those who resisted—those who sheltered the persecuted, who sacrificed for freedom, who chose life over death—these acts bore fruit that continues to inspire generations. Evil destroyed; good created.

Emerson’s words also reveal the measure of a person’s life. He declares that “so much benevolence as a man hath, so much life hath he.” Here lies a great mystery: life is not counted merely in years, but in love. A man may live long yet be lifeless if he is selfish and cruel. Another may die young, but if he has poured forth kindness, his life is rich, radiant, and enduring. In this way, benevolence is not only moral but existential: it is the very essence of being alive in the fullest sense.

To understand evil as nonentity also brings comfort to the soul. For when we face cruelty or injustice, we may feel as though darkness is overwhelming. Yet Emerson assures us it is only the absence of good, not a rival force. Therefore, the answer to evil is not fear, but the cultivation of good. To fight cold, one adds heat; to fight darkness, one lights a flame. Likewise, to fight evil, we need not become consumed with hatred, but rather must multiply acts of benevolence until the void is filled with life.

The lesson for us, then, is clear: do not waste your energy fearing evil as if it were eternal. Instead, devote your life to practicing and spreading good. Be generous, for generosity is life. Be compassionate, for compassion is light. Be just, for justice builds while injustice crumbles. Every act of benevolence increases the measure of life in yourself and in the world. In this way, you stand not only against evil, but beyond it, proving by your deeds that goodness is the true and enduring reality.

So, dear listener, take Emerson’s words as both comfort and command. Remember that good is positive and real, while evil is only the shadow of absence. Do not be deceived by the seeming strength of cruelty, for it will always collapse under its own emptiness. Instead, fill your days with benevolence, and you will carry within you the essence of true life. For in the end, when the shadows pass, only what is good will remain—radiant, eternal, and victorious.

Tocpics Related
Notable authors
Have 4 Comment Good is positive. Evil is merely privative, not absolute: it is

THLE TU THAI HOANG

I’m struck by the metaphorical comparison between cold and the privation of heat. It makes me think about the human condition and whether our understanding of suffering or cruelty could be reframed as the absence of positive qualities like empathy or love. Could this perspective change how societies address social ills, shifting focus from combating evil to fostering benevolence? I also wonder about psychological implications—might people who struggle morally be lacking in certain internal ‘heat’ rather than being innately malicious? This raises questions about nature, nurture, and the potential for personal transformation.

Reply.
Information sender

CCcung cung

Reading this makes me question the nature of moral dualism. If evil is merely an absence, does that imply it is always passive and reactive? Or can it somehow manifest actively despite being a lack? I’m particularly interested in how this distinction affects the way we judge others’ actions and intentions. Could labeling something as evil be misleading if it is just a deficit of good? This viewpoint challenges conventional notions of morality and responsibility, and I wonder if it encourages a more compassionate approach toward those who commit harmful acts, focusing on restoration rather than punishment.

Reply.
Information sender

PLMinh Phuong Le

I find the idea of benevolence as something absolute and real both inspiring and daunting. It suggests that our capacity for good directly correlates to the amount of life or vitality we possess. How might this notion apply to modern challenges like systemic injustice or environmental crises? Can benevolence truly be measured in a quantitative sense, or is Emerson speaking more metaphorically? I’m curious whether cultivating small acts of genuine benevolence could genuinely shift the 'amount of life' in a person or society, and how we might operationalize such a philosophy in daily practice.

Reply.
Information sender

GDGold D.dragon

This perspective intrigues me because it frames evil not as an independent force but as an absence, a lack of something essential like life or warmth. I wonder if this view minimizes the responsibility of individuals for harmful actions. Could it be that some actions we label as evil might still have an active, almost tangible presence rather than merely being a void? I’d like to explore how this framework could influence moral philosophy and practical ethics in society. Does seeing evil as merely privative make it easier to cultivate benevolence in ourselves, or does it risk underestimating the destructive power of certain behaviors?

Reply.
Information sender
Leave the question
Click here to rate
Information sender