tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4638619958588096610.post8357191552110888403..comments2023-11-22T09:11:01.567+00:00Comments on George Szirtes: EvilGeorge Shttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08889600788146987089noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4638619958588096610.post-81094823101666194032009-08-18T19:31:52.536+01:002009-08-18T19:31:52.536+01:00I imagine that a justification is given to the sel...I imagine that a justification is given to the self that the self accepts. That counts as the examined life. How else to explain it?<br /><br />Hence the importance of doubt, I feel, Angela.George Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08889600788146987089noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4638619958588096610.post-688513948645251442009-08-16T20:57:35.941+01:002009-08-16T20:57:35.941+01:00I'd agree that confidence is probably not a go...I'd agree that confidence is probably not a good state - too much confidence tends to have a whiff of delusion about it.<br /><br />The "unwilling to bear the pain of self-examination" is something I often return to and wrestle with. Doing 'evil' to others (as in 'Baby P') must require an inability or refusal to feel any degree of empathy. Just recognising that one is lacking in empathy wouldn't prevent the acts, I think. So self-examination alone would not be a preventative in that situation. Yet I wonder - if one can really examine oneself, and acknowledge emotions and motivations, would it be possible to deny feelings in others? It's hard to accept that someone could inflict torture on another while also accepting their helplessness and pain - unless the torturer were a true sadist.Angela Francehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00039428389406819768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4638619958588096610.post-67337263193302628352009-08-16T12:12:55.192+01:002009-08-16T12:12:55.192+01:00Thanks for the comment, Angela. I don't know t...Thanks for the comment, Angela. I don't know the Scott-Peck. This sounds like a variant on the Socrates about the unexamined life not being worth living.<br /><br />I am not sure I understand though. Self-examination might not cause pain if one didn't understand certain universal principles or if one thought such principles might be overridden by considerations that might lead to a greater good. War must be chief among these, but any form of wounding admonition for the sake of happiness later. General happiness? The happiness of the admonished? The happiness of those in the admonished's vicinity?<br /><br />These balancings are difficult as is full and proper self-examination. I wish it were easier. I hope to have acted for the better in most cases but am not confident about my own motives for doing so. I even suspect that confidence might not be a good state to be in.George Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08889600788146987089noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4638619958588096610.post-18749276331958888322009-08-16T12:00:15.514+01:002009-08-16T12:00:15.514+01:00I heard this discussion too - thought it was excel...I heard this discussion too - thought it was excellent.<br /><br />The word 'evil' is very problematic, not least because while for us it may be metaphysical, for some it is used as a concrete and present entity. So any discussion of evil needs terms defined at the outset: I know that my idea of evil will be very different from any colour of religious fundamentalist.<br /><br />The definition of evil that I am most comfortable with, and find workable, is that of M Scott-Peck: he defines evil in people as those who are unwilling to bear the pain of self-examination. The word 'unwilling' is important here, to me, because there are those who are unable (because of mental illness, or psychological damage).<br /><br />Big mounds of earth indeed.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11154434907345178584noreply@blogger.com