Following the traditional belief of the Neoplatonists, Simplicius assigned no real reality to what is bad (kakón). It is only a "deprivation", a deprivation of the good. There is no “nature of evil”. In reality, everything bad can be explained as a lack of good. Simplicius opposed the Manichaean dualism with the Platonic conviction, shared by Aristotle, that all striving is aimed at something really or supposedly good. No one willingly wants something bad as such. According to this understanding, when one strives for an apparent good and acquires an evil along with it, one arrives at something bad and harmful because one either does not recognize its badness or accepts it for the sake of the good goal. Thus, every action that leads to something bad as a result can be explained by the fact that the person doing the action wanted to achieve something good and useful, but went astray and missed what was actually intended. Wrong decisions and wickedness in a person are therefore only the result of a lack of insight, not of an evil nature in him. Even if there were something inherently bad, it would act for its own benefit, that is, for something good. This is even presupposed in the world view of the Manichaeans, as Simplicius reproached them: According to their myth, the kingdom of evil strives in the fight against good to gain some benefit from it; so, according to Simplicius, it actually wants something good, although it is said to be absolutely bad. Thus, absolute evil seeks that which is contrary to its own nature. This assumption was absurd for Simplicius.Christian Vogel: Stoic Ethics and Platonic Education. Heidelberg 2013, pp. 269–272.
Following the traditional belief of the Neoplatonists Simplicius assigned no real reality to what is bad (kakón) It is only a "deprivation" a deprivation of the good There is no “nature of evil” In reality everything bad can be explained as a lack of good Simplicius opposed the Manichaean dualism with the Platonic conviction shared by Aristotle that all striving is aimed at something really or supposedly good No one willingly wants something bad as such According to this understanding when one strives for an apparent good and acquires an evil along with it one arrives at something bad and harmful because one either does not recognize its badness or accepts it for the sake of the good goal Thus every action that leads to something bad as a result can be explained by the fact that the person doing the action wanted to achieve something good and useful but went astray and missed what was actually intended Wrong decisions and wickedness in a person are therefore only the result of a lack of insight not of an evil nature in him Even if there were something inherently bad it would act for its own benefit that is for something good This is even presupposed in the world view of the Manichaeans as Simplicius reproached them According to their myth the kingdom of evil strives in the fight against good to gain some benefit from it; so according to Simplicius it actually wants something good although it is said to be absolutely bad Thus absolute evil seeks that which is contrary to its own nature This assumption was absurd for SimpliciusChristian Vogel Stoic Ethics and Platonic Education Heidelberg 2013 pp 269–272