Arguably, one could not be fully assured and informed that our most fundamental choice in life which in turn affects all other aspects of individual and collective life is a choice between good and evil unless one were to adhere to the most basic rules and standards of logic and rational inquiry which we have highlighted before. Moreover, when we adhere to the basic rules and standards of logic and rational inquiry in order to make sense of reality and then convey our interpretation of reality to the world based on these rules and standards of logic and rational inquiry, the aim of making sense of reality and giving our interpretation of reality to the world is not to gain anything from people or to impress people with our intellect. Rather, the aim, more than anything else, is happiness, peace of mind, and the self-satisfaction which results from having done what we needed to do.
As Pascal suggested, our initial curiosity in making sense of reality and interpreting reality will then turn into wonder, and it is this sense of wonder which will then suffice for us: “I believe that with his curiosity changing into wonder he will be more disposed to contemplate them in silence than investigate them with presumption.” Also, and as Carl Jung wisely said, having a gift is not something to gain from, but rather, a gift is something which is to be given away to people.
Moreover, only the leitmotif or overarching theme of reality based on good versus evil can explain “algorithms” which recommend ISIS videos on big tech platforms or the fact that art, philosophy, and poetry are being cancelled, denied, and made to seem non-existent on these platforms even though ISIS gets a boost. Nothing is more evil and nefarious than a man-made American algorithm which promotes ISIS videos, except, of course, for the Americans who actually invaded the Middle East and created the conditions for the rise of ISIS itself.
But now that we have a benchmark or floor for evil and malice by which we can contrast our own notion of what reality constitutes, we can then buoy our interpretation of reality by exploring the notion of the “good” which is at the heart of our reality and in turn arrive at a basic understanding of what the “good” constitutes. The good, as Saint Thomas Aquinas suggested, is “what all things desire.” And nothing is least desirous and more repugnant than chaos and discord. The first “conception” of what is good is that “all difference is discord, and similarity is to be desired” and that “the discordant clashes with desire, so discord is said to be what is repugnant to desire.”
Because “everything tends to the good” and thus similarity arises out of discord through the course of time, it follows that good must eventually prevail over evil. Why things tend towards the good is because our very existence is contingent upon the highest good, namely, the existence of God. As Thomas Aquinas wrote:
“It follows that it is because the existence of things flows from the will of him who is essentially good that created things are said to be good. For the First Good, namely God, is good just insofar as he is because he is essentially goodness itself, but the secondary or created good is good because it flows from the First Good. That is why the existence itself of things is good and any created thing, insofar as it exists, is good. Thus created things are only good insofar as they exist because their existence derives from the highest good.”
In short, one can exist only if one’s existence is derived from the “first existence” to borrow from Aquinas, which again prompts us to adhere to the basic rules and standards of logic and rationality which we have highlighted recurrently, and as has been evinced thus far, logic and rationality are deeply intertwined with some level of religiosity and faith.
Adam A. Azim 