Re: Thoughts on Evil (Prince Trippy) 04/06/23 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Prince Trippy (I believe it is, but we'll call him PT for short) recently recorded some "Thoughts on Evil"[1]. Somehow, he managed to end each paragraph perfectly justified, with no text hanging, and every period at the full margin width. I don't know if this was done on purpose, or if it had anything to do with the subject matter, but it did stand out to me. I really like reading on verisimilitudes, and not just for the wonderful formatting. Before replying with my chatter, I'll point out something that PT neglected, which is the definition of the word Evil. The Collaborative International Dictionary of English gives this primary definition: "Anything which impairs the happiness of a being or deprives a being of any good; anything which causes suffering of any kind to sentient beings; injury; mischief; harm; -- opposed to {good}." This glazes over a full moral definition, which should include accountability as a qualifier, but it works for the items that PT seems to have addressed. While it would take far more than a single gopher post (or a single author!) to completely cover the philosophical subject of evil, one might cover thoughts on evil in as few or as many words as one wishes. PT touched on these at least: 1. The differences between man and beast. In terms of raw suffering, I think PT had a reasonable point. Animals as a group torment other animals en masse and in perpetuity (if selectively in some cases), as a matter of course in their existence. PT asserts that "civilized man has grown to cease with torture and to reduce suffering". If you exclude the insane (using perhaps a collective / average definition of sanity spanning the last hundred years) from the group called "civilized man", then you have a strong case. The outliers and exceptions are so few that any reasonable person would exclude them automatically (even if the News and Propagandists make these few out to be more than they are in truth). On the topic of empathy in animals, the question has been addressed by many over the years. We look for shared traits in our animal friends, and we find some few examples. PT's simple claim was that "many animals lack [empathy]", and that seems perfectly reasonable on the surface. His larger claim that this lack of empathy is what makes animals more evil than men is something I take exception with; but, only because my mind wanders to the moral and religious questions of evil without accountability. In terms of suffering only, perhaps he is right. If you look at accountability differences between man and beast, I feel the question is more blurry (animals being, in my view, unaccountable or innocent by nature, in spite of their tendencies). Briefly, this bit: "Regardless, from man's view, reality is his, as it should be. I choose to see most livestock as biological machines, who exist for man's use, and for no other particular reasons." Seems to me a justification for eating animals to one's heart's content. I enjoy meat, I won't lie. And religiously, I'm inclined to side with PT here (in that animals are here for our use). However, the view that livestock are biological machines and nothing else seems a bit overdone. There are a great many realities connected to the existence of animals, in the balance of our planet's continuance. Viewing them in a purely exploitative framework may be dangerous; and evil, in that it could certainly contribute to evil in the form of suffering, even and especially to future humans and present animals. A safer viewpoint might be one where we view animals as a stewardship. 2. Flavors of men. PT creates two classes of evil men, lesser and greater. The lesser, more base version being the man who cannot or will not deny their animal tendencies, and who seek their own gratification at the expense of others, demonstrating a lack of empathy. The greater being the intelligent men who subject all within their power to whatever selfish designs they may have. For my part, I view all mankind as falling first into the lesser evil class, by their very nature. At least to some degree or variance, at some point in their lives. We all must face the natural animal nature within us, and decide (if we're blessed with that faculty) whether we will contain it or let it run free. Perhaps at some point, a man may become stuck in this "lesser evil" for lack of will or education, carrying on in animalistic tendencies with or without understanding. To exit, would one abandon evil and master self, entering the realm of "good"; otherwise, embrace evil and enter the realm of "greater evil"? Seems about right I suppose. 3. Higher forms of evil. Here's where things got really interesting in PT's post. The machinations of evil people are worthy of study, as they tend to have a very wide impact. PT spoke to the weaponization and manipulation of language, which is now so commonplace that it seems odd that anyone would be blind to it. It's not a new tactic; but these days it seems like it's over-employed. I'm shocked that it still works so well. Perhaps PT will spend more time on the subject, I don't know. I would like to, though I'm running out of time this evening. Specifically, I'd love to hear his view on the motivations of higher evil. I believe this is an area where people make many logical mistakes, leading them to incorrect conclusions about what is going on around them. Many people I know seem unable or unwilling to see evil, which I find fascinating. Last point: PT's conclusion, tucked in to his post, on how to deal with highly evil men. "The proper way to deal with such a man is to treat him like a 'philosophical zombie' and, since no zombie feels pain, to harm him until, almost miraculously, understanding of language returns to him." Maybe it was just for fun, but I got lost on the zombie bit, which mixes fact with fiction to the befuddling of the philosophy. Heck, it was funny and insightful at the same time, not to be taken too seriously I think. Thanks for the gophersite PT, I truly enjoy it. [1] gopher://verisimilitudes.net:70/02023-04-04