|
|
The stronger a person's self-image of virtue,
the greater the evil they are capable of.
Love and evil. What are they; and why do they exist?
And are they opposites? Mutually exclusive?
Evil most exemplifies hate, doesn't it?
Doesn't hate always result in evil?
Could love ever result in evil?
Don't we need, most of all, to be saved from those who wish to save us?
A thick head can do as much damage as a hard heart. H.W. Dodds.
First, the Biological Basis of Love. We'll get to the emotional side later.
Besides an animal past, we have an animal present! We are not outside of nature, tho it seems many people are trying hard to remove us from nature's bosom. The results of other people's efforts may remove nature from the Earth! We are animals, tho many foolishly deny it. They want to believe that they are somehow outside and "above" nature, as if nature is to be avoided at all costs. It's laughable.
. Love's emotional definition later, but first... the physical, objective definition could be that love is the bonding produced by intimate interaction with the person of your choice. It's not always a rational choice... love so easily hits our brain-override button!
. Our drive is hormonal (and pheromonal), much as with birds. It has to do with mating-dances and displays, as we see Peacocks do. Young men now seem to do that primarily with their cars; young women with clothing styles.
So often, those who write with satirical wit give us more than a laugh. There is often --perhaps there must be-- a dollop of wry truth to it. Ambrose Bierce called love "a temporary insanity, curable by marriage." But the love he speaks of is merely--and only--the physical aspect. Raging hormonal influences.
In truth, in youth, in ourselves and other animals --nature powerfully programs us to reproduce. Nature powerfully sees to it that it feels good enough --physically and emotionally-- that the species will go on. A loss of sexuality is a loss of life--in more than one way. The power of the drive is unquestioned. The young will even risk injury and death for the chance to participate. There is no blame; nature designed us this way. We know that it is the force of our human nature that makes the young jump in, no matter what warnings have been given them about the danger of diseases. Still, there are blaming people who would keep "parachutes" from them.
Love is part of nature, and nature is never wrong, much as a cloud makes no aesthetic mistakes. (last phrase: from Alan Watts.) The biological urge is wondrous; as valid as a sunset. Although a sunset may also be known as "differential refraction of various frequencies of light", a sunset is beautiful anyway; and perhaps, with the scientific knowledge, even more so. While love is a beautiful thing in itself, and much poetry is written about it, it also has the "ulterior (interior?) purpose" of simple reproduction of the species. It takes something powerful to get people together. Think about it; it would be a p-r-e-t-t-y silly thing to do if it didn't feel good, wouldn't it?! ... Therefore, love is natural.
Courtship, however, was invented--in twelfth century France. They didn't invent the fact that we humans do court, but they did invent the particular (and peculiar) ways we are supposed to do it. This is most simply revealed by the fact that we do it as we're "supposed to", not as it would come about out of our nature. It is learned. It's hard to guess what the natural way would be, other than both sexes "showing off" somehow, as other animals do.
We need to know... and there's only one way to really know anything.
Science is strongly ethical. It is intrinsic to the method. And it's quite unforgiving. Someone who fakes results is probably out of the community for the rest of his/her life. They treat him like a traitor.
The Gaian Philosophy is, perhaps uniquely, faced with the problem of knowing human nature(s); not in some distant idealistic sense, but in a real scientific manner. This is because we want to base our growth-goals on that knowledge, both as individuals and as a society. Obviously, we want these goals to be something not only achievable, but worth achieving.
As individuals with objectives of personal growth and of altruism, we want not to look back someday, with newly discovered psycho-social data and new personal insight, and find out that after much work on ourselves, we've become someone that isn't who we want to be after all! And that we've worked to change the culture toward something that is not what's best after all.
The question is: what is our true nature? What is that inherited nature that comes before--as a foundation--to our learned behavior? Sure, mere happenstance can tend a person toward good or evil, or to make a greater or lesser person; a whistle-blower or a thief; doctor or ditch digger; teacher or preacher. The smallest happenstances that make the biggest influences are, of course, in our infancy. Most influences in our early years were then beyond our comprehension, which is why somebody (the third generation Huxley) said that to properly educate a [person] you must begin with their grand [parents]. That's the best way to insure that someone fifty years from now will have good influences.
But! What are the best influences? Those that are most in sync with our built-in human nature, whatever that is. The worst are those that oppose it. Again, to best design an influence that is in sync with our true nature, we must learn what our nature is. Don't influence first! Obviously, we don't have a single, monotone human nature, but I speak of basic areas we all hold in common.
Without knowledge of true human nature, we may also find that we've helped society move in the wrong direction. That's happened in recent history--Victorianism, for example. This is not to say that we are now indignantly up in arms against the people who promoted Victorian repression, tho that battle is far from over.
They never figured out: repression creates obsession--'twas never truer than then. Tis true;
where children are most oppressed, they most often grow up unhealthily obsessed.
Oppress their natural ways, and they'll obsess in unnatural ways.
That's not their fault; the error is the culture's: to force upon the young a frustration of their nature.
Ashley Montague: "The true source of all aggression is love, frustrated." What a beautifully optimistic view. We want to believe it, and do feel a truth to it. If it is so, there can be but one remedy for aggression and the resultant ills that fall upon any person and any world; as most spiritual leaders have always said, it is for us to freely express our love and kindness to all people. (We should also kindly communicate to them our negative feelings, however.) The happiest societies are those where they have few sources of frustration, like the pacific islands before western contact. Then, there's New York.
This kind of deprivation concerns us.
But it is not what we speak of right now.
Historically, actions will result in the profoundest evils when they are done by those who erroneously believe that they are doing the right thing, and against forces of evil. We'll even say that it's admirable that many dedicated their lives and fortunes to "fight the good fight". They were not all intrinsically evil people; they were just ignorant of real-world facts of human nature, and the terrible consequences of fighting it.
Guns are the crutches of the impotent. ...so a society--indeed, the world--needs to be careful that they might make any people feel impotent!
In Mark Twain's "Letters From the Earth", a character had locked up religious leaders from worldwide in a cage. When he returned, he found only gory remains. "These [so-called] reasoning animals had disagreed on a theological detail and had carried the matter to a higher court!"
Also in that book, a rather large evil done in the name of good, and a perfect example of my thesis here: "Man has made a graveyard of the globe in trying to smooth his brother's path to heaven."
John Scotus, Erigenia, of the 9th century, said "No vice is found but in the shadow of some virtue." None. He says that every vice is found in virtue's shadow, and only there. It is that close to virtue, and is not a negative image of it, but is a result of it.
It almost surprises me where all this takes my contemplations. (We'll make exceptions for most of the "insane", of course, in the thesis below.)
The best I can say it is this (parts after a quote from Dr. Forrester Church): Greed may be at the root of the most evils, but it is not the root of the worst evils. Most evils --indeed, perhaps all evils-- are compounded some of accident or happenstance, but more of ignorance and ego; however... paradoxically but most profoundly, the greatest of evils are done with virtuous intent; done in innocent ignorance and taken to excess for the sake of ego. And these things compound not by addition, but multiply each other; a negative synergy.
Wait; that's almost to say that there is no evil! They mean well, waitaminute.... If evil is only those actions done by good people who are misled, then... ignorance is the only evil! And self-awareness the only antidote.
Can we achieve the wisdom to truly believe that? Or is it just wrong? Are we assigning heavy blame to acts that have horrible results, but are due to mere ignorance? It's hard to wrap our minds around the idea; it's so non-judgmental, so non-polarized. Somehow, it seems people want to believe that evil is an almost corporeal "thing" that is the opposite of good (Manichaeism), and that people do bad things for inexplicable reasons (or they're possessed by demons!), but again, simplicity (or fantasy) is not reality.
If the above contention is correct, evil is not the opposite of love. Evil is not the opposite of good or virtue. No, evil is just an extremely different, and unfortunate, reaction to circumstance, and may even have the same virtuous motivation!
It is my hope that this view will help us--allow us--to achieve a better understanding and forgiveness for "evil" people.
Are the present and historic evil people merely those who meant well, but caused terrible consequences when they acted in valiant self-righteous ignorance? Can we be forgiving of the "evil" individual, yet dispense justice to him; can we have a forgiving understanding of him, yet be mindful and desirous of proper social remedies?
Hmm, an aside here. What are proper social remedies? Test your rationality, versus the gut attraction of primitive vengeance.
It is a moral question as well. Imagine a man --a rapist, just caught and proven guilty, could be so magically changed by some new techno-machine that he could never again commit the crime. The machine has never failed. After the transformation, he would be immediately released.
You sit as judge before this man. It's entirely up to you. Thing is: they'll use the machine on him or throw him in prison; you can't have both. Would you rather see:
Are you so angry at the horrible crime that you can't stand to release the rapist an hour after he was caught?
Wimpy, perfect prevention or violent retribution? (No, you can't do both.)
Do you want "justice" more than an easy cure?
What if it were your sister?
Do your rational thoughts fight with your feelings?
(Take time out from reading here, if you'd like to think that thru. I hope you do that often. In that vein, don't trust a church without a talkback session, or one that discourages feedback.)
An idealist --of any stripe-- is less open to change, and if he acquires power, is corrupted terribly, and does much harm. Idealism, often listed as a virtue, is perhaps the characteristic that is the most obviously good and evil. It depends on the idealist's level of rationality and awareness.
A youthful kind of overzealous insistence on absolute idealism will often work against you, and it will often accomplish the contrary of its intention.
Idealism is a multiplier of other tendencies, whatever they are. The lover idealizes his "lovee" and loses sight of the real person. The later realization of a negative about that person may be a terrible shock. If they've married by that time, it could be a tragedy. I will always adore the false image I have of my ex-wife.
In any "evil" person, I see an excess of some particular virtue. Hitler certainly was patriotic. (Twain: [It is] the opposite of common brotherhood.) Worst of all might be a synergy of a prudent, prideful, idealistic benefactor who courageously dispenses justice for all, in the name of patriotism, for the love of those few people most like his virtuous, beloved self!
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good [people] to do nothing." . The silence of the lambs.
For you, the danger in that is this: how can you be sure that what you choose to do doesn't turn out to be evil also? It's so often hard to know--especially when one thinks that he is himself trying to fight an evil, and most especially when he is angry about it. It's historically shown to be at least difficult to fight evil with good; it usually takes a greater evil to defeat the first evil, all the while saying: "Our evil is better than their evil, because we say that our evil is only temporary!"
As in Star Trek's "Prime Directive", with something you don't fully understand, non-interference (Ike's benign neglect) is, much of the time, the best way. Only a few times might you improve something without any repercussions, even with the best of intentions and vast amounts of information. Someone should tell this to the Army Corp. of Engineers, and the World Bank. Besides, each of those many times you interfered might require another fix to make up for it. And most of those may do more harm than good again!
Now we gotcha. Here's a Zen Koan that's clearer than "the sound of one hand clapping". Should you do nothing, in the face of a perceived evil, and let the evil win? Or do something that --despite yourself-- may do more harm than the "evil" would have? Something that may have side-effects or eventual effects that are worse than the original "evil" act? You're stuck; no way out; you must either do something or do nothing; and it's hard to know which will have the better result!
If the deadly virtues so easily result in evil, what might we do --with the best of intentions-- to those we love?! How dare we love someone, when every virtue we strive for is fraught with such danger?
It seems nearly a paradox. Awareness and information are the only path thru the problem. Ponder it. Study enough to know, with some probability, that your actions will not result in more harm than good. Don't build a dam without extensive info on salmon and a hundred other factors. Be aware of your motives, your desires, and human nature.
You may conclude
Help me now: if the opposite of love is indifference, what's the opposite of hate? The same? Indifference? It would be interesting that one thing can be the opposite of two opposites. If indifference is the opposite of love, jealousy comes a close second. Love may be blind, but jealousy sees even more than there is. Jealousy is an infection by the viruses known as selfishness, suspicion, and insecurity. It's usually caught in childhood, and is very difficult to cure.
If you survive that, then in later years, when our drive has moderated, but while we are still eager for the recreational, if not the reproduction part of the process, what else is left of love? What purpose will we have it serve in our middle and later years? A mutual admiration society, maybe? Hey... could be worse.
Greek philosophers and playwrights were the first major influences who thought much about love and its definition. Tho... the status they allowed women does not seem to be compatible with love as we'd define it today.
We may define love or evil in that they're not single "colors", but whole spectrums; i.e.: love is not only emotions and physical needs, but thought, which includes "respect". A "love" which is built around only one part of the definition, or lacking in any of these, cannot be deep, or fully deserving of the name.
My own definition: Love is the confidence in and the complete assurance of affection and devotion, of dedication and desire, from someone whose happiness is likewise dependent upon your own. And respect is the greater part of love.
If that is so, then any respect for any other person or people is also a form or degree of love. We all recall Will Rogers line, and want to agree: to like everyone we meet. To like someone is to respect them, and vice versa. This sounds good, but even so, it pales beside the Hindu belief that we all have an "internal godhood". They greet you with such a gesture, almost "praying at you".
Not only is there a need to get love, but a need to give it. You can feel that. It's a powerful force that you cannot bottle up; a basic human need. Montague: "The source of all aggression is love, frustrated." Love can be frustrated by not accepting it when given. With no receipt of your love --no taker-- the pressure builds. Therefore, we must all be generous in our taking of offered love. (It need not be taken as romantic love.) We do a great favor to the giver, the one --like yourself-- with a natural need to give love.
A true friend is someone who completely knows who you are and likes you anyway. And understands! With that person, it's so important to be understood that you want to be totally honest and open. Your lover is your best hope for being truly known. After all, you can't trust the love you get unless you are truly known--the real you. Of what use... what purpose is trying to have a false image of yourself loved by anybody?!
If the image of yourself that you present, in the hopes of being loved, is to any degree false, then to the degree that your image is false, you are unknown and unloved.
Yes, even love does not eliminate the danger of doing great evil out of a good motivation, and in fact, may actually increase that danger. We'll see more in the next talk: "The Deadly Virtues".