12-30-2011, 12:01 AM
Hawkeye Crow wrote:
Anne Rice did a good job of making us empathize with predators and parasites. Sometimes they have their blessings. But evil, as such, is not just a point of view, unless one thinks that, to coin a phrase, despoiling the nest, is a good idea. Maybe not evil, perhaps, just stupid and foul.
Why would a sane being **** in its bed and try to sleep in it? That has been the way of humanity since the beginning. I'd throw them out of Eden , too.
To say evil is a point of view is not just an off-the-cuff statement. Think about it. To the POV of the rabbit, surely the coyote who eats him is evil. But to the coyote's POV, he's just doing what nature designed him to do. Ergo... evil is a point of view.
When examined from the humanform perspective, most things that humans call "evil" fall under the heading of something they themselves do not agree with. To a Christian, the "devil" is evil. To an anarchist, government is evil. And so it goes. The thing itself (devil or government - heh - perhaps the same thing) is neither good nor evil, but will be labeled according to one's experience/perception of it.
Does evil exist in and of itself, as a force of nature? I've seen no evidence of it. Sure, Man can do evil but that is evidence of Man's nature, not proof of "evil".
So... point being... in the article which was referenced, the writer referred to Castaneda as "evil." To me, that's using a lame argument to say you yourself don't like the guy or don't agree with his teachings, but instead of making a LOGICAL argument, the writer degenerates into saying, simply, that CC was "evil." This triggers an emotional response in the reader rather than a rational one... and statistically speaking, most readers will automatically shy away from that person (Castaneda in this case) from that moment forward. Another good example... people like to say Aleister Crowley was "evil", but 99.999% of those who would AGREE with that statement have probably never read even a single paragraph of his actual work.
Man may choose to DO evil. Sheeple may choose to BELIEVE something is evil based on what they have heard.
But what IS evil in and of itself? Was Charles Manson evil? Some would say so. But the way I see it is that "evil" didn't possess good ol' Chuck. Chuck CHOSE to do "evil" because he was a twisted ***. *shrugs* In fact, if I were to say... "Charles Manson was just evil," that lets him off the hook in a lot of ways, because it implies that he couldn't help himself, and again it is an emotional argument rather than a logical one.
Just some additional thoughts on the actuality of "evil" and why that kind of labeling just doesn't work for me.
Anne Rice did a good job of making us empathize with predators and parasites. Sometimes they have their blessings. But evil, as such, is not just a point of view, unless one thinks that, to coin a phrase, despoiling the nest, is a good idea. Maybe not evil, perhaps, just stupid and foul.
Why would a sane being **** in its bed and try to sleep in it? That has been the way of humanity since the beginning. I'd throw them out of Eden , too.
To say evil is a point of view is not just an off-the-cuff statement. Think about it. To the POV of the rabbit, surely the coyote who eats him is evil. But to the coyote's POV, he's just doing what nature designed him to do. Ergo... evil is a point of view.
When examined from the humanform perspective, most things that humans call "evil" fall under the heading of something they themselves do not agree with. To a Christian, the "devil" is evil. To an anarchist, government is evil. And so it goes. The thing itself (devil or government - heh - perhaps the same thing) is neither good nor evil, but will be labeled according to one's experience/perception of it.
Does evil exist in and of itself, as a force of nature? I've seen no evidence of it. Sure, Man can do evil but that is evidence of Man's nature, not proof of "evil".
So... point being... in the article which was referenced, the writer referred to Castaneda as "evil." To me, that's using a lame argument to say you yourself don't like the guy or don't agree with his teachings, but instead of making a LOGICAL argument, the writer degenerates into saying, simply, that CC was "evil." This triggers an emotional response in the reader rather than a rational one... and statistically speaking, most readers will automatically shy away from that person (Castaneda in this case) from that moment forward. Another good example... people like to say Aleister Crowley was "evil", but 99.999% of those who would AGREE with that statement have probably never read even a single paragraph of his actual work.
Man may choose to DO evil. Sheeple may choose to BELIEVE something is evil based on what they have heard.
But what IS evil in and of itself? Was Charles Manson evil? Some would say so. But the way I see it is that "evil" didn't possess good ol' Chuck. Chuck CHOSE to do "evil" because he was a twisted ***. *shrugs* In fact, if I were to say... "Charles Manson was just evil," that lets him off the hook in a lot of ways, because it implies that he couldn't help himself, and again it is an emotional argument rather than a logical one.
Just some additional thoughts on the actuality of "evil" and why that kind of labeling just doesn't work for me.