Kevin's Watch

IMO, LF's actions and intent determine whether we think of him as evil or not. Because he does not care what happens to the rest of the world, and in fact seems to relish the thought of causing others to become the things they hate, and because he wishes not just to destroy the world to free himself, but to do it with style and gusto, I regard him as evil.

F&F, btw, I like the spider-wasp analogy a lot, but I think that LF chooses the way in which he seeks to escape his prison. What if there were a different way to escape the AoT, that didn't involve cacophonous destruction? A formal letter of apology to the Creator? Seriously, I think that LF's nature was behind his initial decision to muck with the Creator's creation, thus incurring the wrath that resulted in his imprisonment. But it was LF's decisions that came back to bite him, just as it was the Creator's decision to cast him down that caused everyone grief.

So, was LF acting by compulsion from his nature or by free will? LF is presented to us as an otherwise immortal being that was cast down through the AoT by the Creator as a punishment for his transgressions, and limited by the very laws that keep him alive in the Land. Though he strives to regain his celestial immortality, his plottings always seemed human to me [though consummately villainous]. I tend to think that LF is acting of his own free will, not because he is compelled to do so as an unavoidable fact of his existence. He is the smartest, most powerful being on the planet, but because the Creator cast him down, he is trapped, trapped , unless he can topple the AoT and get back to his---perpetual wrestling match with the Creator?.
By extension, I believe that we humans can choose on a moment-by-moment basis to do great acts of good or evil. Even so, we are all influenced by many things, good and evil, internal and external. A short list: genetic predispositions, upbringing [like the habit of despair, or just not knowing any better], instincts like self-preservation, seeking food, shelter, sex drive. These factors are further clarified or muddled by the limitations of our individual perceptions [and some have better sensory channels than others, not only the basic senses, but the ability to process those inputs----what about people with mental illnesses or autism, that may be biochemically predisposed toward or locked into patterns of thought that drive their behavior in ways that seem inappropriate to those of us that don't have those disadvantages, especially if those same people have lifelong been subject to poor care, social marginalization, or constant antagonism?]
But I digress. Despite all these other influences, good or bad, whether using good or bad judgement, clear or muddled thought patterns, whether acting on instinct, or on the serene wisdom of a model childhood or through the experience of many years of abuse, humans have (to a greater or a lesser degree) the ability to choose their actions---an excellent example of this is the movie Changing Lanes [Samuel L. Jackson and Ben Affleck]. My wife and I really liked the way the movie pointed out the direct cause and effect, and how these two people went through interwoven cycles of revenge, regret, trying to redeem themselves, getting screwed, and back to revenge. Great movie!
I digressed again... Ok, that's all for now. I will come back again and answer the other excellent posts as I can. TTFN.

DW
[Weird, warped, and wanting lunch]

P.S., I found the banana!

Thanks for bumping this for me, Fist. I have found an answer in A Man Rides Through...Master Eremis was one of the characters SRD cites as being evil...here is his "law of life"...

The truth is we have the right to interfere with the images because we have the power to interfere. It is necessary to interfere. Otherwise power has no use, and it dies, and Imagery is lost. That is the law of life. Like every other thing which breathes and desires and chooses, we must do what we can.

Another bit from AMRT, which defines SRD's view of evil, IMHO...

She thought of her former life as a struggle between Reverend Thatcher and her father - a battle to help the ruined and destitute of the world against rapacity and unconcern, against men who inflicted misery for their own benefit simply because they were able to do so.

Yeah, might (or ability) makes right is such a wonderful thing!!! I wonder why those who believe that way don't use their power/ability to help a little more often.

Power, control, ego...the world isn't designed to revolve around just one person-it can but many valuable souls are compromised in the process-that's just wrong!

Zahir wrote:Just Another example would be Steerpike in the BBC miniseries Gormenghast, although his sympathetic feelings are very meagre for anyone save himself or the Lady Fuschia--and I think he likes her only as much as someone might a favorite chair.

That's interesting ... Steerpike is the manipulative character in Gormenghast by Mervyn Peake, the trilogy which inspired the BBC miniseries. I have actually read all three books (Titus Groan, Gormenghast, and Titus Alone) ... but never connected them to Donaldson.

However, on the brand spankin' new SRD site, there is an interview where SRD specifically names Mervyn Peake as an influence. I am certain he has read Gormenghast, and knows of Steerpike ... I would further guess that Steerpike influenced the Kemper -- both are little weasels who are quite brilliant and talented, and manipulate an entire kingdom from the shadows.

bump for ragsaw. (And Welcome to the Watch, btw!! ) This thread was started for the very thing you just brought up. I'm not making any claims on how well it stayed on track.

Now this is an interesting discussion!

In my own otherworldly experiences (see my thread here for an explanation of this) I've had some interesting insights into the nature of good and evil:

First, Duchess quotes Eremis from A Man Rides Through:

duchess of malfi wrote:

The truth is we have the right to interfere with the images because we have the power to interfere. It is necessary to interfere. Otherwise power has no use, and it dies, and Imagery is lost. That is the law of life. Like every other thing which breathes and desires and chooses, we must do what we can.

This is frighteningly similar to the Arnagest's (see my thread above) statement in regards to its power: "Our right to decide the fates of worlds is granted by our ability to do so." Yet the Arnagest is not what I would consider an "evil" organisation: its overriding goal is to prevent the destruction or annihilation of any one culture by any other. This is not, in my view, an evil aspiration. What I learned from the Arnagest is that exercising power requires no justification when applied in an altruistic manner. But when the pursuit of power is for its own sake, for one's own personal aggrandisement, then oppression and tyranny are the inevitable result, and any creature with a will of its own by definition will find these things evil.

Such powerlust is always motivated by greed. Greed is not "I want more", greed is "I want more than everybody else". Think of how the largest corporations and richest people on this planet further their wealth and power by maintaining a political system that guarantees the vast majority of the population of this world will remain in the gutter. If everybody had a million dollars, one dollar would be worthless and a loaf of bread would cost a hundred grand. Wealth is only wealth when measured relative to others' poverty; in order for one man to be rich, a thousand others must perforce be poor. It is for this reason that my otherworld people, the Aimanhyarin, have this saying: Puhsta laerath (S**t floats). It's a way of saying that the scum always rises to the top. Those who lust after power are the ones who will most ardently seek it, and they are the ones who will inevitably succeed in doing so. And in doing so, they gain power over others, the right to control everyone's destiny by the simple act of being able to do so, and they do so only with their own interests at heart - regardless of the wills of others. They override the common will with their own.

So in my experience, the definition of evil comes down to one factor only: MY WILL SHALL PREVAIL OVER YOURS. All evil can be defined in this one statement. If you override the will of another, you are doing evil. The ramifications of this point of view (and that is all it is) are far-reaching indeed. Consider this example: Competition in place of cooperation is evil, because for you to win, somebody else must lose. Your will must prevail over theirs. Yet we all compete, for jobs, for lovers, for market share, for every aspect of our lives. People think "love" (man and woman) is good, because it feels good? But is it, when it carries within it the dark seeds of jealousy, distrust and fear? When two men love the same woman, she must reject one of them and hurt him, simply because of the other man's jealousy. Jealousy that arises out of the simple fear that she might not always be there for him, a desire to keep the bird in the cage in case it flies away. Women feel the same way about men, too.

So there is more evil in our lives than most of us might realise. Do not misunderstand me, I condemn not the way we live, because the duality of good and evil, light and dark, is the basis of all existence. In her Earthsea books, Ursula LeGuin sums it up perfectly:

U.K.LeGuin wrote:Only in darkness the light,
Only in silence the word,
Only in dying, life;
Bright the hawk's flight on the empty sky.

Without evil, good has no reference of definition. Without darkness, there would be no way to understand light. Without the greedy corporations, we would not have computers or the Beatles. And without beings like Lord Foul, the Land's peoples' desire to nurture the Land would have no meaning, because it would have no need of nurturing. It is my understanding of this fundamental Balance that gives meaning to my signature line below, that I always use in every forum and chat room I post in:

for Pietten

thank you dear, and being the anal little thinker and responder (and just general forum-guy) i am, I want to eat the WHOLE thread before I respond any further than this. I'm up to page 5, and so far it's got quite a bit more nourishment than the two PB&J's I've had today

Oooooh! My favorite thread ever!

Hey b&b! I haven't seen you in a while.

btw, the Dune dissection has begun. Tell your hubby to get his butt there!!! (When you're done with it, that is. )

Okey, this is one nice thread

First I want to say, I don't believe in evil. People can do evil deeds, but that doesn't say that the person is evil.

And besides, how do we define evil? And how do we define goodness? I think none of them exist. What exist is different points of view and ways of thinking.

Ninquelote wrote:Okey, this is one nice thread

First I want to say, I don't believe in evil. People can do evil deeds, but that doesn't say that the person is evil.

If the deeds are evil, then evil exists. Of course it doesn't mean that the person is evil. Good and evil are primarily attributes of acts, not of personalities. The worst you can say about a person is that he habitually does evil acts, and does so from motives that he considers integral to his definition of himself and therefore refuses to change. That describes Lord Foul to a T, by the way.

And besides, how do we define evil? And how do we define goodness? I think none of them exist. What exist is different points of view and ways of thinking.

Then you'll have no objection if someone murders you and all your family. I mean, according to the murderer it's just his point of view that you should be dead, and his way of thinking that you deserve killing; and you, being dead, won't have any opinion in the matter. If everyone who knew you is also dead, there won't even be anyone who misses you.

I'm not being facetious. Your argument and my counter-argument can be found in philosophical texts at least as far back as Plato. I'd suggest that you review the ABC of ethics before you proclaim that there is no basis for people's ethical beliefs. The Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle is a good place to start; or if you'd like a more accessible version of the same philosophy, try Desires, Right and Wrong by Mortimer J. Adler. There are scores of other good texts on the subject.

Take it easy, Mr Farseer. I don't believe Ninquelote's intention was to "proclaim that there is no basis for people's ethical beliefs" - she was merely stating her point of view. I notice you are quick to proclaim there is no basis for her ethical beliefs.

CovenantJr wrote:Take it easy, Mr Farseer. I don't believe Ninquelote's intention was to "proclaim that there is no basis for people's ethical beliefs" - she was merely stating her point of view. I notice you are quick to proclaim there is no basis for her ethical beliefs.

I don't have to; she makes that point herself. I am saying that there is a basis for her ethical beliefs, whether she understands it or not. What is without basis is her belief that there isn't any basis.

(Confused yet?)

Thanks for supporting and trying to understand me JrCovenant .

Actually, before I wrote that I had had a major discussion in religion class. Evil and goodness isn't maybe the best subjects to discuss, you can easily be misunderstood. What I meant with what I said is: what do we really know about what's wrong and right? If we travel to another planet, moral in their perspective can be very amoral for us.

And also: maybe it's a relief to get killed? I know, it sounds crazy. But what if there's another life after death that is so much better and less painful than this life on earth? (I don't say I wanna kill myself or anything )

I just tell you my speculations (some of them beliefs). Please don't lynch me for that.

I'm an unwitting person, I know that.

CovenantJr wrote:Take it easy, Mr Farseer.

That's High Lord Farseer to you, fella!!

I think this quote from Conversations With God is what Ninquelote is talking about:

The true Master does not suffer in silence at all, but only appears to be suffering without complaint. The reason that the true Master does not complain is that the true Master is not suffering, but simply experiencing a set of circumstances that you would call insufferable.

Fist and Faith wrote:

CovenantJr wrote:Take it easy, Mr Farseer.

That's High Lord Farseer to you, fella!!

Pish

Fist and Faith wrote:I think this quote from Conversations With God is what Ninquelote is talking about:

The true Master does not suffer in silence at all, but only appears to be suffering without complaint. The reason that the true Master does not complain is that the true Master is not suffering, but simply experiencing a set of circumstances that you would call insufferable.

Nice quote

Ninquelote wrote:Thanks for supporting and trying to understand me JrCovenant .

Actually, before I wrote that I had had a major discussion in religion class. Evil and goodness isn't maybe the best subjects to discuss, you can easily be misunderstood. What I meant with what I said is: what do we really know about what's wrong and right? If we travel to another planet, moral in their perspective can be very amoral for us.

And also: maybe it's a relief to get killed? I know, it sounds crazy. But what if there's another life after death that is so much better and less painful than this life on earth? (I don't say I wanna kill myself or anything )

I just tell you my speculations (some of them beliefs). Please don't lynch me for that.

I'm an unwitting person, I know that.

((Ninqe))

I was just discussing "relavitism" with rivenrock last week ..

This is a very popular notion .. denying the existence of "wrongs" and "rights" .. "evils" and "evil's dyametric opposite".

There is a tendancy not to use these terms in preference of a politically correct non-judgemental speach .. or basically to pursue some notion of a-morality!

"morality" itself has become a politically "dirty word". However, "ethics" has not been driven off the stage of political, philosphical debate yet. Got to be thankful for small mercies ?

Rivenrock gave a dynamic example of: female genital mutilation (FMG). FMG is a "popular practice/cutural norml" satisfying all the subjective elements of the relativist. Even the fact that young women raised to expect this practice performed on them .. are willing or even mentally submissive subjects.

Thus under relavitism .. this practice is not a wrong .. as it is a social and cultural accepted norm .. or to go one more step it may even be termed by those who practice FMG .. a .. "right" if you will

.. but who can honestly state that FMG is not a "wrong" committed on young women?

To me there are absolute truths .. absolute wrongs and even rights. Murder is a wrong .. who can say it is not? I am not talking about self-defence ..which is by definition is NOT murder??

Stealing .. who can say stealing is not a wrong? I am not talking about someone who mistakenly takes something they believed was theirs .. or they take it intending only to return it later .. as all these scenarios are not elements of larceny or theft.

Who can say .. rape .. is not a wrong? I am not talking about consensual sexual relations ..

As for evils .. some acts are sooo very wrong .. evil is the only way to describe them .. acts of pedophilia are evil .. extermination camps and genocide are evils ..