Evil

In Wiktionary, "evil" is defined as:

"The forces/behaviors that are the opposite or enemy of good. Evil generally seeks own benefit at the expense of others and is based on general malevolence."

Wikipedia says that

"Evil describes willful, immoral acts. It also serves as a blanket term for bad things."

The Online Etymology Dictionary defines "evil" as

"O.E. yfel (Kentish evel) "bad, vicious," from P.Gmc. *ubilaz (cf. O.Saxon ubil, Goth. ubils), from PIE *upelo-, giving the word an original sense of "uppity, overreaching bounds" which slowly worsened. "In OE., as in all the other early Teut. langs., exc. Scandinavian, this word is the most comprehensive adjectival expression of disapproval, dislike or disparagement" [OED]. Evil was the word the Anglo-Saxons used where we would use bad, cruel, unskillful, defective (adj.), or harm, crime, misfortune, disease. The meaning "extreme moral wickedness" was in O.E., but did not become the main sense until 18c. Evil eye (L. oculus malus) was O.E. eage yfel."

Encyclopedia.com, citing The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology

"Date: 1996 | Author: T. F. HOAD | © The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology 1996, originally published by Oxford University Press 1996.

evil adj. and sb. OE. yfel = OS. ubil, MDu. evel (Du. euvel), OHG. ubil (G. übel), Goth. ubils :- Gmc. *ubilaz, prob. f. IE. base *up- (see OVER), the primary sense being ‘exceeding due limits’."


The Catholic Encyclopedia (www.NewAdvent.org) has an extensive discussion of various conceptions of the term "evil".

Vox interviews political scientists Marc Hetherington and Jonathan Weiler, about their book Prius or Pickup.  Heterington and Weiler seem to be contending that the nation is now divided according to two opposing "world views."  These world views seem to be expressions of what we fear.  It seems that present-day Republicans fear certain threats to tradition while Democrats fear those same traditions.  

But this -- not necessarily their -- analysis so far ignores that these fears have two facets or parts:  how people feel and how other people use how people feel.  This latter part is the part that manifests itself in the US Congress, where the division between Republicans and Democrats is a division between two warring camps.  In a war, people choose sides, regardless of how they feel.  What is important is not how they feel, but rather how they behave; and that behavior must be in concert with the behavior of the group -- to act otherwise can get one branded a traitor.  How one feels about the "cause" of the group is irrelevant.  What is important is how one publicly supports that cause, and public support can only be shown by behavior:  one's public statements (speech acts), one's facial expressions and body language, one's actions.  What one "truly feels in one's heart" at the time these public expressions are made is known only to the one who emits this behavior.  And cognitive dissonance will most probably do its work and bring how one feels into line with how one behaves.

The "warring camp" interpretation is strong in that it is based on the human trait of being a social or pack animal.  Humans have evolved as social animals and therefore allegiance to the group and how one feels about the group is an expression of that evolution. Key, then, is the need for power and control.  Fear is the emotion that is exploited or used to achieve group cohesion, which then increases the power of the group.  The benefits of group power may not be distributed equally within the group, but a powerful group is able to distribute more benefits to its members than a weak, dominated group can benefit its members.

Language and rationality are an attempt to codify and build a theory of our behavior and feelings.  But rationality does not "explain" manifestations of our evolutionary heritage.  Those manifestations can only be described; those manifestations can only be "explained" by saying "because we are built that way."  They are like geometric axioms, and therefore cannot be defined or explained -- they are the basis for definition and explanation.  Defining an axiom can only result in a contradiction or a circular argument. 

But if people are motivated by the same thing, then why do they have opposing views and goals?

Conditions, both internal to the person and external in their environment, determine or influence the expression of a particular trait: inheriting a specific allele, mother's diet, environmental conditions (stress) influencing mother's endocrine response, environmental conditions post partum, parenting, neighborhood, etc, etc, etc.

Our species survives through sexual reproduction. What brings two people together do this?   There does not appear to be a necessary connection between sexual attraction and the gender of the partner, though there is a statistical one.  Neither is the strength of that attraction binary -- all consuming or indifferent, though watching some animals copulate gives the impression that for them it is.  Humans continue the species following a sexual reproduction program or algorithm.  Because we are conscious and self-aware and use language we write about romance and watch Rom Coms; but these things would happen even if we were completely oblivious to what we were doing.  Our awareness of what we are doing articulates a narrative of our behavior and complicates things as this awareness creates a secondary environment for our behavioral expression.  But other animals presumably reproduce and raise their young without the aid of romantic comedies.

Speculating an Incredible Scenario

Donald Trump and Deutsche Bank:  Why does the bank cheerfully loan Trump money, even though he habitually loses money and sues them because he cannot repay a loan?

Because the bank is controlled by Russian oligarchs, mobsters, and government officials who use the bank to launder their money.

The Value of An Education

This recent "scandal" or "thing":  "Dozens are arrested, including parents, in college scandal"
where wealthy parents have bribed or otherwise paid their children's way into prestigious colleges  being charged, along with those whom they have bribed by Federal prosecutors, is something I find puzzling.

Why would a parent pay a million dollars to get their child into a university which that child would otherwise be unqualified to attend?  In other words, the child was not admitted on the basis of their scholastic merits, but simply because someone was bribed to admit them?  To me this suggests that the education that they may obtain is not the point of admission, but rather the prestige associated with matriculation.  This means that what is important to those parents is not education but prestige.

And since, it appears, that those parents themselves are possessors or strivers after prestige, that they, for whatever reasons, desire it for themselves or their children. But why spend all this money, exhert all this effort, incur all this risk? To increase their prestige?  To increase their child's prestige?  Which operationally means what?  To increase their potential for increased wealth?  To improve their child's chances for "success"?

Fine.

Perhaps what the universities involved should do is develop a clandestine program that would admit children of the wealthy or the aspiring to their university for a suitable price.  Thereby, the institution would benefit and the parents would benefit (the children might even benefit, but who cares).  The public would think that these kids are smart, and therefore entitled to their accolades and prestige and success, the universities wold profit, the parents wold be satisfied.

What about the coaches and others who were bribed, the little people who wanted to profit from this system?  The universities could set up an incentive program where any person approached with the offer of a "bribe" could refer the briber to this clandestine department.  This department the could negotiate maximum amount of bribe; they are smart people, after all.

The briber would be issued clear guideline as to who is a reasonable prospect and what to do about "duds" -- a whole thing could be worked out here.  The people who are initially offered the bribe, call them "refereres", would then be given a cut of whatever the final negotiation produced -- an incentive to find more wealthy donors.  Everybody wins.  People who tried to skirt the system would be dealt with harshly.  The universities would get lots of money -- perhaps the kids admitted might even turn out to be are credit to the university, the parents would get their prestige, the referrers wold get their "referral bonus", society would get to believe that everything is fair, prosecutors would get to concentrate on "real" crimes.

Trump's Trompe l'esprit

How to explain the loyalty and love Trump's followers have for him.

Perhaps this in not something that can be explained.

Can it be objectively described?

Is it a non-biased statement that a follower

1) will believe any statement as fact, whether the statement is true or false?
 2) will forgive, overlook or ignore any behavior that in any other person would result in a negative judgement about that person?
3) will interpret or label any action or statement in the best possible light?
4) will approve of any action or statement if told that action or statement is praiseworthy?
5)

Insanity and Racism