I would like to take up an opportunity presented by Miss Onyx. Felicia asked, last night when only a couple of us were still awake, "What is Evil?" I understand she has a term paper coming up.
But what a question! And debate was lively, even among the few of us who were present. I would particularly like to thank Yuri for expressing her opinion in such a learned and articulate way. But surely, a question of this nature is something all our faculty would have educated opinions on, and which all our students might consider.
I am therefore asking all of our faculty to respond to this post with a thoughtful explanation of what you think Evil is. While questions and debate are of course welcome, the emphasis here is on each teacher speaking thoughtfully and at length -- not responding to the other faculty who have already written, in an attempt necessarily to rebut -- but to approach the question from your own experience.
This is, I hope, only the first of such discussions. Each topic will remain collected and made available on our site through a link to the right. These collections of brief essays by our faculty will not only help to educate our girls, but will serve another, very important, purpose: they will give new students a way to learn more about our faculty, and so make a better choice about faculty mentors.
Out of a concern that my fellow faculty might wish not to publicly disagree with the Headmistress, I will wait a few days before responding here with my own thoughts on the matter. But I invite all of our teachers to educate us in our first "SINposium."
7 comments:
I suppose it falls on me to begin, then.
Evil is a nebulous concept applied to acts that go against the social norm by those members of society unwilling to transcend the boundaries of labeling and quantifying their own actions and work in favor of a larger, more important goal.
Evil is the absence of good, a necessary balance on the fulcrum of existence that allows the blinded, unenlightened masses to trundle about and participate in their erudite passion-plays and quasi-Machiavellian mind games, secure in the knowledge that, due to the overwhelming presence of 'evil things', their actions are excusable and pale in comparison.
Evil is a malformed sickle-cell, weaving its convoluted, mindless path through the body of the vox populi. It strikes randomly, clumsily, lashing out with bent feelers and fraying flagella, intent on causing as much bold-faced harm as possible, while never understanding the purpose of its actions.
Evil is weakness masquerading as power. Enlightenment, the abandonment of such conventions as 'morals' and 'good' in favor of driving one's own goals, is strength.
-Dr. Greta Tod
Evil is an abstract, something nebelous and subjective and dependant on ones point of view. It can be as simple as something different than ourselves, or as complex as the wrong side of a moral delimma. Evil is accepting the so-called darker behaviors. It is atrocity, both the grandious and the simply percieved.
There are many who would say we are evil, and by many definitions we are. We choose to follow the paths of indulgance, of the flesh and the possesed. We choose to take life, and in some cases, even give life in a way that has been called evil.
I disagree. We are not evil, not something so elusively defined. We are bad, most certainly, for our behavior is most assuredly that of some bad, bad girls. We are naughty, and of that there could be no question. We are lawlwss; not so much on the breaking of order or the need for chaos, but in simply ignoring both. We exist in a state that we were created to exist in, following the programming in us all and living up to the reputations gained.
Our particular evils, our vice, our sin define us in a unique way. For to me, to see something I want and not have it? That is wasteful. That is disrespectful, to both me and the object I covet. And that wasteful disrespect...is evil.
-Charisma Calloway, Seat of Greed
*Dr. Octavia stands and acknowledges the previous Professors with a worthy glance. The click of her heels echoes sharply as she approaches the lectern. She sets down her attaché, and then straightens her sleeves, nods to the Headmistress, and then waiting for effect…*
To paraphrase Nietzsche “Supposing EVIL is a woman – what then?”
*passes a sideways glance and chuckle toward Ivy*
Forgive me, for all my existence I still find ‘Freddy’ one of the more powerful voices on the subject. I guess it’s a 19th century sort of thing. *chuckles to herself* But to the point; the case for evil.
Any child knows evil, as does any zealot, why then is it so hard for the ‘logical’ adult to understand it and see it for what it is? Is it perhaps because of the threat of what it may bode for any good person who at times has done questionable things?
The era that you find yourself in has done wonders for this ancient question, as much as it has helped the media ratings in Paragon City and beyond. We of the modern age are blessed in this question by the simple Virtue of our existence in a world were ‘good and evil’ are so EASILY represented to the masses by the gods and demons seen daily on their vid screens. *Motions to a power point slide of the Rikti Invastion in 2005.*
*grips the lectern tightly now, a smear of blood is left behind*
BUT if you can, imagine with me a world were such quick icons for vilification were not so easy to point out. Perhaps an alternate world where good and evil seemed muted by shades of grey, and where there were no fantastic powers to illuminate and define, and no Longbow to pass its summary judgments. Admittedly bizarre, but minutely possible. What then?!
*she stabs a wicked digit into the air before the crowd*
HOW would you know “What is evil?”
*laughs again mostly to herself* Yes, I know this seems a silly and far fetched idea. But think on it…a world without metas or heroes or such. Boring to be sure…but a paradise? Would it only be capable of ‘good’? What would evil look like then? How could you divine and compartmentalize it?
To this point I would say there is relative evil, and then there is instinctual evil.
Relative evil is entirely subjective. It is indeed the suit we put on, or the goggles we fix before our eyes. It is the evil most prevalent to the conscious mind, residing with us daily in our dealing with others, and therefore the mode of much of our angst. It is here that Descartes would have us ‘doubt everything’, for in ANY particular thing we can find the elements of both sides of morality.
BUT, morality is a human conceit. A point of view that often seems correct on the surface yet with the wisdom of perspective is found to be entirely lacking. Ancient tales such as Al-Khidr’s mentorship to Moses are a good example of this. The adult mind now hesitates as more ‘wisdom’ unfolds. How can we be sure? *Dr. Octavia looks about for understanding*
Doubt is the agent of relative evil. But be comforted ‘good’ students…
…in the end we are only accountable to ourselves.
The second kind of Evil is the instinctive. It goes beyond explination, but to the center of your being and this debate. One does not need to consider it. It just is, and between the adult and the child of our supposition, the child can always see it. If you really wish an answer to the simple question of evil look to this inner voice. Or as Freddy might have put it, the ‘thing-in-itself.’
*shifts to take in the entire audience*
So I’ll leave you with this then. “What is Evil?”
I simply say, ‘Ask the child.’
*..and with that Dr. Octavia reaches into her bag and then gently places the head of a freshly severed infant on the podium. She then strides off.*
Before I begin, I would like to thank those professors who came before me for participating in this, our first SINposium, and providing us all with a great deal to think about. In the future, as new students come to our door, these records will remain available to them to help them choose the right mentor.
As my fellow professors have illustrated, it is difficult to define Evil. Perhaps, to paraphrase an American politican who was talking about pornography, "I may not be able to define it, but I know it when I see it." When a biker gang rides into a Los Angeles suburb, strips an infant out of the arms of its mother, throws that infant into a trash can, and then lights that trash can on fire ... that is Evil. But how do you define that action, and does it matter that we can hypothetically imagine a world in which setting children on fire is not, in fact, Evil? Does this craving for relativism absolve us of a need to define Evil?
In fact, for thousands of years, Western Civilization has largely been in agreement on the definition of Evil. It is possible, I will grant you, that the very meaning of Evil has changed in the last few decades ... but I rather doubt it. We live in a society and a culture which was not born out of a vacuum, but rather one which has inherited its meaning of Good and Evil from centuries of thoughtful and lively debate by some of the most brilliant and energetic debaters of all time. That culture uses the word "virtue" to refer to what we're calling "Good," and "sin" to refer to "Evil." The seven sins that serve as an organization for our own school are opposed by three virtues: Faith in a universe that is larger than our understanding; Hope that the world is getting better, not worse; and Charity. But it was not Faith that made a woman of the 1st, or 10th, or 18th century "good." Nor was it Hope. These virtues were the fertile ground in which goodness grew -- not the key ingredient. It was Charity -- the act of putting the needs of another person over the needs of the self -- that made a person "good."
All of the seven sins are, though this is a fact often lost sight of in our modern experience, based on this notion. Greed is perhaps the most obvious example: a greedy individual does not care what right a person may have to an object or possession. What matters is only that the greedy individual desires it, and the sinner's self is more important than any other self. Wrath, the physical demonstration of this self-importance, is another obvious and still-clear link.
Other sins are perhaps less easily understood. Gluttony is not, as our media would have one believe, "the sin of getting fat." Poor physical health is not a sin. The sin comes in taking more than your fair share -- of over-indulging while others are starving. That is the sin. Gluttony is like Greed, but the miser retains and hoards what the glutton consumes. Both demonstrate the elevation of the self over the desires -- and even life-nourishing needs -- of others. Sloth: the shirking of your duty, forcing another person to do it for you. Envy: the coveting of another individual's qualities, even if you have not yet found a way to appropriate them for your benefit and that other person's loss. Lust: self-gratification on the sensual level.
And then, of course, there is Pride. Pride has always been recognized as the greatest sin, the greatest self-absorption, because it is Pride when an individual places her own interests and desires over all other authority -- even nature and the cosmos itself. Is there a greater hubris than proclaiming that the laws of society, the laws of the world, the very laws encoded into our DNA, can and will be broken? When Dante chose three special sinners to be placed forever in the mouth of Lucifer, to be gnawed on by Satan's molars for eternity, he chose not only Judas Iscariot, but also Brutus and Cassius, Caesar's assassins. Their sin: betrayal of rightful authority, a sin which Dante knew to be the ultimate expression of Pride. And, of course, Lucifer's own sin, since he elevated himself over the edicts of his master, who just happened to be creator not only of Lucifer himself, but of all the cosmos.
This discursion into the Seven Deadly Sins illustrates the common thread which they all have in common, and which is born out by the singular and special virtue of charity: that for many centuries Western Civilization has recognized a very simple definition for evil and for good. When you are good, you sacrifice your own desires, and even your most necessary needs, for others. But to do the opposite -- to give yourself "pride of place" over others, to sublimate their needs to yours for no reason other than because you are you and they are not-you, that is evil. Good gives. Evil takes. It really is that simple, differentiated only by degree.
Our modern society has been eager to steer away from this millennia-long definition of evil, and it is easy to see why. We live in a world far richer than any which came before us, and we have come to glorify the acquisition of material wealth and belongings in a capitalistic society that loudly insists competition is "good" while the sharing of common resources is "evil." It is possible that centuries of thinkers -- and all the millions and millions of ordinary people who lived in a society defined and guided by these cultural precepts -- were wrong. But, as I say, I rather doubt it. Rather, I am much more keen to accept that our society has simply become more Evil and, in so doing, has struggled valiantly -- and sometimes not without rhetorical skill -- to explain its new character as something other than Evil. Because if anything is as entrenched and prevalent in our society as Evil, it is Guilt, and man will do almost anything to avoid feeling Guilty, even if it means redefining words; calling black, white; and insisting that 2+2=5.
Further Reading:
See Jeffrey Burton Russell's four-volume history of Evil.
"The Devil: Perceptions of Evil from Antiquity to Primitive Christianity" (1987)
"Satan: the Early Christian Tradition" (1987)
"Lucifer: the Devil in the Middle Ages" (1986)
"Mephistopholes: the Devil in the Modern World" (1990)
Or, see his one-volume summary of the concept, if you're on a budget.
"The Prince of Darkness: Radical Evil and the Power of Good in History" (1992)
((as Mistress Dia))
Well darlings, I suppose we've been over the nature of Evil as different aspects of self-gratification over the good of the common man. I'd like to expound upon one aspect that I've ... considerable personal experience with.
Many of you probably think of Lust as simple carnal desire, the urge to, put most indelicately, fornicate. That act is not evil qua Evil, in an of itself. After all, if mortals did not mate, then they would simply die out. It is a biological imperative. However, to further that drive to survive, the act is... extremely pleasurable.
And that is what Lust is about. The pursuit of Pleasure, of gratification of the senses, at the expense of propriety, sensibility, or responsibility. A Lustful person may not desire sex, instead he may desire food, or wine, or perhaps sport or competition. In contrast to Gluttony, it's not about consumption, but enjoyment. The gambler may be greedy, but the pull of the dice isn't so much the big prize that remains out of reach, but the pleasure of winning, no matter how little. The same could be said for exquisite foods, novel experiences, or pleasing companions. Lust is the pursuit of sensuality, no matter what senses or means one chooses.
Now, how then is Lust an Evil?
It is addictive. Gratification of the senses is a reward, but taken to excess, it can push aside such things as personal or social responsibility. A fornicator will forswear marriage vows to lie with someone other than the spouse. A gambler will pursue greater and greater risks, ultimately losing his livelihood, and be cast into debt. A gourmand will seek more and more exotic tastes, to the point of spending money and time and possibly safety in the pursuit of the next exotic dish.
Why? Lust isn't about quantity. It is about quality.
Also, Lust is exponential. Once experienced, certain pleasures become mundane. One then seeks different permutations, always chasing the exquisite, and thus fueling a vicious cycle. And at some point... all sense of community is gone, and the Self exists for the next experience only.
Of all the Evils, probably even greater than Pride, Lust is by far the most insidious. It takes appreciation of good things, of rewards earned, and spirals it out of control in stages, so that at no point can a man say "This is where my feet turned from the Path of Righteousness". Instead he takes little steps, and wanders far afield before realizing he is truly lost.
Now... as for our purposes, I wish to issue a warning. You all have Sins that you identify with. Have a care, that your Sin does not consume you, and blind you to your own downfalls. Far be it from me to teach Moderation or Restraint. That lies within yourselves, for the truly Evil embrace their Sins, but are not consumed by them.
And finally, I would also pass along this tip, for when you wish to further your goals, sow discord, foment insurrection and betrayal and so forth.
"To truly tempt a mortal, first know what is desired." Learn the weaknesses of your targets. Be prepared to nurture those weaknesses, those Sins hidden within the breast of all humankind. Coax, nay, FORCE them to the surface, and then use them to shackle your subjects to your will, so that they serve you not because YOU desire service, but because THEY desire it.
In such a way, no one will ever question your power over them, because... they gave it to you willingly.
Thank you, ma cheries!!
"La Diablesse"
Post a Comment