I think to him he saw war as pointless, as somewhat barbaric, although amazing and incredible at the same time. He sees it as a part of humanity, but also a dark part; and to him darkness equates to evil. I couldn't really disagree in that sense. It's very dark. Just to add food for thought, he's either Ti+Se or Se+Ti by Jungian functions, probably ESTP. He's really not the stereotype at all, more like Halla.
I really enjoyed reading what you wrote. I'm just singling this out to make a comment because I'm not sure I can agree. Cause the conscious choices we make in how we come to understand things have just as much affect in the resulting flow of how things end up. I fear it might be limiting to believe such a thing in light of this.
Good and evil...from my point of view I would say it's basically the divide between what causes us to suffer and what makes us thrive and feel fulfilled. The result can even be a part of emotions...closing ourselves off, becoming evil and dead inside to the point of sociopathy and psychopathy. I suppose we could even say using emotions to thrive at another's expense would be the reverse and just as evil.
And then war...I don't know, I guess that's why I wanted to hear what other people thought. I once had the idea that war was a slow progression, that over time, it lead society forward to restructure and hopefully avoid the conflicts that lead to war in the first place. Now I'm wondering if that wasn't exactly right, that maybe it's about understanding this divide of good and evil, and through that perhaps it's possible to get a good understanding how to truly avoid evil. I can't resign myself to there being no such thing, it seems evil in itself to think so.
Because war...it just seems to make so much sense to see evil in it. What does a war really accomplish? Yeah, it can give people purpose, but it also torments life to do so. Don't we all want to avoid torment and pain? I would have thought that is the prime goal of a human being starting from birth, to assimilate into this world for the purpose of enjoying, using our ego and intellect for mastering it well to do so. This makes war seem counter-productive and evil to me. I find it extremely easy now to see war as the antithesis of intelligence. Such life torments itself.
Feel free to disagree, of course.
All humans want to avoid torment and pain on a rational level; however, this is not what humans are ultimately drawn toward in a metaphysical sense. The reason why good and evil have remained as a popular idea for so long is simply because it is framed in a manner which gives humans a higher purpose; in other words, good and evil are such widespread ideals because they appeal to the human need to be a part of a higher drama, while appealing to rationality as well. However, it is clear that human morality goes far deeper than this; if good and evil were indeed the highest moral law, then demagogues would hold far less power, war would be much,
much less of a draw to civilized people, and ironically, religious fundamentalism would not exist in its current form (consider how most fundamentalist movements will frame their cause as being part of a larger cosmic struggle, or how many secular ideologies have done the exact same thing to gain followers), since rationality and the appeal to simple good vs. evil would be enough. Religion would still exist, but it would be far more ritualistic and overly altruistic in its history and practice. Your quote about the presenter's perspective on war is direct evidence of this; since he is influenced by the idea of good and evil, he of course will place the idea of war in that moral framework, and yet, you could tell that he, too, was drawn to the drama and higher purpose that war, for better or worse, will bring. It is an inalienable part of human nature to be drawn to it; no matter how much your rational mind will remind you of the suffering, bloodshed, and costliness that war entails, your heart will remain enticed and drawn into the inexorable pull of the high drama of the situation.
You are right to assume that evil does not exist; or rather you are right to assume that "evil" as it is defined among most people is not the most undesirable state of morality or being. The most undesirable state of being, of course, is death; the most undesirable
moral state, therefore, is nihilism, which is moral death. Having an erroneous or outdated set of moral values is preferable to moral death; in the same way, evil is preferable to death. Humanity, adhering to this law, would prefer to fill a vacuum of purpose with something which causes "evil" to occur; in this case, war. Because war offers such purpose and drama (which is the highest moral law), it will always be irresistible when fought in a way that supplies purpose and drama to the ones fighting it. Look at the difference between how World War II was portrayed, and how Vietnam was portrayed. In World War II, the Allies and the Axis were part of an enormous struggle for the future of the world; on the Allied side, each country involved had a personal reason to join the war; they were in real danger of destruction by these marauding conquerors who had decided to oppose themselves and their chosen way of life. On the German side, Adolf Hitler had made his people believe that they were part of a desperate war against a Jewish conspiracy to topple their place as the master race; every conquest that he made was touted as a glorious victory in the name of this higher drama that he had created. And on both sides, everyone fought tooth and nail to win; and in the end, there was jubilation from the Allies, all of their enemies had finally been crushed, the mad dictatorships had crumbled, and the world was never the same after.
Highly dramatic; it almost sounds fictional, doesn't it? In Vietnam, on the other hand, while the
soldiers fought their hardest, the American position wasn't dramatic at all; it was more like an obligation than anything. The American public had no investment in this war, and yet, they were being forced to die in the jungles of Vietnam; understandably, they weren't too happy about that. The Vietcong, on the other hand, were fighting for the freedom of their country; the desperation and drama of their situation, versus the routine obligation that the US felt meant that, of course, the Americans would soon lose interest in the war, and vacate the country. The same thing is happening in the Middle East; arguably, at the beginning of the war in Afghanistan, there was much drama surrounding the situation (9/11 and all that), but as time dragged on, it has become routine, and the American public is now questioning whether or not they need to be there. The purpose of the war has now been replaced with nihilistic purposelessness, and since humans are naturally opposed to nihilism in all its forms, both wars will end unless they are given new dramatic purpose.
The bottom line is, what humans call "evil", is actually an aversion to nihilism (psychopaths are the ultimate nihilists, as evidenced by their patterns and behaviour). When "evil" is given a dramatic purpose, such as war, humans are naturally drawn to it, even though their rational minds are telling them that it is causing suffering, and their hearts are at the same time, repulsed by the inherent nihilism of the action.