Lol. Reporting for duty @karlboll!
If I were going to break this down I’d say there’s some truth to it- or it could be true from one perspective at least; but I wouldn’t call it universally true or necessarily philosophically true. The whole question of the nature of man and even the existence or definition of good and evil are age old and unresolved in debate- but the part that strikes out as the most glaring flaw that invalidates things is this:
“Who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?” Well…. Turns out a lot of people. Perhaps even most people. We destroy pieces of ourselves all the time of course- other people, the planet, we are quite often self destructive. But “pieces of…. Heart” could be taken to mean something a touch different- things we love? Things intrinsic to who we are or our values? Regardless- you name it and many or likely most people will destroy it. We destroy through carelessness, thoughtlessness, negligence, selfishness, and sometimes even malice-
Sometimes we “cut off our own arm to spite our hand,” destroy things dear to us to hurt someone else we have negative feelings for, or we self destruct out of some form of self hate. There are few things a human being will seek to willingly destroy or harm like those things that we hate about ourselves or which give us a scape goat to place our own feelings of self hate or disgust or disappointment on. We pick on others out of a need to feel power when we feel powerless or because we can’t picture ourselves doing a thing- perhaps more so when we CAN picture it and our values tell us we should feel shame- so we take that out on others who seem able to do such things and sleep at night.
When we want something in life but are afraid or otherwise standing in our own way of getting it and someone else has it- we might pile our hate on them for being able to live that way.
But I do think it is true that for the MOST part, cartoon villainy- the type of Children's stories where there are just evil people doing evil things for the sake of evil is exceptionally rare or almost non existent in the real world in any significant measure. In the kids shows the criminals used to just like crime or hate order or be somehow “sick.” The super villains want to destroy just to destroy or they want to serve some demonic or absolute evil that demands they do evil in tribute for no reason but perhaps evils sake or that their power comes from evil. In real life most people think they’re doing good, or that their good outweighs their bad. At some point we may begin to simply do what serves our self and justify it as for the greater good- especially with those like narcissists or people who think their way is the only way and somehow they are inherently special or the only one who can do it.
When a dictator “removes” political enemies it is most often to…
.. protect their power structure. Detractors who might at the political or military or mass citizen level introduce unrest and take power or slow progress towards their goals. But these dictators usually believe that they NEED to have to power because that is for the “greater good.” Someone like Stalin obviously personally benefitted greatly from their government structure, but Stalin also did believe on some levels that what he was doing was for the best, to form a strong and secure empire where at least eventually, people would “live better” if in no other way than that they live a lifestyle and sort of philosophy that he believed was “right.” This is often the case with governments which criminalize things like homosexuality. From the perspective of the power structure it might be that what is “best” for social and national interests is to do so, and/or that the individual citizen is being served by a state which is trying to make sure they live a “morally right” way.
By taking the personal freedom and likely a large part of happiness and life satisfaction from those people, that government or ruling group in power may feel they are doing “good” or “helping.”
So finding the “evil” is subjective- and from someone like Solzhenitsyn who lived under a repressive communist regime and was made a a pariah by it for his “evils” against society or the state- I think the philosophy makes sense in that when we start separating and/or disposing of the “evil” among us- who and what are “evil” become the prerogative of the parties in power.
In America there is a clear example in the extremes of politics- given free reign Donald Trump and his alt right and far right supporters would likely label entire groups as evil like certain sexualities or gender identities, those who think in terms of normalizing those things, perhaps entire racial and ethnic groups and religions or at the least those of foreign birth or certain foreign birth. But-
The radicsl left would likely, if given free reign, label anyone who failed to meet their standards of progressivism and “father/mother knows best” government as “evil.” Perhaps, much as was seen in the USSR, China, etc, those with wealth would become almost universally defacto enemies of the people as the accumulation of any significant wealth under our current system strongly implies that one has participated in the exploitation of people or the planet.
And in either case exceptions would be made for those who were otherwise considered indispensable or “one of the good ones” as long as those sentiments or a need still existed. So the opposite sides of a coin tend to still be the same coin. There is some validity though to the idea that we can’t completely “purge” evil without becoming “evil” ourselves I think.
A larger truth exists in that if we take the line of “good and evil” “cutting through the heart of every human” to a less literal place it is true that humans are generally neither neatly one or the other. We know this from figures in history as a clear example. Ignoring subjectivity- that one man’s tyrant is another’s liberator, one man’s traitor is another’s hero- we just don’t have many real “saints” of any unless we choose to ignore or rewrite their Ill deeds. Often we excuse wrongs for what are seen as greater rights- a person beats their spouse and children but invents a way to mars and they are most likely to be given a grand place in history where the abuser part is usually left out. The statues will not show them beating their children and many landmarks named in their honor won’t say: “Alex Hawkins (souse beater) elementary school” or “Jo Berns (child beater) Street.”
Thank you @guest_. That is a kind and relatable way of putting it. I struggled with the quote trying to put words on why it chafed. I think it is just as you say that good and evil aren't objectively definable and no one is either or.
No worries. I’m glad I could be of help. It kinda chafes me too- I think because of the ambiguity as well- or… how do
I say it…? Let’s say that some noble and and wise person who is a champion of liberty once said something like: “those who would take your freedom to express your thoughts are tyrants needing deposed…” and let’s say they were talking about some military junta or something- some group like the Nazis or the communists or something. And then 20,50,200 years later some neo nazi comes along and is upset they can’t give beer hall speeches and wear their swastika and all this- and they use that quote and they say that the government that had criminalized the expression of Nazi philosophy and thought is tyrannical and this wise noble champion of liberty from history agrees because they said that a government trying to censor you was tyrannical. And well… The context is maybe a touch important? Like- that quote was probably meant AGAINST the thing it’s being used to defend…?
So we do see that quite a bit especially with “inspirational internet quotes,” some sort of broad quote being invoked towards a topical ends, but without context; and often we explore the context and we can see that the person was not speaking so broadly perhaps but in a specific set of circumstances and from and for the specific circumstances of a time. Gandalf says “the treacherous are ever distrustful…” but Sam was not treacherous and Sam was ever distrustful of Golum. Golum was treacherous, it was obvious to Sam, thusly Sam didn’t trust him. When Gandalf said those words he didn’t mean Sam not did he mean that any person who was distrustful was treacherous- but a con artist might use such a quote and it’s connections to the wise and noble Gandalf to gas light potential victims who are distrustful of the con artist.
So I mean… quotes can be misused and sometimes when used in a certain cultural climate or amidst certain current events there can be a context added to a quote that is
Shall we say… slightly twisted. I’m not saying that is the cad where but I am saying that this is a quote that can easily lead itself to such twisting to be used to say something that probably wouldn't be what the quote or the speaker would have said on the specific climate or topic the quote is being leveraged to.
If I were going to break this down I’d say there’s some truth to it- or it could be true from one perspective at least; but I wouldn’t call it universally true or necessarily philosophically true. The whole question of the nature of man and even the existence or definition of good and evil are age old and unresolved in debate- but the part that strikes out as the most glaring flaw that invalidates things is this:
“Who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?” Well…. Turns out a lot of people. Perhaps even most people. We destroy pieces of ourselves all the time of course- other people, the planet, we are quite often self destructive. But “pieces of…. Heart” could be taken to mean something a touch different- things we love? Things intrinsic to who we are or our values? Regardless- you name it and many or likely most people will destroy it. We destroy through carelessness, thoughtlessness, negligence, selfishness, and sometimes even malice-
When we want something in life but are afraid or otherwise standing in our own way of getting it and someone else has it- we might pile our hate on them for being able to live that way.
When a dictator “removes” political enemies it is most often to…
So finding the “evil” is subjective- and from someone like Solzhenitsyn who lived under a repressive communist regime and was made a a pariah by it for his “evils” against society or the state- I think the philosophy makes sense in that when we start separating and/or disposing of the “evil” among us- who and what are “evil” become the prerogative of the parties in power.
In America there is a clear example in the extremes of politics- given free reign Donald Trump and his alt right and far right supporters would likely label entire groups as evil like certain sexualities or gender identities, those who think in terms of normalizing those things, perhaps entire racial and ethnic groups and religions or at the least those of foreign birth or certain foreign birth. But-
And in either case exceptions would be made for those who were otherwise considered indispensable or “one of the good ones” as long as those sentiments or a need still existed. So the opposite sides of a coin tend to still be the same coin. There is some validity though to the idea that we can’t completely “purge” evil without becoming “evil” ourselves I think.
I say it…? Let’s say that some noble and and wise person who is a champion of liberty once said something like: “those who would take your freedom to express your thoughts are tyrants needing deposed…” and let’s say they were talking about some military junta or something- some group like the Nazis or the communists or something. And then 20,50,200 years later some neo nazi comes along and is upset they can’t give beer hall speeches and wear their swastika and all this- and they use that quote and they say that the government that had criminalized the expression of Nazi philosophy and thought is tyrannical and this wise noble champion of liberty from history agrees because they said that a government trying to censor you was tyrannical. And well… The context is maybe a touch important? Like- that quote was probably meant AGAINST the thing it’s being used to defend…?
So I mean… quotes can be misused and sometimes when used in a certain cultural climate or amidst certain current events there can be a context added to a quote that is