Quote for the day

I am not done with my observations on the nature of evil--not by a long shot, but I wanted to take time out of that schedule to look at a revelation I've had and I want to share with you.

Given that I am currently in a Ph.D. program there are certain assumptions that people make about my past, assumptions which are generally wrong. The truth is, I was never in honors High School English. The truth is that when I did not pass whatever qualifying exam is needed to avoid Freshman composition my first year of college. Point of fact, I think I was put in some sort of remedial class. I remember vividly that my teacher didn't think much of my ideas. I also remember a girl in the class who stank of Pachouli oil, and who had something of a crush on me. She also couldn't understand why each executed prisoner cost the tax payers thousands of dollars. "Why do they need that much electricity to kill someone?" I remember her asking. I do not remember her name.

But I digress, because my essential point was about high school English, which was kind of a joke. Let me explain. First of all, these are the books that I read, or that I remember reading: Alas Babylon, Lord of the Flies, Macbeth, Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet, The Pearl (Steinbeck), Of Mice and Men, any number of short stories that I can't remember, and of course, The Catcher in the Rye. Anybody who knows me now can only imagine me with any of these titles, slumming it in public school, asked to deliver my "take" on these books. How in the hell is it possible that no one ever thought of me as "Honor's English" material. To this day, I am confused. Not that I would have wanted to be in honor's english--all of my friends were with me in my regular english classes, but still. The honor's English class read Sir Gawaine and the Aenied. A great disservice was done to me. Don't worry; I'll live.

What I wanted to point out is that my teacher for two of those four years was Ms. Hill, and Ms. Hill every day before class wrote some quote on the board which she'd found somewhere (who knows, my opinion of high school teachers, already bruised from having been overlooked, has not recovered now that I know people who are attempting to get licensed to teach high school). From these quotes, we were asked to respond. My own students are currently grappling with quotes. They can't introduce them--they can't explain their relevance. They drop them in as if quotes from John Berger are self explanatory (they, in fact, aren't). So, I was thinking of bringing in my book of quotes for a rousing class excercise tomorrow. I began to see Hill's quotes for their pedagogical power. They really taught a skill that is, otherwise, very difficult to get across.

But then it hit me: Hill didn't come up with this excercise. Like all other teachers of her sort, she got it from some book of excercises that closely fit whatever pedagogical model was popular that year. I've never heard of it precisely because it is no longer popular. It has fallen out of favor. But why? It was effective. So effective, in fact, that despite my total cynicism, 14 years after my graduation, I am still able to look back on the excercise as absolutely insightful.

Ponder that teachers, for insight is no grounds for immortality. The useful lesson is lost when the "theories" of teaching change and they are only recoverable in a sort of haphazard way--the teacher who kind of remembers doing something "helpful," even though helpful is no longer the correct word.

I will teach quotes tomorrow, and my students will learn; that, or I will return to the primordial version of pedagogy--lessons learned in order to avoid pain.

The Nature of Evil pt. 3

I guess if I'm going to compare Johnnie Cochrane and Pepe Lepew, I better say why it is that I can put these two on the same relative playing field--if only for the reputation of Pepe. That is, why in the world would I consider these two people to exemplify evil.

I suppose this is where I write the thesis statement and tell you all what it is that I feel is my argument concerning evil, and by its antithesis, good. Well then, I best get to it. I've become convinced that what we generally recognize as evil is not really evil at all. Or more to the point, our vision of evil--I don't think it exists. I don't think there is any such thing as the sinister. Now, I know what you're saying: get mugged. But I have been mugged, and I'm not convinced. There are certainly times that the appearance of the sinister...well, appears. But it is an appearance and nothing more.

But think of what all this means, it is the appearance of the sinister which denotes the evil, it is the evil that we feel compelled to punish, and thus it is only the sinister which is deserving in our minds of punishment, and yet, I'm saying that there is nothing but the appearance of the sinister...there is no such thing as the actual sinister. In fact, I suspect that we look to turn what is truly evil into the sinister in order for us to inspire our fears and thereby avoid moral ambiguiouty when we decide to mete out punishment for evil. We project the face of the monster on the evil we want to punish so that we no longer have to consider it for what it truly is, and avoid the hassle of wondering why the sinister do what the sinister do. Real evil isn't sinister. Real evil is Pepe LePew.

Hopping along. Stupid as can be. Unaware of the implications of his destructiveness, his perversisty, his insanity. He hurts, but never knows that he hurts. If someone were to stop Pepe and tell him that his designs on the cat ammounted to bestiality, he would be as surprised as anyone to find himself in the role of transgressor of natural breeding laws. He just doesn't know. Moreover, he never stops to consider. He is too busy doing what he is doing to worry about whether his desires for the cat ultimately ammount to rape.

Does this excuse Pepe? Of course it does. Pepe is above accusation. He doesn't know any better, and if he did, he wouldn't do this. And yet, that is my model for evil. That is what evil truly is: not knowing and not taking the time to find out; proceeding as if nature were somehow an alibi, and thus, Pepe who's nature is the lover, is excused for attempting to make love to an unwilling cat.

Thus, Cochrane, who's nature is a lawyer, is excused for helping a guilty murderer to go free.

But should Pepe be excused? I know that every aspect of his case suggests the very things that we excuse as not evil, but that is because we opt for the sinister--and Pepe isn't sinister, he's comic. I'm arguing, in fact, that we create the sinister in order to justify our punishment. We do not want to punish people who are just too ignorant of their heinousness to be held accountable for it--but that is what evil really and truly is. And if we are to worry about evil, that's where we should focus our attention.

What I am essentially saying is perhaps not new. I'm saying that if people were to take the time to understand their crimes from the victim's point of view, they wouldn't commit the crimes, and I believe this. However, what I am saying that is new is that this is no reason not to punish--it is still evil; it is, in fact, the defining characteristic of evil. Ignorance of wrong doing does not absolve you of whatever moral judgement might be passed on you. If you truly are evil, then you don't see your actions as atrocities--but that doesn't mean that they aren't and that doesn't mean that you shouldn't be stopped.

The nature of evil, pt. 2

Honestly, how fortuitous that in the middle of my attempt to define evil, Johnny Cochran died of an inoperable brain tumor. So, the guy who helped a wife murdering shithead escape justice is dead. Hmmm.... Being a religious person, I assumed that he was burning in Hell, but then something strange happenned. I was listening to the radio and here were all of these people who essentially wanted to honor the memory of Cochrane, and evidently profess their belief in the virtue of helping wife murderers everywhere.

Now, if there is any( and I do mean any) justice in the universe, Cochrane is burning in Hell, but then I thought, what about all of these people who want us to forget about the OJ Simpson case and remember Cochrane when he wasn't helping to free wife murderers? What about them? The people who want us to remember the good Cochrane and not the nigh demonic Cochrane prayed to by murderers everywhere? Will they be burning in Hell as well?

I'm inclined to say yes.