I have a philosophical question: Why is it that, on many occasions, we assume the "other" is evil?

[Writer]

Why do we not only reject the "other," but ascribe the worst affections to the "other?"

And why do we assume that our assumptions about the other are incontrovertible?

:shrug:


PS: For the literally-minded - this is NOT STRICTLY about this primary, and certainly is not a statement about any or all Clinton or Obama supporters. It's an opportunity to think laterally.

[2rth2pwr]

1. crickets from this bunch.

[Writer]

2. Bueller? ... Bueller? ...

[2rth2pwr]

6. Sorry, not here!

[alcibiades_mystery]

14. You wanted an answer on the most pressing philosophical question of the 20th century in 7 minutes?

Thank goodness Levinas wasn't on your schedule...

[burythehatchet]

18. I find it odd that posters who despise this community, maintain residency.

[Aloha Spirit]

3. well,

incontrovertible comes from reaching the same conclusion over and over, at some point a value judgment is assigned. at that point, some people can change their minds after receiving new information and some people cannot. it depends on how much of a role their "being right" plays in their self-image. conservative people tend to have a harder time accepting new information (according to contraversial study), liberal people tend to have an easier time accepting new information and overriding assumed value judgments.

as far as evil, that comes from a swirl of frustration and fear. Just frustration can lead to thinking the other is stupid or selfish or in some other way "under-developed; but if the other is powerful and you're frustrated, that can lead to fear. Like, if a toddler starts saying horrible things and misbehaving constantly, it's frustrating. If the vice president does it, it's scary. Not only do you feel powerless, but the unknown limits of the other's power can be extrapolated to evil.

is that what you're looking for?
it's all BS, but how the heck are people supposed to respond?
maybe you need to go to a library and pick up a philosophy book.

}(

[stillcool]

4. Fear...

I think we human beings are tribal, and the fear of other is part of our nature. And it is very easy to use to manipulate. It's probably the most popular tool for behavior modification.

[Poll_Blind]

5. You might check out the second half of this piece I wrote a day or two ago:

About the people YOU dislike, here and across the aisle: A horrible, unpopular, mind-snapping TRUTH.

  Mostly it's about intentional self-segregation, gone out of control, and xenophobia. Both natural human instincts.

PB

[elocs]

7. Because if we believe we are goodness and light, the "other" must be evil.

Since we are goodness and light, then our affections are pure and good so the affections of the "other" must be the worst, thereby we reject them. We assume our assumptions are incontrovertible because they are our assumptions, so how could they be otherwise? Very few people give much thought that they may be mistaken or that the "other" may not be evil.

[Writer]

12. You're reflecting much of what I've thought lately.

I don't want to answer my own question, because I'm sure my opinion is QUITE controvertible, but it seems that "the other" is evil for some because it simply must be. To ascribe to the "other" any positive value would risk the possibility that one's own world view may not be wholly substantiated, and that can create fear and insecurity in that person. However, if one's world view is so easily crumpled by the mere suggestion that the "other" may be anything less than purely false and purely evil, then truly, how sturdy is that world view?

And this is why we fail to reach consensus in modern America, and why we experience continuous division in our political views.

[elocs]

16. This is why we fail to reach consensus in modern America.

Liberals are as bad as the other side. We refuse to admit that conservatives have any point of view that may be viable. Not only do we claim that they are wrong, but that they are also evil. Conservatives do much of the same thing, the only difference is that as Liberals we maintain the pretense that we are better than that even though we are not. So each side defensively retreats to its own corner and common ground is never found. The motto of both groups is, "We are always right", except Liberals are left. and sometimes left behind.

[last1standing]

45. The "Other" is the most important concept in history.

At least in my opinion.

We all fear the "other". There are no exceptions. The differences in our reactions to people of differing colors, gender, religion, geography, sexual orientation, etc... is all dependent on where we set our boundaries.

If you feel the Obama campaign is the "other" you will have him and his supporters. If your "other" extends a bit further it will be republicans and so on.

Of course our corporate controlled government and media try to keep that boundary as small as possible in order to keep us in a state of perpetual fear. Those who can only focus on their fears can't take the time and energy to think about the real issues that face us like classism and income disparity.

Or does no one else think it odd that we spend more than the rest of the world combined each year on external security yet we can't find the funds to keep our streets safe or educate our children?

[PoliticalAmazon]

8. Projection? n/t

[Marie26]

9. Because that makes you, by default, good.

And besides being right, there's nothing more satisfying than being superior. If the "other" is not just wrong, but evil, that also transforms you from a random person w/an opinion into a noble figure of righteous & goodness, bravely fighting for truth justice and the American Way against the ignorant dangerous "others". IMO reading GD: P gives a pretty good idea of how civil wars get started.

[Lucky 13]

10. Preface: I'm as guilty as anyone.

I don't know about you, but getting a Democrat, ANY Democrat, into the White House has been the most important thing to me since GWB first took office in 2000. This shit keeps me up at night. Our guys in Iraq, trying to pick fights with Iran, brutal economy, and worse... the potential of President John McCain. Nothing. NOTHING must stop us from our goal.

Perhaps the one good thing the past 8 years has done for us is to bring us together. Resolute to end this Republican regime. And no matter which primary candidate we started out with, no matter who was named the nominee, in November WE VOTE DEMOCRAT.

But at some point a few short months ago our united party and its members paths diverged. (This is just my take on things - please don't flame me. I'm not up for it today.)


On the one hand you have people that are GENUINELY taken aback by some of Hillary's campaign tactics. After so many incidents of jaw dropping behavior, the "Hillary Brand" was soured from that point forth. There was nothing she could do from that point forward to change this thing. Every further action compounded their disdain and provided further evidence of their beliefs.

To this group of people, Obama became the only option. Not a perfect option, but a pretty damn good one. And it doesn't hurt that the guy is so fucking likable. The guy can make people laugh and is charming as hell. And he is (at least seemingly) GENUINE. A stark contrast to their opinion of Hillary


Then on the other hand you have people that can easily identify with a woman trying to make it in a man's world. She's not playing dirty! This is politics! She's in it to win it and isn't' going to sit there and be a polite pushover just cause some young arrogant guy who has a fraction of her experience is stealing all that she has worked so hard for. It was at that point that many people got angry and felt this fight was more than just about Hillary, but all women.

To this group of people, Hillary became the only option. Not a perfect option, but a pretty damn good one. She's pretty heroic, standing up to all these guys and trying to fight for her place. Combine this hero image with the drama of what is happening to her and it's like an Oscar winning movie writes itself - starring Obama as the villain.


And now we find ourselves at another crossroads. The Obama people, triumphant and boastful in victory, bound forward to the general determined to bring down the evil Empire. The Hillary people are still deciding what their move will be. Continue on with the rambunctious idiots and their flawed leader? Blacken our own souls and vote McCain? Or the most self-defeating choice of all, give up our voice, our place, and stay home?

[Stinky The Clown]

11. Lateral thinking? In GDP?????

Hahahahahaahahahaha

[2rth2pwr]

13. Easily explained, if the position that a person holds is right and virtuous (in their mind),

the person or party that disagrees with them must be idiotic or when that doesn't fit, evil.

Sometimes both accusations are made at the same time.

[Uncle Joe]

15. Several reasons

1. Evil does exist.

2. Most people have a fear or loathing of evil.

3. Many people become emotionally tied to their ideas, concepts, religion or general philosophy regarding life as we know it. They take this set of beliefs on as their identity and generally speaking this represents a positive view of life to them, there is a natural discomfort whenever something or somebody opposes this mindset with a differing point of view.

4. The stronger the self identity is tied to these beliefs, the more emotional resistance is generated usually in the form of fear or hatred to acceptance of a contrary point of view as this threatens the self-identity. Emotion ie; fear or hatred generally overrules logic or reason.

5. Fear or hatred of something naturally translates in to a perception of something as being evil. I believe to some extent this is a survival mechanism triggering the fight or flight instinct and as #1 points out "evil does exist".

6. I also believe emotion such as fear or hatred feed off each other, I believe if you wish to raise someone up to a higher logical or reasoned discourse, you must remain calm and balanced during your debate with thought against the temptation to strike back. Sometimes this works and sometimes this doesn't if it doesn't wish them peace and move on.

[PassingFair]

17. 1. Define "evil"

Please.

[Uncle Joe]

20. "evil"

wicked, corrupt, bad, perverse, harmful, injurious, destructive, moral depravity etc. etc.

I don't know if there is an absolute evil but more on the lines of a scale from lesser to greater.

[PassingFair]

23. So is evil a "thing" or behavior?

Moral depravity, for instance, is
different things to different people.

[Uncle Joe]

24. I don't know for certain but I believe it's a combination

most readily visible by behavior out of the norm that's injurious or destructive. I also believe all thoughts are a form of energy and something supplies or transmutes this energy from the pre-thought to the thought to the action.

If you were to hold a poll regarding the man that kept his daughter chained in a cellar or dungeon while impregnating her seven times, I doubt too many people would differ with this form of moral depravity as being evil.

[PassingFair]

25. So it's indefinable, but you begin your argument with the statement

...that

1) Evil does exist.

[Uncle Joe]

28. Just because it's indefinable doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

For a long time gravity was indefinable, that didn't mean there wasn't any gravity at the time.

An apple falls on Newton's head and Hitler brings about the Holocaust both are evidence of something existing.

[PassingFair]

29. It may be possible, but it is certainly not demonstrably true.

As you claim it is.

[Uncle Joe]

34. I said evil does exist, I never claimed it was demonstrably true,

at least not under current human understanding and technology. The same way gravity existed before Newton's time. The people before him may not have know how to define it, but generally speaking they knew better than to jump off a mountain cliff.

While philosophy has been around since at least the time of Socrates. The study of human psychology has only been around a hundred or so years, Cat Scans or MRI thirty years or so? Who's to say what humanity or technological advancements will be around in 100-500 years from now. This much I'm sure of thoughts are literally measurable units of energy, which can be observed by current technology. Now the question is what produces those thoughts are they just randomly triggered by the brain it self or is there some hidden universal energy that influences them? I believe in either case evil can be used as a definition of abhorrent, destructive, malevolent acts, or else how is one to label them?

I take it from your posts you believe concepts such as evil don't exist in spite of observable evidence such as the death camps, what do you think of love or compassion, do they exist?

[PassingFair]

35. Now I'm confused again.

Is evil a THING or a BEHAVIOR.

Now you are calling it a "concept".

Seems you are defining "evil" as "bad stuff".

People HAVE compassion.
People DO love.

People before Newton believed that
Apollo pulled the sun down with his
chariot.

I could just as easily begin any argument with:

1) Apollo pulls the sun with his chariot


:crazy:

[Uncle Joe]

36. I would suggest for you to reread the O.P. Title and my post 15 point number 3

and maybe that will help clear up your confusion. Also your post number 23 and my response of 24

I have a philosophical question: Why is it that, on many occasions, we assume the "other" is evil?

3. "Many people become emotionally tied to their ideas, concepts, religion or general philosophy regarding life as we know it. They take this set of beliefs on as their identity and generally speaking this represents a positive view of life to them, there is a natural discomfort whenever something or somebody opposes this mindset with a differing point of view."

23. "So is evil a "thing" or behavior?"

24. "I don't know for certain but I believe it's a combination
most readily visible by behavior out of the norm that's injurious or destructive. I also believe all thoughts are a form of energy and something supplies or transmutes this energy from the pre-thought to the thought to the action."

I could just as easily reverse the question you say "people DO love and people HAVE compassion" can you demonstrably prove it?

Even when people believed Apollo pulled the sun with his chariot, they didn't jump off cliffs expecting to fly with the exception of Daedalus and Icarus and they had wings.

[PassingFair]

37. They pulled peoples beating hearts out for sacrifices....

They disemboweled animals to view the future...

The original question was NOT a philosophical one.

Your answer began with a flawed statement.

[Uncle Joe]

38. You never answered my question

can you demonstrably prove love and compassion?

Humanity has for the most part continued to gain knowledge as it evolved, they rarely disembowel animals to read the future anymore except in isolated cases or pull people's beating hearts out for sacrifice, but even in those days, they didn't jump off cliffs expecting to fly.

I took the O.P.'s question as a legitimate philosophical one.

One of the five branches of Philosophy is the study of Ethics.

Ethics: Moral philosophy or moral science that branch of philosophy which studies the principles of right and wrong in human conduct.

[PassingFair]

44. And you never defined "evil"

If, as the OP implies, "evil" is a FORCE or an
ENTITY of some kind, then I think the entire
question is silly.

If "evil" is defined as "bad behavior" then
we have no quarrel....
AND no real "philosophical argument".

Of course bad behavior exists.

[Uncle Joe]

47. The point I tried to make up front

when I said evil was real is that at the very least it's bad behavior whether something else is behind it, I simply don't know.

I took the O.P.'s question regarding the issue of evil as bad behavior although I believe bad behavior seems like a mild term for evil.

I have no quarrel with you, PassingFair, I consider this nothing but exchanging ideas or points of view.

[Two Americas]

19. projection

We take all of the things we don't like about ourselves and assign those things to some designated scape goat. Then, we can deny the things we don't like about ourselves - "Don't look at me. Look over there! There are the evil ones! They started it! They are the hostile ones! They asked for it!" - and by destroying the other one, we hope to rid ourselves of the things we don't like about ourselves. This is more comfortable and easier than facing the truth about ourselves.

[BlooInBloo]

21. lol! Gosh how the bar for what "philosophical" is has been lowered! lolol!

Just say the magic word "other", and bingo! Instant philosophy!

It just couldn't be anything so pedestrian as *that's what competition + group psychology dynamics is like*.

[MethuenProgressive]

22. "assume"? Swift boating the Clintons on race *was* evil.

And successful.

[Marrah_G]

26. It's a base human reaction

I think the majority of people have a very difficult time seeing shades of gray.

[RichardRay]

27. You've got it backwards....

We 'other' people so we can reject and abuse them. We know that we cannot treat ourselves and people like us as we feel the need to, so we make them 'other' so we can do so safely.

[Goodnevil]

30. I feel that it is my duty to post in this thread

given the odd coincidence between the topic and my screen name. Here goes:

Republicrats are good.

Democratans are evil.

That is all.

[Alcibiades]

31. Othering is now a verb.

We have all seen this firsthand here in this forum. Many times, particularly when we have made a bad choice, we engage in this behavior as a way of reaffirming ourselves. I've seen this most from Clinton supporters. They made, early on a choice to support Senator Clinton, yet there is evidence now indicating that this was, in many ways, a bad choice. Unfortunately for our party, these are folks for whom being "right" and "correct" about politics matters, and matters deeply, for their own identity. These are folks for whom political commitment is bound up with identity, and so it's here that folks start othering each other.

Rather than listen to their better selves when they have made a bad choice (which many folks do), some folks engage in a "logical" process: There is only one best candidate for president. I have chosen Senator Clinton. Many others have chosen someone else. I am a rational person, therefore people who have chosen otherwise are either crazy, stupid or evil.

The more evidence becomes available that Senator Clinton is indeed a bad choice, the more cognitive dissonance (which is a psychological rather than philosophical concept, but work with me here) kicks in. Faced with this new evidence, either people admit they were themselves wrong, or they become ever more defensive, ever more certain that those who disagree with them are crazy or evil.

Othering others is in itself pathological, and we all do it. I've done it right here. The point is to struggle against these instincts.

This area of philosophy is certainly not mine, so I make no claim about the accuracy of the above, which is based on my own personal observations as much as it is my reading of Hegel, which I am sure is superficial. I barely know enough to realize how little I know.

[Writer]

32. How many posters using Alcibiades are there in this forum? n/t

[Alcibiades]

42. Two.

But I suspect, for some reason, this sort of post is the type of thing to bring both of us out. The other one was here first, though I had no idea he existed when I came up with my handle.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## DON'T DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our second quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Whatever you do, do not click the link below!

[sfam]

39. I usually say this when the opponent has horns, red skin color and sprouts a tail...nt

[anaxarchos]

40. Additional questions...

Why do "we" insist in thinking we can rise above partisanship enough to ask such generic questions when the form in which we ask such questions betrays us?

Why do we talk in terms of "hard wiring" and the rest when we have little knowledge of how anything is "wired"?

Why is it that a couple of years of school and a few bucks entitles us to ask such profound questions without the need to learn any of the historical background to such?

Given the above, what is it about political discussion that makes you want to dismiss it in favor of such sanctimonious perspectives?

[bridgit]

41. 'the other', sometimes by way of non-reason; is thought as a threat to one's freedom...

Or their perception of freedoms. All those little knick-knacks placed just so onto shelving we are now accustomed to, perhaps as a function of our having had to construct them from scratch; while in either event maintained with a diligence we are pleased with, that, perhaps, ultimately, only placates our "forlornness" and lack of understanding that we are responsible for our own contributions, in a world in which many have already concluded that God does not exist; or that whether God does or does not exist: the responsibilities remain our own.

Many keep saying, often in response to 'the other', that they are going to take their ball, leave the field, and go home. Even where it is they may have no per se home to go home to.

The Pilgrims on the Couch

Great demonizations were cast upon Native Americans by the Puritans, as a for instance, who were themselves demonized in Europe. Having pitched & bobbed over the froth of pensive oceans, windless passages, starless nights some would refer to as Godless, they continued to fathom an apprehensive bottom they could not see; to finally arrive. Warts, blemishes, tortured psyches, pursuits for freedoms, and separation anxiety. The greater separation anxiety being between they and their God, they fashioned a world they would be comfortable with under the circumstances. And began to rather not count their blessings, as would be thought the case...but the freedoms they fashioned as, sometimes, more dear. Freedoms, as seems too often the case with colonial excursions; they held for themselves, and their kind. Nevertheless...

After a time...they were brought face to face with a people in a land they were sometimes familiar with, but more times not; still far from anything they considered home previously. And with a people so outside their thinking they would soon consider them sub-human. Their own distance from their own God offered no creative solutions to 'the other' i.e. indian wars, witch trials, unfair trade practices, power grabs, locking out other hard working folks that came over, jumping each others claims, etc; non-inclusive activities meant to solidify control. In such a world, 'the other' is that which impacts most unpredictably upon that template of control, and so-called freedoms, however speciously acquired.

A light flutter of the wind through the open drape of a window itself opened slightly to the starless night beyond...

Is all 'the other' requires for some to perceive "evil" where none exists.

[ekwhite]

43. I would argue it is a defense mechanism from olden days

In the hunter-gatherer past of our species, what you didn't know could kill you. Those who not suspicious of the unknown didn't live to reproduce. In these days of instant communication, the same suspiciousness of the other hinders our survival.

[grantcart]

46. During the cold war I studied this in depth.

The answer is that when we look at ourselves we look at our motivations or ideals, when we look at our enemies we look at their actions.


The American View

Our motivations: Establish a country based on individual freedom where everyone is free to think and do what they want.

Our critique of the Soviets: They are a country that uses force to enslave its people and consilidate power with the political few.



The Soviet View

Their motivation: Establish a country where everyone has economic value and security and people are free to live without the fear of starvation or economic deprivation.


Their critique of Us: Allows wealth to be concentrated in the hands of a few creating an economic dictatorship where tens of thousands suffer from hunger, anxiety of economic loss, hyper competition and work exhaustion and unequal access to basic human rights like medical care.



You can use the same matrix to examine any human conflict. Each party justifies themselves by their motivationa and what they tend to do and condmens their opponent by finding fault with actual activities.