ON THE OTHER HAND:
"The notion that the Bush administration is wrong because 'the rest of the world' objects to its policies may just be a symptom of intellectual immaturity. 'Everyone thinks you're wrong' is the sort of argument you expect to hear from elementary-school classmates, not adult policy makers. But there are people who take very seriously the idea that national-security policy is some sort of popularity contest. One of them, indeed, preceded Colin Powell as secretary of state."
Taranto, in today's Best Of The Web.
In Iraq we've become so desperate for information about the country we're pretending to rule over that, after disbanding the Iraqi army and leaving tens of thousands of men roaming the streets, unpaid, we are now recruiting the same hated intelligence agents and torturers of the Saddam Hussein government, the Mukhabarat, to work with us.
I'd say we might sooner than later conclude we've gone upside down in our struggles with good vs. evil. And that when discussions hit the point of "everyone thinks your wrong" its time to vigorously remove our heads from our own ass.
Posted by: paulie | September 3, 2003 10:07 AM
Define "evil."
Posted by: --iaw | September 3, 2003 10:52 AM
:>)
you're so easy it makes me giggle...
evil = power corrupted. let's start there.
as you've said, there is no sure-fire formula for national security or for organzing nations. but we can observe tendencies, illusions and realities from history.
security has to function for the community of nations or it functions for none. nations and civilizations have risen and fallen into decline not so much because they were powerless but because of their inability to use their power wisely.
Connected to the obvious tendencies of power to corrupt are other tendencies we can observe, if we're willing, from history: power drives intelligence underground; power becomes like a theology, admitting no other gods before it; power distorts and damages the traditions and institutions it was designed to protect; power creates a language of its own, making other forms of accepted communication and practises seemingly incoherent and meaningless; power spawns imitators which leads to more and more volatile competition (for power); power sets the stage for its own exclusive use.
The mishandling of the current military exercise is not unconnected to the exponential increases in the destructioveness, and sheer number, of our massive weaponry. And/or on the limitations it imposes (without check) on its use. EX: We're talking 'bout our exclusive right to using mini-nukes to bust them terrorist bunkers, etc? Hmmm. Failure to comprehend the implications of this may be one place where we've seriously taken a wrong turn in use of power. We're all about bypassing serious longterm factors ("everyone thinks we're wrong....")in favor of short term power objectives.
Waste, massive long-term destruction, massive bribery of criminals and terrorists and theives, massive kickbacks, circumvention of competitive bidding, flawed deployments, over-reliance on technology, sheer diplomatic imcompetence -- all among what we can observe in Iraq and Afghani operations -- models for our review and comparison to Gulf War, Somalia, Vietnam, etc...
It is difficult to think of any arrogance in history that begins to compare to national policies that seek security through measures which make large portions of the planet unihabitable and which kill or displace hundreds of thousands in the name of "peace". If we're willing, take a look at the prolific use of uranium-depleted shells in the Gulf, among other toys. Agent orange?
Do we have a peace plan to put before the world? Yes, stated repeatedly by Condi Rice and compatriots. "We will attack." What is our plan as the most powerful nation for the world's common security? "Attack." How do we plan to make the legal system operate for justice for the world's nations in the World Court? "Attack. And the US is absolved".
Power is being corrupted. And a most illusive evil is running amuck in the world.
Posted by: paulie | September 3, 2003 11:51 AM
I have found that it is the simple things that are often the most complex (or annoying, or sometimes both). ;-)
Interesting.
Let us not dispute your characterization of "power."
By your definition, evil requires power as a necessary prerequisite.
Therefore the "powerless" are not capable of evil. As a group, the powerless would include the oppressed, the poor, and so on.
Would you accept that as a consequence of your definition?
Posted by: --iaw | September 3, 2003 12:54 PM
looking again at the equation:
evil = power corrupted.
(a start on "defining" evil, as noted....)
it does not say: no power = no evil.
your assumption would be the equivalent of:
I have money. I am a man. Therefore, all men have money. Or, all women have no money.
Posted by: paulie | September 3, 2003 01:04 PM
So you deny that the powerless can do no evil. That's good; so do I. The world around us denies it as well.
However, if power is not required for evil to occur, then power corrupted is not required for evil to occur, and it certainly not the same thing as evil.
Power corrupted may be evil in quality, but a quality is not the thing in itself. This means that you have only described something that is evil, and not evil itself.
Which still leaves us with an unsatisfactory definition of evil.
If it does not involve power...perhaps it involves corruption..?
[And--by the way--in symbolic logic, defining terms by the simple statement (p=q) is not a syllogism--it is not deductive and has no premises and no conclusion. Your "example" is an invalid form of a categorical syllogism (sort of--you only designate one class), and certainly isn't equivalent in form to my "assumption," or to your own definition.
But that's beside the point--you were supposed to disagree with me.
Still giggling?]
Posted by: --iaw | September 3, 2003 02:31 PM
...and, to confirm a very necessary distinction...
CORRUPTED power drives intelligence underground; becomes like a theology, admitting no other gods before it; distorts and damages the traditions and institutions it was designed to protect; creates a language of its own, making other forms of accepted communication and practises seemingly incoherent and meaningless; spawns imitators which leads to more and more volatile competition (for power); sets the stage for its own exclusive use....
Posted by: paulie | September 3, 2003 02:33 PM
So your definition of "evil" now becomes...what, exactly?
Posted by: --iaw | September 3, 2003 02:35 PM
...I was supposed to disagree...?? :>) damn. hate when I rebel. while grinning.
OK, yes, a rushed and over-stretched example was used for working out equivalence in this exercise - thanks for pointing this out. I'll try again in a moment. In meantime, let's also look at Webster's definition of "power" to assure ourselves that the "powerless" can also perhaps be or do evil:
POWER n, 1. The ability to do or act; capability of doing or accomplishing something; 2. political or national strength; 3. great or marked ability to do or act; strength; might; force....etc.
you see where this goes. POWER could be power of will, etc....thus, per my discussion, when power of will becomes corrupted, the potential for evil occurs. Or evil arises. Or someone behaves in an evil manner.
Above you've pre-determined a narrow specificity, that evil is a THING, rather than a quality, or anything that causes harm. It is noun, adjective and adverb.
And so simpler, again, evil = power corrupted,
does not say: no power = no evil
Posted by: paulie | September 3, 2003 03:08 PM
We've established that. The powerful and powerless alike may do evil, removing power of any sort as a unique precursor for evil.
No, I said that "...a quality is not the thing in itself." E.g., "A fire engine is red" does not describe red, it describes the fire engine.
You say,
I will grant any definition of power you choose to use, if you like. However: when power of will becomes corrupted, the potential for what occurs? Or what arises? Or someone behaves in a what manner?
Again, you use this term evil, but there is no sense of what the term indicates.
Is it, as you say "noun, adjective and adverb..." just a word?
If it is, as you suggest, a "quality," then what is the nature of that quality?
"Anything that causes harm" seems a bit broad, to me...encompassing everything from the Holocaust to a bee sting.
Posted by: --iaw | September 3, 2003 03:29 PM
pardon, I need my Thorazine for this trip down the rabbit hole -- and you need to get laid. aH, there I go, reverting to sarcasm...go ahead, hook up the electrodes, I can take it...
there is no sense of what the term evil indicates...? First, look it up, see what Webster says. I did. He seems somewhat reliable. Hence the "anything that causes harm" phrase. Evil is noun, adjective and adverb. More than a quality.
Is this a subject you're currently investigating * ? What's your definition?
Second, words, units of language, are tools for expressing ideas. We're expressing ideas. I think. So, are we pickin'em apart until we go blind? The ideas go stale. So if you wanna have at it, turn up the voltage. Hate to bore the audience.
* Unless I've missed your larger mission with the exercise, which is entirely possible...
Posted by: paulie | September 3, 2003 04:52 PM
There you go, indeed.
Do bear with me--and trust me; there is no audience here by now!
All of which turns on words such as "bad," "morally reprehensible," "offensive," "repulsive," and "disagreeable." But many things are bad without necessarily being evil; similarly, the repulsive and the offensive, the harmful and the disagreeable are not necessarily evil...and so forth. For its part, "Morally reprehensible" contains within it the very notion of good and evil, implied by the term "moral," and is therefore circular.
What you have here are mere synonyms, it seems, and would no more describe the actuality of evil to someone entirely unaquainted with the concept than "a color whose hue resembles that of blood or of the ruby or is that of the long-wave extreme of the visible spectrum" would describe the color red to a person blind since birth.
So the word "evil," then, expresses the idea of...what, exactly? Is it the same as "bad?" Clearly not, for the reasons mentioned earlier. Attaching moral claims to the word implies a standard of judging against the very idea we are trying to define. And, clearly, when we say someone is an an "evil temper" we do not mean the same thing as when we call someone an "evil child-killer." So, the word itself is widely applied, and yet there is some idea which it reflects, that is clearly distinct from other words such as bad, offensive, reprehensible, and so forth.
By this I mean, if we were to choose something that is generally agreed upon as "evil"--such as the wanton murder by lengthy torture of several small children; and if, then, we were to choose something that is generally agreed upon as "bad," but not necessarily "evil"--say, getting punched hard in the head by a drunken buffoon at a bar; and then we were to compare the two, how would we know the difference?
What is it that makes "evil" evil and not merely bad?
What is the essential quality of evil?
Posted by: --iaw | September 3, 2003 07:15 PM
OK, a fresh read -- some frustrations were displayed in subsequent post. My apologies - my attention waned.
I see some bumps on a road in a quest for a view of the ideal of the Good, by a path from defining its possible opposite, Evil. And this also may point to an interesting paradox seen displayed in many waves.
The initial exploration I took in defining Evil considered a link (to power) shown to be unnecessary - agreed. Though some interesting ideas are shown by looking at Webster's def. of "corruption" and necessarily, "corrupt"....
among them, perversion of integrity. Bribery. Dishonesty. Alteration for the worse.
To which I might build on something you said earlier regarding ideals. That it may not be within reach of the present to create global sanity. And ideals unreached do not necessarily denigrate the ideals. I would think it within our reach to bring rational considerations to bear in the operations of our own government in the search for these ideals, though. Is there a dispute, a problem, a grievance between two societies that can justify the types of assaults on humankind that we're waging, in an effort to realize the ideals we say are Good? Question.
You mentioned in a previous related discussion on same subject that we regretted our killing, as a result of the wars, while "they" celebrated thiers, as a result of the 911 bombings. Is this saying that by our (supposed) reaction we are Good, they by their (supposed) reaction, Evil? I'd need more on this to see where this might lead us - I'm not sure it's not an equal deadend to a quest. And we are exchanging ideas here.
Does violence = evil? I'm attending a conference with the Dalai Llama in a few weeks so I'll see what hsi reverence has to say. Though using our current line, Evil is not defined by or as Violence nor vice versa. However, if the ideal of Good is reached through violent means, does the ideal become perverted? And if the ideal of Good is not achieved through the use of violence, what then?
Posted by: paulie | September 3, 2003 07:35 PM
What is the essential quality of evil?
Why do you need to know?
Let's perhaps try a route through its opposite, good. What is the essential quality of good?
Posted by: paulie | September 3, 2003 07:46 PM
I see.
Pre-meditated. With malicious intent. Crafted malice.
If we use this (your?) definition of evil, some dangerous territory arises given the current situation if we also examine: 1) the standard (as in, read and followed by many peoples) various spiritual texts - Bible, Torah, Koran, Upanishads, Tao, etc - a common theme of evil is, if not defined as then discussed as, not acting on the will of God. So, dangerously, how does one know what the will of God is and if one is following it? And 2) what is your method of determination of intent.
Jump in any time...
Posted by: paulie | September 3, 2003 11:07 PM
Sorry--I checked out for dinner and a bike ride. My head is too tired to keep up the tenor exercise; but thanks for indulging me thus far...I like the direction you moved in the past few hours. And the questions you raise about Good ideals and bad or evil acts committed in their supposed service are definitely...uh, good ones. Crucial, I think.
I was only able to read briefly over your last few posts, but a couple of rambling things before bed.
I certainly don't want to posit America=Good, as in ideal, capital "G" Good. As I posited and you noted, ideals are approachable, not obtainable; and that works in both directions.
"Pre-meditated. With malicious intent. Crafted malice." is, I think, not an essential quality of evil, which is not to say that it has no bearing on the subject.
And, finally: this is, actually, a subject I'm currently pursuing, which is why I picked at you for so long. I need input. Evil, Part I can be found here, in the Religiosity sub-archives.
It's not definitive or particularly original, but it's what I've got so far. Part II (in the works) will deal with the Good ideals/Evil acts thing, and Part III will (I think) deal with intention.
All well-trod ground covered by many, many centuries' worth of thinkers much cleverer than I.
But hey! It's my website, right?
And do ask the Dalai Lama, if you get a chance. I sat in meditation with a 105-year-old Buddhist monk named Bhante, who was held in high esteem by the D.L. Bhante had the greatest socks I have ever seen.
Posted by: --iaw | September 4, 2003 12:59 AM
well-and-creatively-trod! biking is good. and so is your line towards resolution in Evil 1. Socrates, Kierkegaard and Buber needed bikes.
what's always interesting in all of this is the continual auto return effect that occurs, to the subjective-objective questions, the action between the poles -- and the crucial tension you referred to. And then the attempts at "creative" or "destructive" resolution of that tension, which in at least Western thought comes to choice or will or personal experience, unresolvable as of yet to me. The Eastern mystics seem for me to at least langauge or express the natural existance of the tension, the dance of the Wu Li Masters, in ways more....lyrical to my senses. Not that there's not value in all of it, but there's a musical and playful quality that is appealing. Which brings us to the definition you quested for in Evil 1, references to Bach, etc. And for me, the ideals are approached with the aid of intellect but not through the intellect, rather through the whole, of human, of nature (Spinozzal), all 4 DNA barrels blazing, multiplying more rapidly. Still, I-Thou and all this.
It reminds me sometimes of the Star Trek (orig) episode with Harry Mud and Kirk's "lie" line which the computerized (logical?) robot destroys itself over, smoking and spitting.
Another common reference, certainly approached in Eastern thought, as a note only: I have seen evil and it is me. Not residing externally. My experience is a mirror reflecting a nature within.
But still, the paradox, and steam starts coming out ears.
I'll see if the DL has socks and report back. This is all I can promise at this hour. Though there's an interesting upbeat optimism in the process and in me walking it so methinks there's something very creative here.....maybe evil is in denial of the quest, in denial of the tension? Petrified in certainty?
Posted by: paulie | September 4, 2003 07:50 AM
Further (in a sockless noting manner), if evil exists, then it follows that it has a nature - and if it has a nature, or essential quality, we usually ask for what purpose is this nature or quality in existance. If evil exists, why?
And, is there no good in suffering caused by or out of an evil? An all-Good God would not have evil in the world without purpose, therefore some argue that either there cannot be an all-good God if we are not made aware of evil's purpose at some point (despite the fact that God is infinite and man's mind finite), or that God is all inclusive, Panetheism, encompassing all...blahblahblah.
Yo, I've glaringly left off an important angle, that of FREEDOM, the necessary existance of freedom - to choose between good and evil, to love, to act, to decide, to create, to destroy....hmmmm....freedom to destroy....will circle back on this.
*** And, importantly, God, or man, CANNOT FORCE FREEDOM for coercing a free choice is a contradiction in terms. Hmmm. Much paradox here being played out on the world stage.
Is evil, if it exists, in place to save us from self-destruction? CREATING a dynamic tension? Allowing choice of creation rather than destruction?
But enough already. I'm gonna go break something so I feel better.
Posted by: paulie | September 4, 2003 10:04 AM
...and one last exploration before I grow extremely...yes...extreme.
is an essential quality or nature of evil "extreme"? extremism? let's look...
extreme anything -- can this be described as evil or having an evil nature or exhibiting evil? badness in the extreme - is this considered evil, as in heinous? extreme love? of another, of self, considered psychosis? extreme belief? Is extreme descriptive of also "radical"? Radical Islam, Radical Christianity, Radical Republicanism, Radical Environmentalism, Radical Civil War Reenactment-ors, Radical Trekkies (with real phasers not on stun), Radical Stupidity...
Ok, I'm extremely in need of either a break or feedback or some Spock ears.
Posted by: paulie | September 4, 2003 02:33 PM
« | Main | »