Sunday Musings – October 8, 2017
If I did not have access to the news in other parts of this community, the nation or the world I could easily suggest that it has been a quiet and uneventful week Even with access to news of events in the rest of the community, the nation and the world it seems to have been a routine week So called natural events came and went, physical and verbal wars continue to be fought, amazing music and other art forms continue to be created, acts of great love and compassion occur every moment, and seemingly well planned, but random, events such as the shooting of several hundred people by Stephen Paddock became a permanent part of our human footprint.
All of the people to whom I have spoken clearly see war and other acts of violence by humans against other humans as very undesirable, but many disagree about the source or reason for such acts. This week I have again been challenged to accept that some people and events can only be labels as evil. Clearly when the word evil is used as a verb I understand it to mean an action which is harmful, undesirable, profoundly immoral, wicked, or even depraved. (most of the dictionaries seem to use such terms). The word itself seem to derive from various German or Old Dutch words which derive from the root “wap –bad” (see etymonline.com)
It is when the word is used as a noun that I get very confused. Often when used as a noun it seems to allude to some outside force. Some would say a supernatural force or a force unrelated to the various factors which affect how the brain works in any one given moment.
In my mind, when I hear the word evil used as a noun, I tend to think that the person speaking is attempting to explain some behavior which is unexplainable. It is one thing to say that the actions of Stephen Paddock were very hurtful to a great number of people. His actions not only caused the death of 59 people and the injury of other, the grief of all those who loved those who were killed or seriously injured and an increase in fear and mistrust in others, but challenged the delusion that the thinking and behavior of humans is somehow rational. If the behavior was not rational we then either have to find evidence of a brain disorder (accepted mental illness, brain tumor or some other “evidence based” or what we take as evidence based cause) or label the person as psychopath or sociopath. If none of those attempts work, then we can pull out the label of evil. If one is a religious person one might explain the behavior by saying that the devil took over the person or acted through the person.
The Nobel Prize winning psychologist Daniel Kahneman in a conversation with host Krista Tippett on an On Being October 5, 2017 podcast titled “Why we contradict ourselves and confound each other.” states:
“Well, the concept of rationality is a technical, mathematical concept. It’s illogic. And it is actually completely not possible for a finite human mind to be rational or to obey the axioms of rationality. You’d have to know too much. The difficulty of being consistent in all your beliefs is impossible. And if you are not consistent in all your beliefs, you can be trapped in an inconsistency, and then you are not rational.”
He goes on to say later in the conversation, “when people use the word “rational,” I think, what they mean by this is that there is a good reason for what you believe and what you do. If there is a good reason for it, you believe in what you do, then you are rational.”
I am convinced that many of those in charge of official military forces believe that there are times when killing large numbers of people, they have labeled as the enemy is moral and, thus, rational, because, in their belief system, it is necessary if one is to prevent immoral behavior by the “enemy”. If one can convince the enemy that one is willing to do whatever action is necessary to defeat them they will retreat. This thinking may then be labeled as rational or logical. If, however, a person who has not been given any official authority decides to label a person or group the enemy and then sets out to destroy that person he or she is not acting rationally or, if rational, not morally. We then may set to further “explain” the action of the individual by calling them criminal, mentally ill, a sociopath, suffering from some other disease or we may label them evil. Thinking one has now come to a rational explanation for the person’s behavior one then can attempt to “rationally” identify those who might be prone to act irrationally or in an evil way in the future. Clearly this is not a rational conclusion but, but none-the-less, might provide some measure or temporary comfort.
We may never know how Stephen Paddock came to his logical conclusion that he should plan and execute the shooting event. Obviously, from what we now know, he was able to formulate a plan and step-by-step execute it. If it turns out that someone else first formulated the plan and he just executed it does not change anything in terms of whether the plan seemed rational.
There will be any number of explanations purported to rational offered to explain the behavior. There may even be conspiracy theories offered. Some may label those involved – one or many – as evil. I fail to comprehend how this will be helpful in preventing future mass killings.
I do believe that in order for me to label another human being as the enemy for whatever reason I have to posit so called rational reasons for why my thinking is more rational or more moral than that of the enemy. As soon as I do this I may have set up a barrier which will never allow me to understand and/or reduce the likelihood of such behavior in the future.
What if Stephen Paddock was not that different or not that less rational than I? What if the only difference was the extent to which he kept his thoughts and plans secret and trusted his brain alone to be the sole arbitrator of what was rational or moral?
One of the helpful and perhaps risky result of my daily blog is that I subject what might seem logical or rational to me when I am writing to the scrutiny of many other people. The feedback I get does not always leave me feeling comfortable and certainly not wise. It does insure that I will have to allow for the fact that many will challenge my thinking process and the so-called rationale for it. I then have to allow for my irrational process.
Written October 8, 2017
If I did not have access to the news in other parts of this community, the nation or the world I could easily suggest that it has been a quiet and uneventful week Even with access to news of events in the rest of the community, the nation and the world it seems to have been a routine week So called natural events came and went, physical and verbal wars continue to be fought, amazing music and other art forms continue to be created, acts of great love and compassion occur every moment, and seemingly well planned, but random, events such as the shooting of several hundred people by Stephen Paddock became a permanent part of our human footprint.
All of the people to whom I have spoken clearly see war and other acts of violence by humans against other humans as very undesirable, but many disagree about the source or reason for such acts. This week I have again been challenged to accept that some people and events can only be labels as evil. Clearly when the word evil is used as a verb I understand it to mean an action which is harmful, undesirable, profoundly immoral, wicked, or even depraved. (most of the dictionaries seem to use such terms). The word itself seem to derive from various German or Old Dutch words which derive from the root “wap –bad” (see etymonline.com)
It is when the word is used as a noun that I get very confused. Often when used as a noun it seems to allude to some outside force. Some would say a supernatural force or a force unrelated to the various factors which affect how the brain works in any one given moment.
In my mind, when I hear the word evil used as a noun, I tend to think that the person speaking is attempting to explain some behavior which is unexplainable. It is one thing to say that the actions of Stephen Paddock were very hurtful to a great number of people. His actions not only caused the death of 59 people and the injury of other, the grief of all those who loved those who were killed or seriously injured and an increase in fear and mistrust in others, but challenged the delusion that the thinking and behavior of humans is somehow rational. If the behavior was not rational we then either have to find evidence of a brain disorder (accepted mental illness, brain tumor or some other “evidence based” or what we take as evidence based cause) or label the person as psychopath or sociopath. If none of those attempts work, then we can pull out the label of evil. If one is a religious person one might explain the behavior by saying that the devil took over the person or acted through the person.
The Nobel Prize winning psychologist Daniel Kahneman in a conversation with host Krista Tippett on an On Being October 5, 2017 podcast titled “Why we contradict ourselves and confound each other.” states:
“Well, the concept of rationality is a technical, mathematical concept. It’s illogic. And it is actually completely not possible for a finite human mind to be rational or to obey the axioms of rationality. You’d have to know too much. The difficulty of being consistent in all your beliefs is impossible. And if you are not consistent in all your beliefs, you can be trapped in an inconsistency, and then you are not rational.”
He goes on to say later in the conversation, “when people use the word “rational,” I think, what they mean by this is that there is a good reason for what you believe and what you do. If there is a good reason for it, you believe in what you do, then you are rational.”
I am convinced that many of those in charge of official military forces believe that there are times when killing large numbers of people, they have labeled as the enemy is moral and, thus, rational, because, in their belief system, it is necessary if one is to prevent immoral behavior by the “enemy”. If one can convince the enemy that one is willing to do whatever action is necessary to defeat them they will retreat. This thinking may then be labeled as rational or logical. If, however, a person who has not been given any official authority decides to label a person or group the enemy and then sets out to destroy that person he or she is not acting rationally or, if rational, not morally. We then may set to further “explain” the action of the individual by calling them criminal, mentally ill, a sociopath, suffering from some other disease or we may label them evil. Thinking one has now come to a rational explanation for the person’s behavior one then can attempt to “rationally” identify those who might be prone to act irrationally or in an evil way in the future. Clearly this is not a rational conclusion but, but none-the-less, might provide some measure or temporary comfort.
We may never know how Stephen Paddock came to his logical conclusion that he should plan and execute the shooting event. Obviously, from what we now know, he was able to formulate a plan and step-by-step execute it. If it turns out that someone else first formulated the plan and he just executed it does not change anything in terms of whether the plan seemed rational.
There will be any number of explanations purported to rational offered to explain the behavior. There may even be conspiracy theories offered. Some may label those involved – one or many – as evil. I fail to comprehend how this will be helpful in preventing future mass killings.
I do believe that in order for me to label another human being as the enemy for whatever reason I have to posit so called rational reasons for why my thinking is more rational or more moral than that of the enemy. As soon as I do this I may have set up a barrier which will never allow me to understand and/or reduce the likelihood of such behavior in the future.
What if Stephen Paddock was not that different or not that less rational than I? What if the only difference was the extent to which he kept his thoughts and plans secret and trusted his brain alone to be the sole arbitrator of what was rational or moral?
One of the helpful and perhaps risky result of my daily blog is that I subject what might seem logical or rational to me when I am writing to the scrutiny of many other people. The feedback I get does not always leave me feeling comfortable and certainly not wise. It does insure that I will have to allow for the fact that many will challenge my thinking process and the so-called rationale for it. I then have to allow for my irrational process.
Written October 8, 2017
RSS Feed