This is not a political post. It is a definition of words.
Evil is what kills you. (Being very simplistic here, but we can flesh this out in more detail later.)
Absolute Evil is then something that kills you that can be measured on an absolute objective scale. Notice that ABSOLUTE does not mean MAXIMAL.
We discard the usual false and rethoric use of words here and use their real definitions.
This in itself – rejecting rethorics and preferring logic – is already an ABSOLUTE vs. a RELATIVE way of doing things: Logic is ABSOLUTE. (or axiomatic in this case) Rethoric is flexible, relative, situationalist, tactical.
We refuse the labels GOOD and BAD here: It is not that logic or the absolute is necessarily morally superior to relativism or rethorics – it is just different, up to your personal approach, which you might want to adapt to the requirements of the situation. The ABSOLUTE, or OBJECTIVIST, or LOGICAL approach brings with it a boneheadedness that can turn against you easily.
We could call the RELATIVIST or RETHORICAL approach SLIMY or FLEXIBLE. Those are loaded terms, but, boneheadedness is as well. I think these terms begin to illustrate the difference.
So what then is the primary example of Absolute Evil? What is its source?
It is dying in a cold Northern Winter. Yes, there are many other ways you can die but nothing is as merciless, predictable, ruthless and mechanistic than meeting your end by expiring when the temperature drops and you find you didn’t prepare in time.
But, isn’t the same true for dying from lack of water in the Sahara?
Yes it is. But the Northern Winter is a phenomenon that, like clockwork, turns the most fertile farmland and forests into a Sahara-like death zone ONCE A YEAR for several months. With hostile places like the Sahara, they mostly stay where they are. So, people in those countries had a very different adaption to do than Nordics. Being a nomad is an adaption to arid conditions – it helps you nothing against the Nordic Winter. THe Nordic Winter is a time, not a place. You can’t run and you can’t hide. You have to face it.
This difference shaped Nordic mentality. I will elaborate on this further, this just a teaser.
(And, why now? Simply because I had a deliberate sleep-pattern-induced epiphany and need to document this.)
The usual political kvetching and moaning is mostly about RELATIVE perceptions of EVIL (mostly in smaller doses than outright dying); and as this is all relative, we can then mentally switch sides and understand that the political squabbles are not about solving an absolute resource scarcity or facing an inhuman absolute enemy; but about getting the upper hand against a rival or rival group – and that sides are exhangeable.
Typical example: It is always the underdog side that demands free speech. Most well known, Voltaire’s claim he would defend the freedom of speech of his enemy to his death. Well Voltaire was a professional bigmouth: He was, contrary to forged history, not a particularly wise man or thinker, he was a vicious propagandist against Christian monarchy and for a bloody revolution. The monarchs of course censored him where they could. So, being the underdog, he pretended to stand for that beautiful right of freedom of speech – to get his OWN freedom to propagandize for his political goals.
And of course, no, he wouldn’t really have stood up for YOUR freedom of speech. He just said he would.