What Is Evil To You?

[LightSun]

‘How Would You Define Evil?’

Quotation:
“He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." Friedrich Nietzsche

“To me ‘evil’ is someone who hurts others and then takes pleasure in it. In addition with no remorse, regret, shame or guilt. Ergo Anti-social Personality Disorder.

In other words a lack of moral conscience. However many people don’t know this because they can not penetrate always the mask.

Many times those with severe personality disorders hides behind a mask and a social facade.

A predator often will only hurt people if they perceive a vulnerability. Then by me having a personal history of a person of this

nature they will see an opportunity and stick the knife into you and then finally twist it for good measure.” LightSun

 

[Coriolis]

How about: intentionally causing harm or pain to another?

 

[Lark]

Yeah, I think predatory behaviour is evil, I tend to think that the best attempts to scientifically formulate a theory of evil were done by Erich Fromm in his books Anatomy of Human Destructiveness, The Heart of Man, The Fear of Freedom, those are the titles which he wrote that tend to be more than him just engaging with his influences (Marx, Freud, Torah).

He had a theory about the pervasive nature of sadio-masochism in society which I think still holds up, as an character type which exists in the social unconscious, and another theory about the necrophilious character type, as I understand it this is a less widespread set of traits but more like your archetypical psychopathic serial killer type, later, I think, he theorised about multiple personality types, which were socially generated distortions of innate traits, making people inclined to become exploitative, hoarding, marketing etc.

Those traits are wicked, I think, the maladaptive patterns that are socially compelling, are wicked, but its more habituated behaviours than something innate, like the predator / necrophile type.

There's only so much can be explained with reference to socialisation, conditioning etc.

Lately the biopsychosocial developmental modelling makes the most sense to me and the predisposing, precipitating and perpetuating modelling of actions / experience.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Quotation:
“He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." Friedrich Nietzsche

Yup.

I don't agree with everything Nietzsche wrote, but he definitely made me think.

 

[Lark]

Yup.

I don't agree with everything Nietzsche wrote, but he definitely made me think.

His quotes and aphorisms are catchy, I can definitely see why he has such a pull on the imagination of some of the people he does.

Though I dislike how a lot of the catchy phrases, when you think about, can boil down to meaning so many different things to different people and "all things to all men", case in point this quote could mean entirely different things to a socialist or a conservative and exercise an appeal to each, is it simply a sort of persecuting zeal or zelotry that he's concerned about or does he mean that opposing anything for long enough and you wind up simply reproducing it unawares?

Maybe all it is is a talking point anyway.

There's also much more sinister quotes from the same guy, such as its better to seek forgiveness than permission, I've heard that as often as this quote about fighting monsters, people never seem to think of seeking forgiveness than permission in the case of rape or similar offences, just stealing someones yogurt from the staff fridge, all the same, its the sort of thinking at the root of both behaviours.

Ultimately I think Freud and Marx are the better thinkers if I am going to read some German philosopher.

 

[Tomb1]

The word has both secular and non-secular usages.

I would say that In the fictionalized universe of the bible, "evil" is symbolic of the "devil"'s values in the so-called seven sins (i.e. pride, greed, wrath, deceit, envy, etc)...so if you don't want to be evil and go to heaven then you will avoid these "sins." (If you want to go by Nietzsche, then this all originates from the slaves' reactionary morality to the values of the aristocracy...if you go by Marx its part and parcel to the whole "opiate of the masses" a form of social control) This usage of "evil" has a very ugly history. Ultimately, this type of "evil" is a moral judgment which is inherently subjective and often used by demagogues as a tool of social control

Whereas, the secular usage of evil is descriptive of something nasty and harmful.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

His quotes and aphorisms are catchy, I can definitely see why he has such a pull on the imagination of some of the people he does.

Though I dislike how a lot of the catchy phrases, when you think about, can boil down to meaning so many different things to different people and "all things to all men", case in point this quote could mean entirely different things to a socialist or a conservative and exercise an appeal to each, is it simply a sort of persecuting zeal or zelotry that he's concerned about or does he mean that opposing anything for long enough and you wind up simply reproducing it unawares?

Yes that's true. This is true for his concept of ressentiment as well. It could be applied to people who have racist or sexist beliefs, for instance. Or it could be interpreted to mean that everyone should know their place.

Maybe all it is is a talking point anyway.

There's also much more sinister quotes from the same guy, such as its better to seek forgiveness than permission, I've heard that as often as this quote about fighting monsters, people never seem to think of seeking forgiveness than permission in the case of rape or similar offenses, just stealing someones yogurt from the staff fridge, all the same, its the sort of thinking at the root of both behaviors.

I had a coworker who would say this all the whole time. This person was a contract worker like me who started in the same role at the same time; there was no seniority. He liked to spend his time teaching new hires how to make pretty-looking things in Excel. This had nothing to with anything we were working on, nor was it related to anything they were working on. He just took it upon himself to teach them something irrelevant that they may never even use. To my shock, nobody ever called him out on it.

The thing I dislike about Nietzscheis that he's too obsessed with rank. I read part of Zarathustra, where he described man as being on a tightrope, with the point of origin being the beast, and the destination being something superhuman. I was intrigued by this concept and wanted to know what was on the other side. It seems like he never fully articulates what this means, if we can rely on the footnotes of Nietzsche scholar Walter Kaufmann. I've more recently looked at summariies of his work. It seems like his ideal society is one with a rigid hierarchy (if this is incorrect, feel free to let me know), so I probably would not care for whatever might await the tightrope walker should he succeed. It's disappointing and lame to discover this. He can take things everyone takes for granted and subject them to such scrutiny, but when it comes to the task of coming up with an alternative, his answer is this unimaginative 19th century bullshit.

I prefer people be beasts, really. Beast are meritocratic, at least. It's not necessarily even the biggest that win. There is a species of cuttlefish where, win a large male is trying to impregnate a female, the smaller males will pretend to be females, so that they can slip in and mate with the female. Crows can band together and harass hawks and eagles. There are many of examples.

I was very interested in Nietzsche for a while. I was interested in part because I got from him the sense shouldn't worry about the haters; that if people hate what I do or say, it's the sense that they can't handle how awesome I am. Of course, people don't always have issues with someone because they are intimidated by how awesome they are. It is extremely valuable to take into account negative feedback in many instances. Our perception of the world can leave so much out sometimes. You can believe in all your heart that you can see the one thing nobody else can, and in reality be entirely mistaken.

I should also mention that these days I'm not convinced that I'm all that smart. People should not be encouraged to rely on "being smart" as being the one thing that gives them worth, the thing that separates them from the unwashed masses. That's actually bad for them.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

The word has both secular and non-secular usages.

I would say that In the fictionalized universe of the bible, "evil" is symbolic of the "devil"'s values in the so-called seven sins (i.e. pride, greed, wrath, deceit, envy, etc)...so if you don't want to be evil and go to heaven then you will avoid these "sins." (If you want to go by Nietzsche, then this all originates from the slaves' reactionary morality to the values of the aristocracy...if you go by Marx its part and parcel to the whole "opiate of the masses" a form of social control) This usage of "evil" has a very ugly history. Ultimately, this type of "evil" is a moral judgment which is inherently subjective and often used by demagogues as a tool of social control

A positive effect of Nietzsche for me was when he takes apart the ascetic ideal, which is about renouncing or loathing the world and manifested itself in secular contexts even in Neitzsche's day. I used to relate heavily to an ascetic ideal like that. For me this meant that I thought I was more moral for holing myself up in my apartment rather than go, or going out in "the world". True, I often still prefer to hole myself up in my apartment, but this is because of what I prefer to do. I don't delude myself into thinking it makes me a better person.

If you're at a feast and see a lavish bounty before you, don't recoil with revulsion at the experience, which seems distasteful for some reason. Rather, try to enjoy the experience. There's no reason why it should seem repugnant to you. The impact of religious attitudes even in our secular thinking is something Nietzsche makes clear, and this I thought was fascinating and perhaps of value.

I'll also say that I have no desire to live in a world without morality. I didn't think this even back then, in my "Nietzsche phase." People gravitate to the concept of a world without morality, because, I would assume, they think it would give them freedom, but this also means people are free to do whatever they wish to do to you.

The trick is really understanding precisely what is considered to be morally right and morally wrong. I have no answers there intellectually, but there are things I can clearly label as wrong, and things I can clearly label as good.

Ultimately I think Freud and Marx are the better thinkers if I am going to read some German philosopher.

Do you have any opinions on Heidegger? He seems like a horrible person. I would like to know if his philosophy is equally horrible. I suppose I should bite the bullet and investigate for myself.

This stupid meme made me lol:

 

[Lark]

Yes that's true. This is true for his concept of ressentiment as well. It could be applied to people who have racist or sexist beliefs, for instance. Or it could be interpreted to mean that everyone should know their place.

I had a coworker who would say this all the whole time. This person was a contract worker like me who started in the same role at the same time; there was no seniority. He liked to spend his time teaching new hires how to make pretty-looking things in Excel. This had nothing to with anything we were working on, nor was it related to anything they were working on. He just took it upon himself to teach them something irrelevant that they may never even use. To my shock, nobody ever called him out on it.

The thing I dislike about Nietzscheis that he's too obsessed with rank. I read part of Zarathustra, where he described man as being on a tightrope, with the point of origin being the beast, and the destination being something superhuman. I was intrigued by this concept and wanted to know what was on the other side. It seems like he never fully articulates what this means, if we can rely on the footnotes of Nietzsche scholar Walter Kaufmann. I've more recently looked at summariies of his work. It seems like his ideal society is one with a rigid hierarchy (if this is incorrect, feel free to let me know), so I probably would not care for whatever might await the tightrope walker should he succeed. It's disappointing and lame to discover this. He can take things everyone takes for granted and subject them to such scrutiny, but when it comes to the task of coming up with an alternative, his answer is this unimaginative 19th century bullshit.

I prefer people be beasts, really. Beast are meritocratic, at least. It's not necessarily even the biggest that win. There is a species of cuttlefish where, win a large male is trying to impregnate a female, the smaller males will pretend to be females, so that they can slip in and mate with the female. Crows can band together and harass hawks and eagles. There are many of examples.

I was very interested in Nietzsche for a while. I was interested in part because I got from him the sense shouldn't worry about the haters; that if people hate what I do or say, it's the sense that they can't handle how awesome I am. Of course, people don't always have issues with someone because they are intimidated by how awesome they are. It is extremely valuable to take into account negative feedback in many instances. Our perception of the world can leave so much out sometimes. You can believe in all your heart that you can see the one thing nobody else can, and in reality be entirely mistaken.

I should also mention that these days I'm not convinced that I'm all that smart. People should not be encouraged to rely on "being smart" as being the one thing that gives them worth, the thing that separates them from the unwashed masses. That's actually bad for them.

I agree with you about it being nineteenth century rank that's his rabbit in the hat, his descriptions are better than his prescriptions in that respect.

The guy was pretty troubled and kept writing, I think, right up until he was hospitalised, so there's a good case to be made that at least some of his writing was driven by madness or mania or something like that.

The other thing, besides the disappointment that he's simply reasserting some old thinking presented as something novel, is that on one account its all simply "be all you can be", like he sees the conventional belief systems all coming to naught, God, progess etc. its all fatal conceits, but the "uber mensch" is just someone striving, competing to be superior or dominate, in intellect or some other respect, then what? After you win the "big game" what?

That type of thing is why people live their best life in high school and dont think beyond that.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I agree with you about it being nineteenth century rank that's his rabbit in the hat, his descriptions are better than his prescriptions in that respect.

The guy was pretty troubled and kept writing, I think, right up until he was hospitalised, so there's a good case to be made that at least some of his writing was driven by madness or mania or something like that.

The other thing, besides the disappointment that he's simply reasserting some old thinking presented as something novel, is that on one account its all simply "be all you can be", like he sees the conventional belief systems all coming to naught, God, progess etc. its all fatal conceits, but the "uber mensch" is just someone striving, competing to be superior or dominate, in intellect or some other respect, then what? After you win the "big game" what?

That type of thing is why people live their best life in high school and dont think beyond that.

I thought that if you won, you could make the world better. You would be able to do it in such a way that eventually it wouldn't be your job anymore.

I was also reading a lot of positive psychology at the time. This resulted in cross-pollination. It looked like this:

Part of the way you could make the world better was by show others how to be their best selves. If everyone was their best selves, they would be happy and fulfilled, which meant they would not be filled with greed, envy, and hate. They, therefore, would not be susceptible brainwashing or propaganda. They could take up the task and teach others, etc.

It would be about bringing everyone up to more or less the same level rather than the best ruling over everyone, because what's the fun in that? What's the point of that? It was an implementation of the idea that humans are improvable, that's all.

Sure, there would be people who loathe you for what you were doing and oppose you, but they would probably change their minds eventually. Why wouldn't they want to live a better life? Why wouldn't they get tired of being upset that their social hierarchies are being disrupted?

 

[LightSun]

How about: intentionally causing harm or pain to another?

Yes. The key is not only causing harm but in addition 2 other variables.

1. A person who harms another and yet not having guilt, shame, remorse, or regret.

2. The second component is to derive great pleasure from hurting another.

The term of evil is for the general population. The correct term is having Antisocial Personality Disorder. In other words no moral conscience.

 

[LightSun]

Yup.

I don't agree with everything Nietzsche wrote, but he definitely made me think.

Hello @Julius_Van_Der_Beak i agree with you in that I find many of Friedrich Nietzsche’s quotations as insightful and hitting the mark.

In fact because I have found that I agree and resonate with so many of Nietzsche’s quotes that I have dedicated an entire photograph album to him with his quotes, and my writings paired with photography.
(Not here on this site).

 

[LightSun]

His quotes and aphorisms are catchy, I can definitely see why he has such a pull on the imagination of some of the people he does.

Though I dislike how a lot of the catchy phrases, when you think about, can boil down to meaning so many different things to different people and "all things to all men", case in point this quote could mean entirely different things to a socialist or a conservative and exercise an appeal to each, is it simply a sort of persecuting zeal or zelotry that he's concerned about or does he mean that opposing anything for long enough and you wind up simply reproducing it unawares?

Maybe all it is is a talking point anyway.

There's also much more sinister quotes from the same guy, such as its better to seek forgiveness than permission, I've heard that as often as this quote about fighting monsters, people never seem to think of seeking forgiveness than permission in the case of rape or similar offences, just stealing someones yogurt from the staff fridge, all the same, its the sort of thinking at the root of both behaviours.

Ultimately I think Freud and Marx are the better thinkers if I am going to read some German philosopher.

Hello @Lark I come from a psychology background. I have found Carl Jung’s quotes as being insightful and full of wisdom.

His writing of ‘The Shadow Self and on the use of Projections is straight truth.

“If we remember that there are many people who understand nothing at all about themselves, we shall be less surprised at the realization that there are also people who are utterly unaware of their actual inner conflicts.” Carl Jung

“The best political, social and spiritual work we can do is to withdraw the projection of our shadow onto others.” Carl Jung

“There is no coming to consciousness without pain. People will do anything, no matter how absurd, in order to avoid facing their own soul.

One does not become enlightened by imagining figures of light, but by making the darkness conscious.” Carl Jung

“The most dangerous psychological mistake is the projection of the shadow on to others. This is the root of almost all conflicts.” Carl Jung

“Much of the evil in the world is due to the fact that man is hopelessly unconscious.” Carl Jung

“The most dangerous psychological mistake is the projection of the shadow on to others. This is the root of almost all conflicts.” Carl Jung

“One does not become enlightened by imagining figures of light but making the darkness conscious.” Carl Jung

“Until you make the unconscious conscious, it will direct your life and you will call it fate.” Carl Jung

“A man likes to believe that he is the master of his soul. But as long as he unable to control his moods and emotions, or to be conscious of the myriad

secret ways in which unconscious factors insinuate themselves into his arrangements and decisions, he is certainly not his own master.” Carl Jung

“Man’s task is to become conscious of the content that press upward from the unconscious. As far as we can discern the sole purpose of human existence is to kindle a light in the darkness of mere being.” Carl Jung

 

[Tomb1]

Yes. The key is not only causing harm but in addition 2 other variables.

1. A person who harms another and yet not having guilt, shame, remorse, or regret.

2. The second component is to derive great pleasure from hurting another.

The term of evil is for the general population. The correct term is having Antisocial Personality Disorder. In other words no moral conscience.

Well, there's no objective scorecard in the sky that dictates what set of principles qualifies as morality.

There are people from the favelas who live by a morality that sees harming others in certain circumstances without guilt, shame, remorse or regret as right and thus from the time they are young develop a moral conscience around being able to execute violent acts, such that, if they are incapable of executing the violent act will be shamed by their peers -- the exact opposite of your morality, which if they followed, their chance of survival in their favela would drastically decrease. The same can be said of prison culture.

At the end of the day, there is no supernatural force in the universe called "good" that you happen to be in harmony with and the favela gang member isn't (consensus morality is not equivalent to a supernatural force). The favela gang members are in it for their own pragmatic reasons like others who opted into a law-abiding conventional morality are in it for other pragmatic reasons....but when everybody is stranded on a deserted island, a country's economic system crashes or a hurricane destroys everybody's houses and the police can no longer effectively police, then the conditioning and programming sloughs off and everything eventually descends into a dog-eat-dog shitshow.

As an aside, a lot of people get diagnosed with Antisocial Personality Disorder who clearly do not qualify as evil. Mike Tyson in his youth and numerous times during his boxing career definitely checks off your variables for "evil" and yet today he is one of the most loved celebrities on earth....that's an oversimplification to suggest that anybody who would qualify for "antisocial personality disorder" is evil.

 

[The Cat]

evil
e
v
i
l
l
i
v
e
live

Its probably just a coincidence.

Probably.

 

[arnoldopenz]

Causing others great harm is evil, IMHO.
Yes, morals are subjective to a reasonable degree. though theyr'e not a fact. it's a philosophical position and not reality. Too many psuh this as a reality, i guess since it serves their own agendas and mindsets. pretty infantile imo.