Ahlan bil Ḱayr
Fi manti` ḣadiis ṫaalix bi nahfe, cii nḋiif
Btiftikro w yimkin laṫiif, mu`nix w zariif
L ḱayr mitl ccar aṡlo iṡṫilaaḣ, uwwit tixriif
Rrelatiif! La symmetry bi`e w la xafiif
Ahlan bil ḱayr, ccar baleek ma byaxrif ḣeelo
Ġalta bitṡiir cirriir, xammiil l ḱayr kill marra
Baddu yjud la majid l Adiir, byikfic marra
Law minḣaddid ḱayr w carr, miin l mawt ceelo
L ḱayr ṫarii`o dayyi`, ccarr darbo masarra
Kill marra l ḱayr feetna, ccarr sajjal xaddo
Craara btiḣro` bayt, addayc tiṡliiḣo baddo
Ccarr uwto xubudiyye, bi ġeeyto xaniif
L ḱayr ḣirriyye, bi uwto ḱillee` w żariif
Baxatilna hawa w ġaym, mallelna l jarra
Copyright July 30, 2009 Hicham Khalil Bourjaili
Our Lady of Lebanon, Waterbury, Connecticut, USA
English Version
Welcome Goodness
A new logic is bringing about a joke, something neat
You might think or maybe nice, convincing and special
Good is like evil, the distinction is a matter of convention, and resides in the power of disclosing (1)
Relativity! No symmetry (2) was left after it and no chastity
Welcome goodness, evil without you does not know itself (3)
One fault and one becomes bad, but to deserve the name of good doer every time
One should strive for the sake of the glory of the Most Powerful, not only once
If we were to decide what is good and what is evil, who death skipped? (4)
Goodness path is narrow, evil’s way looks fun
Every time we miss an opportunity to do good evil scores
A sparkle could burn a house, how much does it take to repair it? (5)
The power of evil is slavery and in its purpose it is violent
Goodness is freedom, in its power creative and beautiful
It sends us wind and clouds, and fills our jars (6)
Notes:
1) The power of disclosing is an expression coined after the will of power introduced by the philosopher Nietzsche in the 19th century. According to his views, the will of the powerful defines to all the rest of us what is good and what is evil. When one more powerful comes, new definitions of what is good and what is evil will be brought about, and the cycle could repeat itself without end. In other words, no objectivity and no rationality would reside behind the notions of good and evil, only matters of conventions and arbitrary notions imposed by the most powerful over the weak followers in any given situation. “Might makes right”: from a popular statement it becomes the law of the land. Good and evil are no more absolutes but merely relative to the powerful defining them. Another version of the argument is that individuals have all freedom to define good and evil in the manner that is convenient to them since they are all powerful to define their destiny.
2) The argument of the relativity of good and evil explained above in note 1, suffers when its apparent symmetry is examined. Though it implies that good and evil are interchangeable depending on the force or its opposite imposing them, and therefore the two notions appear to be interchangeable, they are not. Good and evil and their associated practices are not symmetrical. A series of arguments would be displayed in a ludic fashion to hint to their dissymmetry and difference in essence. The claim of relativity of good and evil when applied leads to breaking the concept of symmetry when it announces it. To illustrate the paradox, the relativity applied throw out chastity. Has it ever been heard that lack of chastity could be all goodness without evil consequences? Why in a society of free individuals the proportions would not be the same between chaste and unchaste people?
3) The argument is due to Saint Thomas of Aquinas, a medieval Doctor of the Church. Goodness does not need evil to be defined, but evil is always a lack of goodness. How could they be then interchangeable?
4) Who death skipped? The first meaning of the question is: who is the one that death will spare? The answer to the question is that death skips nobody since we all die, and therefore evil has an absolute and universal character experienced by all. Second, if we were to define and choose at whim between good and evil, who among us managed to skip death by choice? The answer is none of us managed to avoid death because we are not all powerful, and we cannot escape rationality and objectivity. As a matter of fact though the two meanings are expressed by the same question, the symmetrical appearance of the question between the one who chooses to skip the other, death or the individual, the artificial appearance of symmetry cannot hide the objectivity of the result. The argument of relativity would lead to state that the possible answers - any individual could skip death, death could skip any individual, or death could not skip anyone, or no one could skip death, and so forth - are all equivalent statements. The reality is that we all die. Nothing is merely relative, but relativity and the relativists.
5) A simple argument shows the imbalance between good and evil and their effects: it takes definitely more than a sparkle to build a house; good is more stringent than evil; whereas evil is easy. Moreover, letting the house burn is irreversible. The damage we do we cannot take back.
6) A Lebanese saying holds that the hell is “Jhannam l Ḣamra”: a place of burning that is red from heat! If you are not convinced that good and evil are definitely different, experiencing heat, drought and thirst might convince you!
Copyright August 1, 2009 Hicham Khalil Bourjaili
Our Lady of Lebanon, Waterbury, Connecticut, USA
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Post a Comment