The Cellar - View Single Post

10-20-2004, 01:40 PM

I must say that Brianna is right when she states that nowhere did she say one is either good or evil. She said evil must be confronted. You take issue with this statement, TW, because of the atrocities which have occurred in the name of confronting a supposed "evil." Am I correct in this understanding?

I know that evil DOES exist. I also realize that each side believes that it is on the side of the angels even as its members go about commiting unspeakable acts. Arendt called this this the "banality of evil." She came to her conclusions when she witnessed the trial of Eichman in Neurenberg. Eichman appeared as a person of small intellect, given to answering his questioners with cliche's and party propaganda. Arendt felt that people who think deeply about issues, who do not accept the party line - whether it be religous dogma or political idealogy - will not commit evil acts. Her belief was that any intelligent person will realize that by harming others, one ultimately harms oneself.

I think our current world situation is a beautiful example of the banality of evil in action. George Jr. is hardly an intellectual giant, in case no one has noticed. He buys into the dogma of the religous right and mouths its cliche's at every turn. Thus, we have the current conflict in Iraq. Were Junior to brought up before the judges at Nuremberg, I suspect that he would come off much as Eichman did. The same would be true of Saddam, of Bin Laden, of Pol Pot - the list goes on and on.

I agree with Brianna that evil must be confronted. It is the MANNER in which it is confronted that is crucial. There lies the crux of the problem.

10-20-2004, 01:40 PM	#2
marichiko Guest Posts: n/a	I must say that Brianna is right when she states that nowhere did she say one is either good or evil. She said evil must be confronted. You take issue with this statement, TW, because of the atrocities which have occurred in the name of confronting a supposed "evil." Am I correct in this understanding? I know that evil DOES exist. I also realize that each side believes that it is on the side of the angels even as its members go about commiting unspeakable acts. Arendt called this this the "banality of evil." She came to her conclusions when she witnessed the trial of Eichman in Neurenberg. Eichman appeared as a person of small intellect, given to answering his questioners with cliche's and party propaganda. Arendt felt that people who think deeply about issues, who do not accept the party line - whether it be religous dogma or political idealogy - will not commit evil acts. Her belief was that any intelligent person will realize that by harming others, one ultimately harms oneself. I think our current world situation is a beautiful example of the banality of evil in action. George Jr. is hardly an intellectual giant, in case no one has noticed. He buys into the dogma of the religous right and mouths its cliche's at every turn. Thus, we have the current conflict in Iraq. Were Junior to brought up before the judges at Nuremberg, I suspect that he would come off much as Eichman did. The same would be true of Saddam, of Bin Laden, of Pol Pot - the list goes on and on. I agree with Brianna that evil must be confronted. It is the MANNER in which it is confronted that is crucial. There lies the crux of the problem.