From almost every sector we hear that depersonalization is a peculiarly modern problem and increasing due to technology and growing numbers of human beings. Yet many of these same sectors contribute to the problem by depersonalizing what is inherently a very personal thing--evil. One could certainly see this through numerous 19th and 20th Century philosophers and other writers. By thinking of evil in the abstract, it quickly vanishes--as a theoretical problem. But in such an environment we are also instantly thrown off our guard and substitute "anger management" for any outliers. Personal evil actually becomes unthinkable.
This contrubutes to the polarization of the body politic--evil is defined by being opposed to me and mine. Or to use Christian Lander's paradigm, evil is being with "the wrong sort of white people."
(I highly recommend his book, "Stuff White People Like" which is even funnier if you hear him read it.)
The Bible never gives in to the temptation to de-individualize evil--or good for that matter. Therefore it is highly objectionalble to philosophers and scientists (so-called) alike. Yet it can never be a matter of mathematics nor can it be predicted with any certainty. To try to do so is simply to use the wrong tools for the job. And electrician's toolbox is totally different from that of a woodworker. Philosophically, if you will, this is called a category mistake; to which hubris is highly and almost always prone.
It's the equivalent to the old saw, "sending a boy to do a man's job." But it may be the worse-reverse: sending a man to do a child's job!!!
The spread of evil is the symptom of a vacuum. whenever evil wins, it is only by default: by the moral failure of those who evade the fact that there can be no compromise on basic principles.
ReplyDeleteAyn Rand (1905 - 1982)