We humans love abstract concepts. As we should. For no other species has anywhere near our capability for language and conceptualization, both of which are needed to come up with abstract notions like freedom, justice, love, evil.
None of those words point to anything concrete, something that can be put on a table and studied as we would a starfish, piece of marble, or hummingbird. They're purely human inventions with no connection to the natural world.
It's easy to forget this, though.
Just as "God" has come to mean something real and important for billions of people without any substantial evidence that the word refers to anything actually existent, calling someone "Evil" is commonplace notwithstanding the absence of anything about them that deserves that appellation.
Sure, people do engage in horribly bad behavior. The honest thing is to describe that behavior, such as "she murdered her child after torturing the child for years." But often we hear, "she is an evil person who deserves the death penalty."
Calling a person evil is a way for us to distance ourselves from them by placing them in a category that is utterly unlike good people like you and me. We prop up our own sense of goodness by drastically diminishing the moral value of others.
Yet if we had gone through the exact life circumstances that Hitler did down to the smallest detail, and if we possessed the exact brain that Hitler did down to the smallest neuronal connection, there's every reason to believe that however Hitler acted and thought, so would we.
Meaning, there's no abstract essence called evil. In addition to someone's experiences and physical characteristics, there's nothing extra in their makeup that could be termed evil. Or, good. There's just their behavior and what caused that behavior.
Today The Atlantic published an essay by Amanda Knox, "What is Evil?" Knox was wrongly convicted of killing a fellow exchange student in Italy. Incarcerated for four years, she was acquitted by the Italian Supreme Court.
Here's some excerpts from her essay.
When the news first broke about the four University of Idaho students who were stabbed to death in the middle of the night, the word evil was on everyone’s lips. I encountered it on Reddit boards and podcasts, in the tabloids, on daytime TV, and in mainstream news outlets. This was surely the work of a monster. And when Bryan Kohberger was arrested, the evidence only seemed to confirm the fact.
…Judge Steven Hippler has urged everyone to stop focusing on that lingering question. “By continuing to focus on why, we continue to give Mr. Kohberger relevance. We give him agency. We give him power.” Hippler described the murders as an “unfathomable and senseless act of evil.” Pure and simple. End of story.
…Consider the case of the Texas tower sniper, Charles Whitman, who in 1966 fatally stabbed both his wife and his mother, then climbed a clock tower with a rifle, a shotgun, and several handguns, and fired at random people for 96 minutes, ultimately killing 16 people and injuring many more before police officers killed him. (A 17th victim would die from his injuries decades later.) Unlike Kohberger, Whitman did provide a full confession in his suicide note:
I don’t really understand myself these days. I am supposed to be an average reasonable and intelligent young man. However, lately (I can’t recall when it started) I have been a victim of many unusual and irrational thoughts.
He noted that he dearly loved his wife, but that he was overwhelmed by violent impulses. He also mentioned suffering from tremendous headaches, and requested that after his death, “an autopsy would be performed on me to see if there is any visible physical disorder.”
An autopsy was performed, and it found that a brain tumor in his hypothalamus was pressing on his amygdala, the region of the brain that helps regulate emotions such as fear, anxiety, and aggression. A commission of pathologists, psychiatrists, and other experts formed by the governor noted that “abnormal aggressive behavior may be a manifestation of organic brain disease.”
They were not able to pinpoint a clear link between the tumor and Whitman’s actions, but they were operating under a 1966 level understanding of neurophysiology, and it remains plausible that the tumor contributed to his anguish.
I’ve yet to meet someone who hears that story and doesn’t feel a flicker of uncertainty, of reluctant sympathy. Would it change how we feel about Kohberger if they found a brain tumor pressing on his amygdala, or some psychopathy gene in his genome? Should it?
In a series of lectures on free will on the Waking Up app (where I am a contributor), the philosopher Sam Harris uses the Whitman case as a springboard into a broader argument: If we could truly understand the complexities of the human brain, we would think differently about how we understand human behavior too. Harris says:
A brain tumor is just a special case of our having insight into the fact that physical events give rise to thoughts and actions. If we fully understood the neurophysiology of any murderer’s brain, it would seem just as exculpatory as finding a tumor in it. If we could see how the wrong genes were being relentlessly transcribed, and how this person’s experiences in life had sculpted the microstructure of his brain in just such a way to produce states of mind which were guaranteed to make him violent, if we could see this causality clearly, the basis for placing blame on him in any deep sense would disappear.
To be clear, I am not arguing against consequences for those who commit murder. On the contrary. But what those consequences should be depends upon our view of how human behavior originates. This is why I believe it serves us to ask why Kohberger did what he did.
…To me, especially having been on the other side of that label, the word evil feels like a cop-out. It is an excuse to stop thinking, to ignore the evidence, to hate and punish someone law enforcement didn’t, or wouldn’t, understand.
Even though my innocence has long since been established, I worry that when people use terms like evil to define those who are demonstrably guilty of violent crimes, they are doing so not merely to convey the unfathomability of those crimes, but to wish harm upon the guilty, not as a means to rehabilitation or deterrence, but merely for harm’s sake.
…But as Sam Harris points out, our available decisions in life are a result of choices made by others that shape the world we find ourselves in. And even those predisposed to psychopathy have minds shaped by genes and environmental influences they did not choose.
…But writing someone off as evil, as many people urged me to do with my prosecutor, is an excuse to ignore the causes of human dysfunction. It’s a wall we build to separate ourselves from those who commit the worst actions we can imagine. Ironically, it also grants permission for psychopathy in its own way.
Let’s not forget: Crowds once cheered as criminals were drawn and quartered. What could be more psychopathic? We still execute people today in ways that are perhaps more muted, but just as ethically questionable. People talk about “closure” and “justice,” but we live in a society that encourages us to take pleasure in another’s pain and never ask ourselves why.
That’s why I keep trying, even though I sometimes fail, to feel a degree of genuine curiosity and compassion for those labeled “evil.” It’s not easy, and I certainly had to work my way up to forgiving the man who wrongly convicted me. I still find it nearly impossible to extend compassion to Rudy Guede.
Do I expect the parents of Ethan, Madison, Xana, and Kaylee to take on the challenge of viewing Kohberger with compassion? Not at all. Their rage and existential grief is justified, full stop. But for the rest of us, those who are not at the epicenter of this tragedy, have a choice: We can judge and label, or we can challenge ourselves to make sense of the senseless, in hopes that we might find a way to prevent the next tragedy from occurring.
The only thing I’ve found that has actually helped me heal from my own terrible experiences has been acceptance, and a desire to understand the flawed, complicated, and sometimes extremely dangerous humans around me.
Discover more from Church of the Churchless
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Interesting side of the the coin so I guess you can say that same thing about good not existing either. Can we agree that nepotism, neurosis, narcissism and other n-words exist? Or maybe nothing exists and this is just all a big dream .
“…they are doing so not merely to convey the unfathomability of those crimes, but to wish harm upon the guilty, not as a means to rehabilitation or deterrence, but merely for harm’s sake.”
“Let’s not forget: Crowds once cheered as criminals were drawn and quartered. What could be more psychopathic? We still execute people today in ways that are perhaps more muted, but just as ethically questionable. People talk about “closure” and “justice,” but we live in a society that encourages us to take pleasure in another’s pain and never ask ourselves why.”
So what about the people who punish or have the desire to punish those with bad/harmful behaviors? I guess those people too are not “evil”, they are simply wired that way too through all the causes and conditions that have made them that way.
So, based on this logic, everything is as it should be.
End of discussion. What’s there to say or write about.
It is all as it is.
That’s why people compose shabds:
” Good and bad, I define these terms
Quite clear, no doubt, somehow
Ah, but I was so much older then
I’m younger than that now ”
Copyright © 1964 by Warner Bros. Inc.;
Bob Dylan
Given the way this world is operating, “red in tooth and claw,” and the absolute misery that billions must endure, it may well be that the whole game is itself evil, at least by any definition we have hoisted upon that most human of terms.
There is a line in Shakespear’ Hamlet: – “There is nothing good or bad but thinking makes it so.” It’s pointing out that it’s our perception that gives them meaning; our perceptions of positive and negative value.
Of course, ‘evil’ isn’t a thing it’s an idea, a concept; our usual way of categorising and putting people in a box and all to do with making ourselves feel safe by making predictions that aid in survival and reproduction – entirely very natural and primal. But hopefully we are beginning to recognise that there are numerous reasons for being evil or bad. We no longer put mentally ill people in asylums or condemn women who act and speak up as being hysterical – and so on.
We also extend making ourselves feel safe or good by identifying with our various groups, with beliefs and ideologies. We are then able to categorise others who are not part of our group as being misguided perhaps bad or plain foolish (or evil) – one of the many causes of conflict and suffering in the world.
Basically, our thinking is still pretty much grounded in primitive survival mode. All revolving around our continuation to survive and propagate our genes. We clever humans have taken this into the mental sphere. We now posit a separate self that demands to continue to exist above and beyond mere physical survival.
We invent clever concepts that tell us if we believe in them, we are the morally correct ones; that our particular country is good while all others are bad and further, that our group will be saved or survive death in some way and all others will perish – if such a thing as evil did exist, then the aggrandization of the self fits the bill.
The nature of evil I can see who you are. You’re not fooling anybody except yourself.And your little protégé is really a fool.I just call them as I see them.You bet those Indians are reading this; Babaji what a joke. Since he admitted he won’t come for anybody at the time of death would it be evil for me to start charging $1000 a head to come at the time of death ? Signed, No Animosity
Sorry, Brian, I find myself disagreeing with your take on evil. I’ll go ahead and discuss why, if I may.
Since I find myself disagreeing with not just one or two things here, but with most of what you’ve said here, then I think I’ll go ahead and quote from your post, and note my points of divergence for each. I’ll try to keep individual responses to individual bits as brief as I can, without sacrificing basic clarity; but happy to expand further if there’s interest and discussion around this.
———-
“Evil doesn’t exist. It’s just a word used to describe bad behavior.”
“Evil” is an abstraction, and does not exist objectively and substantially, sure. But “bad behavior” is a whole range, an entire spectrum, and a 3-D spectrum at that: and “evil” as an adjective expresses a particular nuance, that describes both the extent of “bad behavior”, as well as the intentionality of it: and that makes it a very useful word indeed. As long as we’re clear that we don’t subscribe to any woo-ic connotations, then it makes no sense to want to altogether get rid of the word “evil” — and not even the noun form of it, no more than it makes sense to get rid of other abstraction-nouns like ‘happiness’, or ‘joy’, or ‘sorrow’, or ‘delight’.
———-
“ (…) freedom, justice, love, evil (…) None of those words point to anything concrete (…) purely human inventions with no connection to the natural world (…) It’s easy to forget this, though. (…) Just as “God” has come to mean something real (…)
Agreed, we should guard against woo-ic connotations that might sometimes adhere to “evil”. But not all abstractions are “inventions” — for instance, “love”, as well as “happiness” and “sorrow”, are subjectively real, as God isn’t. And while “freedom” and “evil” are indeed abstractions, and do not exist outside of our concepts, but these too are subtly but importantly different than “God”, because God is fiction masquerading as fact, while “freedom” and “evil” are abstractions that point to something real — subjectively real — in the human experience. (So that “God” is fiction, but ‘faith’ is real, as a subjective psychological phenomenon.) …I’m saying, we shouldn’t lump all of these together in the same bin. And nor does it make sense to get rid of all abstractions — it is enough to rid ourselves of fictions that masquerade as fact.
Actually, this harks back to the Philip K Dick thread, and specifically to the comment there from the hilariously pseudonymmed @lovedick, and my response to him. I’m drawing from and expanding somewhat on that discussion. Like I said, this is a brief touching-on on this theme. A theme that is deserving of a separate full-on discussion, one that I’m myself interested in, and happy to take on if there is interest and engagement.
———-
“often we hear, “she is an evil person who deserves the death penalty”
Sure, we do. And it is important to get rid of woo-ic connotations around evil, as well barbaric practices like the death penalty, agreed. But none of that is an argument against recognizing the distinct category that the word “evil” represents.
———-
“Calling a person evil is a way for us to distance ourselves from them by placing them in a category that is utterly unlike good people like you and me. We prop up our own sense of goodness by drastically diminishing the moral value of others.”
Sure, we sometimes do that. It is good to recognize such, and guard against such. But none of that is an argument against recognizing the category that “evil” represents.
———-
“Yet if we had gone through the exact life circumstances that Hitler did down to the smallest detail, and if we possessed the exact brain that Hitler did down to the smallest neuronal connection, there’s every reason to believe that however Hitler acted and thought, so would we.”
Agreed. But that, again, is NOT an argument against recognizing the category that “evil” represents. The fact that we are, given different circumstances, capable of evil ourselves, does not therefore mean that evil does not exist.
———-
“there’s no abstract essence called evil”
Agreed. But that is not to say that “evil” does not exist. When someone does something that is completely, beyond-the-pale vile and “bad”, and does it intentionally, then that nuance is captured by calling that act “evil”; and, by extension, by calling that person “evil” as well (as at that point in time, and potentially subject to change going forward). And the abstraction of that, the noun “evil”, does make sense in conveying that quality and that tendency: and, as an abstraction, is equally as useful a word and idea as other abstractions like ‘freedom’, ‘fraternity’, etc.
———-
“(…) brain tumor in his hypothalamus was pressing on his amygdala (…) pathologists, psychiatrists, and other experts (…) noted that abnormal aggressive behavior may be a manifestation of organic brain disease (…) They were not able to pinpoint a clear link between the tumor and Whitman’s actions (…) it remains plausible that the tumor contributed to his anguish (…) I’ve yet to meet someone who hears that story and doesn’t feel a flicker of uncertainty, of reluctant sympathy. Would it change how we feel about Kohberger if they found a brain tumor pressing on his amygdala, or some psychopathy gene in his genome? Should it?”
We should go with the experts here. If they do establish a link, then we should agree there’s a link, and sympathize accordingly, absolutely. If there is no such causal link established by experts themselves so far, then I don’t see why we should imagine we know better than them, and offer sympathy where none is justifiably called for. Sure, there’s uncertainty, and we should strive to arrive at certainty, or as much of it as is possible at this time, but that’s up to the experts who’re actually doing the research. This seems straightforward to me, that we go with what experts are saying. And if they’ve not actually said a thing, as in spelled it out as fact, then we don’t take it as fact, and simply keep an eye out for further research, is all.
———-
“If we fully understood the neurophysiology of any murderer’s brain, it would seem just as exculpatory as finding a tumor in it. If we could see how the wrong genes were being relentlessly transcribed, and how this person’s experiences in life had sculpted the microstructure of his brain in just such a way to produce states of mind which were guaranteed to make him violent, if we could see this causality clearly, the basis for placing blame on him in any deep sense would disappear.”
I don’t see why. Certainly no “blame in a deep sense” would adhere, in any religious or otherwise woo-woo sense. But if the chain of cause and effect ends up resulting in a human being given to thoughts and actions that we might describe as evil, then I don’t see why we shouldn’t recognize that evil as evil. This simply makes no sense. Explaining evil is not the same disappearing evil!
Once again this goes back to Sapolsky-esque incoherence: where the concepts of good and bad are assumed to be predicated on philosophical free will. I question that connection. To point to the absence of free will, and to thereby deny the existence of virtue and evil, is similar to saying, “People can be called good and bad only if they have horns and a tail; and since no one has horns and a tail, therefore good and bad as descriptors for people are meaningless.” That’s …sorry, but that’s nonsense! I’d said this, more than once, during the Sapolsky discussions; and I say this again now. It’s good to reject religious halfwittery, but it’s silly to say *this*.
This is an important argument, actually, that Sam Harris raises — and, echoing him, Knox, and, presumably, you yourself, Brian. This too is deserving a full-on discussion in and of itself. Like I said, and as with the rest of what I’ve said here: I’m trying to keep my individual responses to individual portions of your post as short as I can without sacrificing base-level clarity. Should there be further interest and discussion on what I’ve said, then I’m happy to expand on these brief comments and explore this line of thought further.
———-
“It’s a wall we build to separate ourselves from those who commit the worst actions we can imagine. Ironically, it also grants permission for psychopathy in its own way.”
Agreed 100%. That sometimes/often does happen. And that should be guarded against. …But what should be guarded against, is the tendency to so descend to “psychopathy in its own way”. None of this is an argument against categorizing evil as evil.
———-
“The only thing I’ve found that has actually helped me heal from my own terrible experiences has been acceptance, and a desire to understand the flawed, complicated, and sometimes extremely dangerous humans around me.”
Sure. But again, I don’t see what that has to do with refusing to categorize evil as evil. I don’t see why any of this means that evil acts must not be described as evil acts, generally speaking, and evil intentions as evil intentions, and evil people as evil people (as long as we leave out the woo; and also realize that evil in people is not a permanent immutable condition, but is potentially subject to change, always).
Once again: To understand the hows and wherefores of evil, is not to therefore disappear evil. Sapolsky-esque ethics commits a similar error in reasoning that some theists do when they claim that all atheists must be immoral folks ready to rape and kill and loot given the opportunity, and also a similar error that some theists make when they claim that science takes away from the wonder and appreciation of the world. It is essentially a form of begging the question. That argument, and that ethico-moral framework, does not stand up to scrutiny.
Haha, sorry, looooong comment! …But, despite the length of it, and despite the disagreement with practically everything you’ve said here, I’m hoping you’ll have appreciated and enjoyed the discussion, Brian. And it would be cool if you could engage with it, because the whole point of my saying all this is to offer my thoughts and my own critique up for scrutiny, so that I don’t go off thinking I’m right when actually I’m not. (Anyone else doing that, whether in agreement or disagreement, will also be much appreciated, as long as they do that substantially and meaningfully. Asshattery and halfwittery will simply be ignored, so those inclined to troll may as well save their breath.)
Anybody that preaches to just be a good person is talking to their bad selves. Some scared little mamby pamby school boy who doesn’t wanna get scratched .The best things go without saying and go without being seen. We’re not here on earth because we’ve been good. Anyway I was a national honor Society student with a full scholarship to college. So I don’t have any room to talk about being good. I am good. Anyway this webpage beats the hell out of that RSSB webpage.Especially now
Appreciative Reader, you did post a long comment. But most of it was quotations from this blog post, so it really wasn’t that long at all. I guess this points to my basic problem with using “evil” as a noun rather than a summary description of an act. Is your comment “long”? Well, it depends. On someone’s subjective experience, basically. I’m used to reading lengthy books and articles that sometimes feel like they go on forever. The New Yorker comes to mind.
So I don’t view your comment as long. More accurately, at first I did, when I saw the physical length of it. But when I read it, I realized that the quotations were the most lengthy, and since I was familiar with them, I could skim them quickly and focus on what you said about the quotations. Someone who is used to communicating with brief texts and emojis, though, might call your comment really long.
Thus words mean whatever people feel they mean. I agree with you that many people, maybe most people, view “evil” as a noun, a description of a despicable act or of the person/nation/whatever that committed the despicable act. This is what I have a problem with. We don’t call someone “love.” We don’t call someone “justice.” We don’t call someone “courage.” We say that they are a loving person, a just person, a courageous person. We refer to what they do, either habitually or a single instance, as when someone rushes into a burning building to save a person.
But “evil” carries with it more than a slight whiff of essentialism. This is what bothers Amanda Knox, Sam Harris, and myself. Often “evil” is applied to someone as if it describes an essential aspect of them, a fixed characteristic that distinguishes them from us non-evil people. My point is that what distinguishes them and us is what they’ve done, not what they are. As Knox points out, our view of an “evil” act changes if we know that it was the result of a brain tumor. Sapolsky enlarges this to include, appropriately in my view, all of the causal factors that produce a behavior in a human being.
I agree with you that evil is a useful word. If it wasn’t useful, people wouldn’t use it. I’m just saying that some words carry connotations or implications that are dangerous. When I was in high school us boys would call someone who was mentally challenged a “retard,” and someone attracted to the same sex a “faggot.” Now those terms have, thankfully, mostly faded out of public discourse because we better understand the complexity of what makes someone have a certain intelligence or a certain sexual preference.
I could be wrong, but I see the possibility of “evil” eventually becoming such a word as we better understand what makes people do acts that are so horrible we term them evil. Again, this word has considerable metaphysical baggage. Often both politicians and religious leaders will refer to a battle between good and evil. The productive way to discuss this, in my view, is to describe the specific action(s) or behavior(s) called “good” and “evil.” This shows that evil is most productively viewed as something that is done by a person, not an immutable characteristic of a person.
What about when Sawan would whack the bejesus out of Charan and others with his cane ( for their own betterment) ?In a meaningful way they’re all still working for the Sawan Service League 🤠
Thanks for your response, Brian!
You’re right, much of it was just quotes. I’m glad you didn’t find it overly long. I needn’t have felt embarrassed and defensive over it, then.
And as far as evil: We seem to agree, then! Sapolsky goes way further than what you say here. Harris as well, in the part of what Knox quotes, and that I discussed. But if your own view is just what you say here, then we needn’t argue over Sapolsky and Harris. Nor those other incidental points of divergence I brought up. At least not here, not now.
I agree, it doesn’t make sense to see evil as either “essential” or immutable, nor to go with the metaphysical nonsense. Agreed 100% as far as that much.👍
Appreciative Reader, for me, as I’m confident it is for most other people, the language we use is a matter of taste. Sure, in part language is used to convey how we see reality, what we consider to be true. But language also is a way to convey our view of the world, what’s important to us.
I readily admit that when I see or hear someone calling another person, group, or nation “evil,” it grates on me. It reminds me of George W. Bush’s talk about “evildoers” after the 9/11 attacks, and his references to the Axis of Evil, Iran, Iraq, North Korea.
That language obviously wasn’t the only reason the United States invaded Iraq after falsely claiming that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. But it helped to create an atmosphere to support the attack. After all, who can oppose going after evil people? It’s more difficult to make a case for going to war that involves facts and evidence rather than evil’ish verbiage.
I decided to search Google for references to Israel calling Hamas evil and found an essay on this topic that I’ve just looked over quickly, but saw a couple of paragraphs that are in line with how I see evil as putting forth an unjustified essentialist perspective. Here’s the link and the paragraphs, which I’ve broken up into several additional paragraphs to make them easier to read.
https://contendingmodernities.nd.edu/global-currents/amalek-hamas-kant/
——————————————————–
Before bringing Kant and his notion of “radical evil” into the conversation, I want to parse one more distinction that could be used to justify genocide in this circumstance. I mentioned previously the trope that “Hamas are evil, and Israelis are good people who sometimes do bad things (in this case “ethnic cleansing” is an “abomination” committed by Israel).
There seems to be a categorical distinction here between how the two peoples are being defined. One group’s ethics is defined by what they do, while another’s is defined by who they are deep down.
Israeli Jews are essentially good, who can do evil, that is, they can fall into moral error. Hamas, however, form an “evil that knows no bounds” and thus what they do is not a willed choice, not a moral error, but an expression of their essence. More generally, this describes how many (though certainly not all) Israelis view themselves and Hamas: as two different species of humanity. One who can choose good or evil, and one who can’t. Can this be [sic] distinction be reasonably sustained?
In terms of people being capable of evil, we needn’t look further than Genesis 8 where we learn that, in response to the flood, the LORD smelled the pleasing aroma, the LORD said in his heart, “I will never again curse the ground because of human beings, for the intention of the human heart is evil from their youth (Gen 8:21). The Jewish tradition has done much with this verse, mostly to say that humans are not evil by nature but are capable of evil. That is, given free will they can, and often will, choose evil, but that is not part of their essence.
Saying Hamas is evil—certainly their eliminationist ideology can be evil but that is saying something different—is making a different and, in my view, more problematic, claim. By saying Hamas is evil, one is saying that their evil actions (and their actions certainly were evil on October 7) are not a choice, say, between good and evil, they are not “evil thoughts” that became a reality through choice, they are not a product of reason, however skewered, but rather part of their essence: it is who they are. This can easily bring one to compare Hamas to Amalek. But I think this is a serious error.
And one of the elders of the city said, Speak to us of Good and Evil.
And he answered:
Of the good in you I can speak, but not of the evil.
For what is evil but good tortured by its own hunger and thirst?
Verily when good is hungry it seeks food even in dark caves, and when it thirsts it drinks even of dead waters.
You are good when you are one with yourself.
Yet when you are not one with yourself you are not evil.
For a divided house is not a den of thieves; it is only a divided house.
And a ship without rudder may wander aimlessly among perilous isles yet sink not to the bottom.
You are good when you strive to give of yourself.
Yet you are not evil when you seek gain for yourself.
For when you strive for gain you are but a root that clings to the earth and sucks at her breast.
Surely the fruit cannot say to the root, “Be like me, ripe and full and ever giving of your abundance.”
For to the fruit giving is a need, as receiving is a need to the root.
You are good when you are fully awake in your speech,
Yet you are not evil when you sleep while your tongue staggers without purpose.
And even stumbling speech may strengthen a weak tongue.
You are good when you walk to your goal firmly and with bold steps.
Yet you are not evil when you go thither limping.
Even those who limp go not backward.
But you who are strong and swift, see that you do not limp before the lame, deeming it kindness.
You are good in countless ways, and you are not evil when you are not good,
You are only loitering and sluggard.
Pity that the stags cannot teach swiftness to the turtles.
In your longing for your giant self lies your goodness: and that longing is in all of you.
But in some of you that longing is a torrent rushing with might to the sea, carrying the secrets of the hillsides and the songs of the forest.
And in others it is a flat stream that loses itself in angles and bends and lingers before it reaches the shore.
But let not him who longs much say to him who longs little, “Wherefore are you slow and halting?”
For the truly good ask not the naked, “Where is your garment?” nor the houseless, “What has befallen your house?”
From The Prophet (Knopf, 1923). This poem is in the public domain.And one of the elders of the city said, Speak to us of Good and Evil.
And he answered:
Of the good in you I can speak, but not of the evil.
For what is evil but good tortured by its own hunger and thirst?
Verily when good is hungry it seeks food even in dark caves, and when it thirsts it drinks even of dead waters.
You are good when you are one with yourself.
Yet when you are not one with yourself you are not evil.
For a divided house is not a den of thieves; it is only a divided house.
And a ship without rudder may wander aimlessly among perilous isles yet sink not to the bottom.
You are good when you strive to give of yourself.
Yet you are not evil when you seek gain for yourself.
For when you strive for gain you are but a root that clings to the earth and sucks at her breast.
Surely the fruit cannot say to the root, “Be like me, ripe and full and ever giving of your abundance.”
For to the fruit giving is a need, as receiving is a need to the root.
You are good when you are fully awake in your speech,
Yet you are not evil when you sleep while your tongue staggers without purpose.
And even stumbling speech may strengthen a weak tongue.
You are good when you walk to your goal firmly and with bold steps.
Yet you are not evil when you go thither limping.
Even those who limp go not backward.
But you who are strong and swift, see that you do not limp before the lame, deeming it kindness.
You are good in countless ways, and you are not evil when you are not good,
You are only loitering and sluggard.
Pity that the stags cannot teach swiftness to the turtles.
In your longing for your giant self lies your goodness: and that longing is in all of you.
But in some of you that longing is a torrent rushing with might to the sea, carrying the secrets of the hillsides and the songs of the forest.
And in others it is a flat stream that loses itself in angles and bends and lingers before it reaches the shore.
But let not him who longs much say to him who longs little, “Wherefore are you slow and halting?”
For the truly good ask not the naked, “Where is your garment?” nor the houseless, “What has befallen your house?”
From The Prophet (Knopf, 1923). This poem is in the public domain.
Sorry about that Brian. I don’t mean to dominate the rap but maybe I need to go to a copy and paste online tutorial.lol
Did I say 100% in my last comment? Scratch that! I agree 120% with what you say here, Brian. Or make that number higher, as high you like! Agreed fully with every bit of what you’ve said here.
———-
That said, you must, nevertheless, allow me this continued quibble, where I essentially circle back to some of what I’d been saying here — just that portion of my earlier comments, that directly relates to your last comment to me.
All of that, that you discuss here in this comment, Brian, are instances of two things. One: Religious halfwittery, plain and simple. And two: the term “evil” being deliberately mis-applied, opportunistically and cynically, in order to further some agenda.
Agreed fully, using evil in those terms is reprehensible. But still: Because a term might lend itself to religious halfwittery and bigotry, and because a term can be misused deliberately, does not therefore mean that the term itself is meaningless. None of this actually means that evil does not exist —- it means only that evil does not exist where those bigots and idiots and opportunists are claiming it does.
I’m afraid what you say now, in your last comment —- and again, I agree 100% with the views you express there —- only ends up making the case for keeping our eyes open for people misusing the idea and concept of evil. I’m afraid it does not actually make the case for concluding that evil does not exist.
———-
The Final Solution, back last century? That was evil, plain and simple. The ruthless, completely inhuman genocide and ethnic cleansing being perpetrated by Israel right now? That also is evil, plain and simple. By extension of the former, Hitler himself? He was evil, certainly he was. And, by extension of the latter, Bibi Netanyahu, who is doing all of this not just in aid of his whackjob Zionist ideas, but more urgently for him, in order to stay out of jail and hang on to power any which way? That’s completely evil, as well. And the tendency in these lowlifes to do what they did? That’s evil, as well.
Evil does exist. We should be very careful about where we apply that term, sure; and we should be even more wary when we see others throwing that word around, absolutely: but for all that, we must not therefore conclude that evil does not exist. Evil does exist — evil ideas and ideologies, evil acts, evil people, and evil tendencies. Not recognizing that ugly truth is to simply bury our head in sand, is all.
———-
I just focused on your last post here, Brian, and did not expand on my views on either the tumor argument specifically, or on Sam Harris’s extrapolation from the tumor argument to arrive at a decidedly Sapolsky-esque ethical and moral framework. I continue to find both those flawed, but won’t revisit that now, and will just conclude this exchange on our 100% — no, 120%! — agreement on the ideas and views in your two comments to me. Unless you’d like to discuss those other matters separately, in which case happy to.