Recently I was asked by Poop Knife a question, one which is rather simple in its asking but complex in its inquiry. What is evil?
I have decided to edit and expand my response to him and post it here, as I think it is a question which rather crops up quite a bit in our community. As always, let me know what you think.
For the original post, click here: http://evilsupremepizza.blogspot.com/2010/08/what-is-evil.html
~~~~~~~
I am inclined to believe, much as I do about many things, that evil is innate. That is to say, objective. That evil is an absolute thing within the world that can be conquered, manipulated, and felt. That it is real. This, however, is pretty far from what I actually think is. I will give some background first to root it.
I believe that the world we live in is completely objective, which is to say that everything in it is natural, absolutely definable, and speaks for itself without having outside influences give or take meaning from it. The issue is that people themselves are beings of pure subjectivity. We interpret, we investigate, we bias and comment and bicker and decipher, all through the scope of our own limited interaction within the realm of actuality. Humans live in this world of absolute reality, but their own interpretations and subjectivity blur it, often beyond all comprehension. This is a huge and irreconcilable issue, and one which people tend to ignore.
I believe that the world we live in is completely objective, which is to say that everything in it is natural, absolutely definable, and speaks for itself without having outside influences give or take meaning from it. The issue is that people themselves are beings of pure subjectivity. We interpret, we investigate, we bias and comment and bicker and decipher, all through the scope of our own limited interaction within the realm of actuality. Humans live in this world of absolute reality, but their own interpretations and subjectivity blur it, often beyond all comprehension. This is a huge and irreconcilable issue, and one which people tend to ignore.
The reason it is ignored lies with the fact that not anybody wants to deal with things which cannot be reasoned or defined, for the fact that humans are creatures of subjectivity also means that they desire to define things in their own terms. We are all Adam giving names to the world around us, but it is a mundane practice which only really helps us to cope with the fact that the world we are living in is completely beyond our grasp in intellect. There are exceptions, but I digress.
I used to say that good and evil are absolute terms, rooted in the objective world, that you could define them as easily as a scientist defines the different types of rock. But since I have come to terms with what really is going on, I have changed that belief greatly.
Good and evil, like all things man made, are subjective creations imposed upon objectivity. They are therefor nearly impossible to define on a general basis, and almost always false in their giving. You can give estimations however. Killing is generally perceived as an evil act, and while I would like to think of it as absolutely evil, that is my own bias talking. Killing, in point of fact can be interpreted as good in some cases, but this dual nature of interpretation is only the result of the real truth. That truth is that the universe does not have an opinion or a moral compass. Man does. Actions in the universe have no intrinsic meaning associated with them; ergo, they just are. And so death in the universe is not evil, it just is. Just like everything else. Man gives it meaning, and that meaning is often that it is evil. But in the confines of this universal law of nihilistic association, this is not always so.
On this theory, the world is simple to understand, because really, there is very little to understand and find out. The laws of physics, the development of the universe, and the what, when, how, and where are all simple questions used to investigate. They are tied to understanding the mechanics of an existence that does not give meaning, but these are rarely questions of "why". "Why" is reserved for questions concerned with subjectivity, those questions of meaning. "Why" is therefor concerned with man, as the universe is so objective it does not actually have any why to speak of it is again, just is.
Evil is whatever you make it to be. It is an unfortunate thing in some ways, but in others, liberating. Evil is defined as whatever a person defines it to be. You could say that you are a supreme being of evil and the most incarnate vestige of it. That is your definition of it, and it stands. No one can argue it. It is your own reality within reality, and as such is your truth.
There is, however, a contention to be had with this, and that is the power of group subjectivity. You see, if many different, separate and subjective sources identify one thing as being something, it becomes much more powerful and real. For instance, it is one thing for you to call yourself the most evil supreme being of all time. It is quite another for 1,000 people to do so. This, this subjective collectivity of definition, is actually what I constitutes power. The fact that man levies meaning upon a world of none gives the meaning sway over man, and so man creates his own psychological cage in this way. The more power, the more agreed upon subjectivity, the more real and accepted something is.
I used to say that good and evil are absolute terms, rooted in the objective world, that you could define them as easily as a scientist defines the different types of rock. But since I have come to terms with what really is going on, I have changed that belief greatly.
Good and evil, like all things man made, are subjective creations imposed upon objectivity. They are therefor nearly impossible to define on a general basis, and almost always false in their giving. You can give estimations however. Killing is generally perceived as an evil act, and while I would like to think of it as absolutely evil, that is my own bias talking. Killing, in point of fact can be interpreted as good in some cases, but this dual nature of interpretation is only the result of the real truth. That truth is that the universe does not have an opinion or a moral compass. Man does. Actions in the universe have no intrinsic meaning associated with them; ergo, they just are. And so death in the universe is not evil, it just is. Just like everything else. Man gives it meaning, and that meaning is often that it is evil. But in the confines of this universal law of nihilistic association, this is not always so.
On this theory, the world is simple to understand, because really, there is very little to understand and find out. The laws of physics, the development of the universe, and the what, when, how, and where are all simple questions used to investigate. They are tied to understanding the mechanics of an existence that does not give meaning, but these are rarely questions of "why". "Why" is reserved for questions concerned with subjectivity, those questions of meaning. "Why" is therefor concerned with man, as the universe is so objective it does not actually have any why to speak of it is again, just is.
Evil is whatever you make it to be. It is an unfortunate thing in some ways, but in others, liberating. Evil is defined as whatever a person defines it to be. You could say that you are a supreme being of evil and the most incarnate vestige of it. That is your definition of it, and it stands. No one can argue it. It is your own reality within reality, and as such is your truth.
There is, however, a contention to be had with this, and that is the power of group subjectivity. You see, if many different, separate and subjective sources identify one thing as being something, it becomes much more powerful and real. For instance, it is one thing for you to call yourself the most evil supreme being of all time. It is quite another for 1,000 people to do so. This, this subjective collectivity of definition, is actually what I constitutes power. The fact that man levies meaning upon a world of none gives the meaning sway over man, and so man creates his own psychological cage in this way. The more power, the more agreed upon subjectivity, the more real and accepted something is.
Evil can then be thought of as a specific expression of power, particularly of concern with destruction and things that are not perceived as "morally right." But again, since evil is a subjective definition, it really does not have any actual power of itself. Beast are not concerned with evil. Their morality stems from what helps them to survive, as does ours. Humans, however, have twisted this set of primal morality into imaginary definitions and guidelines for what we like to call "society," a fancy term for animals who think they are not animals.
Evil in this case represents actions which are detrimental to the societal whole, and are agreed upon by those various subjective interpretations we were talking about earlier. In simplest terms, death can be seen as promoting the destruction of life and the ability to live, while good is promotion of creation and livelihood. Let me be clear, however. They are not actually creation and destruction, merely the promotion of such. Good and evil are not actions, just definitions of actions, and as such cannot be used to actually interact with out highly objective world. Humans forget this fact in their passion and desire to be "right," and forge ahead with foolishness derived from a sense of ego feeding.
In this light we can see that evil is completely subjective, and therefor without definition. That it is a definition of what is, but not actually anything. But we can also see, as with all things, that if subjective investigations are made and all agree upon certain definitions, we can make the completely subjective nature of such things as evil a powerful and real force. In essence, we create something out of nothing, which really is something to be astounded by.
No comments:
Post a Comment