An Ode To Evil

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

[b][i]An Ode To Evil

A[/b][/i]s the plutocratic elite press their relentless attack against the lower orders of men and the phrases ‘justice,’ ‘equality’ and ‘freedom’ become mere empty air-bubbles in the bloodied mouth of the vox populi, it behooves us, as rudimentary men who chew our mental cud until it grows thick under our teeth, to reflect back upon the events of the past two millennia with a mixture of the greatest interest and the most profound relief - ‘interest’ because the tale told in the annals of our historically-recent past is one which has not yet been concluded, and ‘relief’ because all appearances indicate that it will resolve itself in a manner much to our benefit.

To be sure, victory has not always been assured to us. Very often we have grown despondent as the forces of morality have made their bold gambits in an effort to claim history for themselves, and many times we found ourselves against seemingly insurmountable odds (and gods). It was not, of course, always so - the age of the Roman Empire was the age of the Immoralist - but, in the course of things, we found ourselves broken upon the rack of time, debased by the masses and forced to kneel in supplication to their Superegos.

Yet we perservered, survived, and in certain circles even flourished. It is perhaps the greatest historical irony of all that the cause of this flourishing is quite often to be located in the very techniques mastered by those disciplinarians of morality in their incessant efforts to curtail the increase of our ranks; for it has been from the first power which drew so many to our cause, not as allure or as attraction but as disgust: at the reactivity of the conservative, who feigns his strength before what he regards as genuinely destructive; at the inability of those who pride themselves upon their authority to wield it properly; at the utter misunderstanding of the very concept which has heretofore passed as ‘understanding’ among the sages of the hoi polloi.

For ‘power’ - which is the only synonym for ‘evil’ which the masses, who have none, will permit - is not oppressive, and above all not repressive; it is truthfully quite the opposite. For he who wields power becomes as a surgeon skilled in the use of his scalpel, and it is within his power to shape and to mould others according to his innmost desire. A Creator is necessarily evil, for he imposes shape and form onto all which is otherwise formless void; thus ‘music’ is declared evil by certain cultural Puritans who cannot resist the beautiful imposition which it affects upon the consciousness and who must therefore react against it.

Because the code of ‘evil’, such as it were, has a standard, which is this: that whatever reacts is weak. And so the popular equation of the conservative with the Evil One is quite erroneous - the conservative is reaction, becomes reaction itself, and therefore shall remain always antithetical towards the evil man. It is the task of evil to elict a reaction from he who hath ears; what is ‘good’ exists necessarily in relation (and opposition) to this basic action. In this way the evil man causes his opponent to act out from a position of weakness and, in doing so, disadvantage himself in any debate or conflict in the public sphere.

Is it any wonder, then, that, by and large, the preservers of morality have been one and all dour and humorless men? For humor necessitates a certain disposition towards subterfuge entirely lacking in the moral man; he cannot permit himself to undercut his opponent when a valorous wading-into him would suffice instead: in this way he makes dialogue unpleasant for all, and ensures his victory. For the good, too, is underhanded, though in a way quite opposite to that of evil: it stands victorious through banality (Hannah Arendt be damned).

And so one grows to sympathize with the maltheists of history when they say that God must Himself be the greatest evil - for how could it be otherwise? All inventiveness, all cleverness, is the product of deviltry: He may at various times be a fox, a torch-bearer or an angel, but He is always a creature of the light, and the light, as everyone knows, represents the illumination of knowledge. For, in the end, one can say only thing:

That evil is knowledge.

2

Excellent. =D>

3

Why is reaction to evil only performed from a “position of weakness?”

If you think this is true, then the good man could ignore the evil man’s “first move”, and then the evil man would be forced to react to the good man’s refusal to acknowledge him, which would make the evil man the weaker.

I think it is a mistake to view evil as a substance rather than as the lack of good. To praise evil is to say, “Evil is good,” which is nonsense. Or you could take the Platonic approach found in Euthyphro and say, “The good is whatever I’m doing, so evil is good,” which makes the terms useless and arbitrary.

Either way, you’ve elicited a reaction from me. Considering you’ve survived in this world long enough to develop such literary skills, I doubt you’re as evil and clever as the pinnacle you are praising. But I’m a super-villain wannabe sometimes, too.

4

Alright so that’s Dion’s view.

I figure oppression, and anything else that makes a body weaker/less healthy, less strong, etc. That’s evil/bad. That’s sick so that’s bad. Less health = sicker. Less strength and capacity = less healthy.

If oppression and weakening of bodies gets really large-scale I’d call it evil. If it’s on small scale, it’s somewhere between bad and poisonous.

5

View it as a lack of “good” is what the Church Fathers did. But by then the values had already been reversed. Indeed, “good and evil” is a reversal of the values “good and bad”. To view “evil” as a lack of “good” is to view heaviness as a lack of lightness. It is heaviness that is the positive quality; lightness, a lack thereof. “Evil”'s just a bad word for “might”.

6

Sauwelios, Nietzsche also says that morals occur between rulers where a mutual refusal to commit certain aggressive acts, which are otherwise signs of dominant character in a people and their “imperialistic” will to political power, and come into their own democratic, collective agreements. This is a macrocosmic example of the the smaller herd, slave morality. Except this mutual agreement is given only after one has the capacity to rule totally but has settled for less. The slave, on the other hand, cannot be a master morality if he chose, and is therefore merely taking what he is afforded.

The only difference is the latter morality, the master democratic nature of morality, is formed with power in reserve. The slave morality is powerless in any and all cases and relies on the existence of democracy to exist.

Hail to the democracy of the masters!

We shall establish a statist rule over ILP, Sauwelios. Our fascist regime will take control of the boards and dictate everything.

The only other alternative is my total rule of ILP. Remember, as a master, I am settling for half. I could take everything. I admire your strength and as a fellow war general, artist and politician, I understand your desire to conquer as you, yourself, are of the master morality.

Send word soon, my lord.

[rides off on horse]

7

If one has the power to “rule totally” but “settles for less,” then he must be concerned about being usurped by the angry public- which is what prevents him from making a totalitarian state.

That isn’t real morality, it’s a placation of the masses so they don’t break down his door and throw him in the river.

And then, from what I gather, the morality of the “weak” and “small” people is the same type of morality (false morality) that the ruler has, except that the people have no power, right? Then we should just admit right now that we all secretly hate each other and that all of these formalities should be done away with.

But nobody wants that because they know that statement is false. There is a desire for communion that is beyond the practical. People have tried to reduce this desire for communion to a coping device, but why would one cope with someone he secretly hates?

When you rip away all the drive for survival, the deities, and the suppressing of one’s instincts, some people just want to be good.

8

I suppose I was referring to a nationalistic opposition between two equal powers. What I mean is when a fully independent political and economic system decides to merge with another national system and/or trade with it economically. Usually it is a contract of labor for defense against foreigners.

One power could easily remain independent and isolated from the other power and do well until a resource shortage required some kind of agreement between powers…or the alternative war.

The type of revolt you are referring to…that of an angry public from some kind of tyranny, is not the same as a nation wide opposition to another system and/or nation.

An “angry public” wouldn’t exist where the general public was the government and there were no elitists present in politics or industry.

I mean that only the master generals and conquerors have had the opportunity to decline the offer to take over completely. The Nazis, for example, had such power at such times that they made contract with nations for economic advantages…rather than just taking control after declaring war…which they could have.

The alliance with Mussolini, I think, was incidental to greater advantages in industry. This is only speculation though. I think the same of Stalin and his agreement/contract (until broken by Hitler).

Anyway these players were powers so enormous that “morality” for them was a matter of contract and not force. Either Stalin or Hitler could’ve just said fuck off to begin with, and done equally well throughout the war. Only, particular events would have been different, obviously.

People without power do not practice morality of such scope. Their morals are simple and of little consequence. Those in power define what it means to have and be diplomatic with power.

Hitler’s rule did not result in an angry masses. There were of course many Germans who despised his ideology, but as many, if not more, who supported him completely. German nationalistic pride and morale was at its greatest peak in all of industrial history. Those people had their shit together.

If anybody hated his totalitarianistic tendencies, it was the allied countries who bought Levis and believed in the American dream of democracy, liberty, and a fifty percent ratio of obesity per capita in any given demographic region of a consumerist society.

The German’s “aryan” ideal was just fabulous and eugenics was a wonderful idea. They were beautiful, intelligent people who had amazing health. Yup, the Germans are a strong bloodline and Hitler had great things in store for them. Damn tragedy that they lost the beach, you know? False radio transmissions 'el getcha every time.

9

Well, being of German descent and a holder of most of these genetic traits, I cannot say whether the impetus for survival (and the desire to remove people with ‘inferior’ traits) is natural or if it is a perversion of the natural. I only find myself wanting to “remove” certain undesirable character traits from others (traits that they chose to obtain); I have never wanted to obliterate someone just because I didn’t like his appearance or his ailments. I don’t recall wanting to do this even before I was told I shouldn’t do it.

It seems to me that “evil” is simply the word we use when a human behaves more like an animal. When animals vie for power, we say they are “doing their animal thing.” When humans vie for power in a similar way, we call it evil. An “ode” to evil would be an insistence that humans would do better to act more like animals, to do away with “moral formalities” and to do whatever it takes to get what one wants.

A strict Darwinian would argue that this outcry of “Evil!” is an attempt to sway the conscience of a superior human from ending the life or livelihood of an inferior one.

But if the “superior” human has a conscience that CAN be swayed, then why did it develop in the first place? Wouldn’t it be a weakness?

Most genetic traits that are “bad” eventually get phased out, yet the holding of a “conscience” has been more beneficial to humans, as it has allowed for countless, mutually beneficial contracts that have improved the lives of billions of people. It has even produced beings who are able to survive long enough to create literature, contemplate the existence of deities, and participate in philosophy. To me this seems far more pleasurable than “getting whatever I want in the immediate moment, but having to look over my shoulder all the time.”

I don’t see how something like empathy could evolve from a set of biological commands. The proposition is pure speculation. The simplest answer to the problem of good and evil is that morality is an inherent aspect of being human, and that theory of there being “some evil mastermind who is benefiting from our complacent morality while he gets what he wants” is nonsense. Any person who finds himself in this position of power only does so by accident or luck, and almost always immediately meets his demise as a result.

The fact that humans have a temporary sense of purpose that can DEVIATE from the rudimentary drive for survival gives strength to the possibility that there is an ultimate purpose for existence. Evil, in this world, would be that which prohibits oneself or others from fulfilling this purpose.

In order to praise evil, one has to study and sharpen his mind so that he understands how to use words. In order to do this, he has to be “good.” He has to obey his parents and teachers, and apply himself to his studies. There is no child smart enough to say to himself, “I will begrudgingly put up with this instruction until I am powerful enough to destroy my opposition,” because he has to possess language before he can construct these ideas or even be “swayed” to become evil. And in order to obtain language, there must be “good” or at least compassionate teachers and parents in the world.

Evil is the inability to regulate one’s desires. Contemporary society has popularized the evil man who can get what he wants and evade all consequences, but there is no proof that such a person is happy. Furthermore, if his happiness comes from a lack of contemplation or the refusal to examine his life, then his happiness is not real. It’s just like being stoned 24/7. Always, these “happy evil people” are bothered by the contemplative sort. Conversely, the intelligent “evil person” who writes beautiful verse in the praises of evil is not really evil at all. The contemplative man who possesses the power to write compelling pieces has no desire to be brutish. His praise of evil is merely the dirge of his ignorance. “Oh! To return to the state of bliss where my actions were free from contemplation!” But, given the opportunity, he would never return to it.