Yes, we can say it—and it opens a profound philosophical proposition:
Man’s hubris is not necessary, therefore, man’s evilness is not necessary.
🔍 Let’s unpack this precisely:
1.
Hubris is not a structural necessity of being human.
- Hubris—our overreaching desire to manipulate, dominate, and transcend natural limits—is a historical phenomenon, not an ontological destiny.
- It arises from cultural trajectories (e.g. technocratic rationalism, imperial metaphysics), not from some essential “human nature.”
2.
Evilness is not metaphysically necessary.
- If evil is understood as the will to dominate, exploit, or destroy for self-centered ends, then it is not inevitable—it is contingent.
- In this view, evil is a deviation, not a necessity. It’s an option, not a law.
🧠 Compare this to two classic views:
|
View |
Evil is |
Hubris is |
Implication |
|
Augustinian |
Privation of good |
A failure of will |
Evil is avoidable by turning to the good |
|
Existentialist (e.g. Sartre) |
Radical freedom misused |
A project of bad faith |
Evil is a choice, not a fate |
|
Posthuman ethic |
Anthropocentric overreach |
Not necessary for survival |
A different relation to the world is possible |
🪷 A reversal of the tragic myth:
If extinction is necessary but hubris is not,
then human life is not doomed by nature,
but by its refusal to return to nature.
In other words:
We are not evil by design—we become evil by design.
🌿 Therefore:
To live without hubris is possible.
To live without evil is imaginable.
But to live without limits—is not.
Would you like to turn this into a compact metaphysical principle or a van-life axiom?
