Good and Evil

It's Week 12 of my first semester in NUS - I'm nearing the light at the end of this tunnel. As project deadlines approach and pass, I find myself breathing easier and relaxing a bit more. However, I'm also starting to feel a little sentimental about not being able to enjoy classes with my module mates anymore at the end of this semester, especially with my freshman seminar module 'Heroism and Society'.

Just this morning I sent my final project off to Prof Goh after proofreading it for the umpteenth time with eyes squinted at my monitor screen, as I sipped my tea and chewed on bread in my pajamas. It was an individual research paper on the hero (or heroine) of my choice - Angelina Jolie. I'm a little proud of this project of mine, seeing that I invested quite a bit of time and effort into nurturing it from an inkling of an idea to a 3000 word paper. In August before starting school I never would've imagined completing a research paper (on Angelina Jolie to boot) - of course, I had very useful input from Prof and some feedback from classmates during my presentation which helped me in refining my thesis, and moral support from the most understanding parents in the world to keep me going.

So for today's seminar (the second last), Prof did a recap of the things we discussed over the course of seminars conducted this semester. I enjoyed today's discussion, particularly the analysis of the deeper relationship between heroes and villains; good and evil.

I've always toyed with the idea of heroes and villains each having a justified necessity to exist. And in doing so, I've always aligned myself with the dark side - or more specifically, the notion of shunning intimacy or collectivity, of having idealistic hope and a desperation to push for change. I tend towards feelings of futility and resignation (my idea of acceptance), and find myself detesting attitudes associated with blind fervour and overt positivity that just comes off as a flimsy attempt at escaping reality.

This thinking was especially prominent back in my secondary school days, when I constantly referenced myself as the villain in upsetting diary entries about my failure to gain acknowledgement from my band members even though I was trying so hard to be an exemplary band major. I grew sick of the cajolement that the teachers, instructors and leaders - even myself - perpetuated to the members about having the potential to succeed and win, when we were quite clearly failing on so many aspects. So towards the end and probably even up till now, I gave up trying to fight for things that were dying. I gave up being sincere. In fact, I wanted to ruin things to prove to everyone just how weak things actually are. And I suspect that somewhere inside me was a desire to see the anguish on everyone's faces when we did fail. On this note of supposed extreme negativity, I consoled myself with the idea that my existence as villain was necessary. Without villains to project criticism on, heroes would probably cease to seize the spotlight. I became content with being anyone but the hero. I needed someone to project my vengefulness on.

Back to the seminar - we examined two different thoughts of perceiving good and evil, both of which are referenced from religious ideologies namely Manichaeism and Hinduism.

Manichaeism is more familiarly recognised as an offshoot of Christianity that views good and evil - or more specifically light and darkness - as eternally opposing forces. The preaching of hope and anticipation for the return of the Saviour and the final defeat of Satan that represents the indictment of evil perpetuates the mindset of evil as a morally opposing entity that needs to be defeated. It has a large influence on Western thought where movies and narratives almost always present an evil force that is eventually defeated with the triumphant victory of the good.

Hinduism on the other hand presents Brahman as a single, universal entity that constitutes all facets of being - including both good and evil forces. It posits that there is a co-existence of good and evil, and that while a person may strive to be morally upright there would still be an underlying threat of moral ambiguity which may or may not emerge. Even if they do emerge as actions condemned as morally upsetting, this ideology essentially seeks to maintain that we should accept them as a naturally occurring reality of being human. The Freudian thought ties in closely with this philosophy, since psychoanalysis is interested in the depths of our unconscious dark tendencies known as the "Id" suppressed underneath our ego through which mould ourselves to appear rational.

I find myself very much drawn towards the latter philosophy, since I identify with it more closely. It seems too idealistic or simplistic to categorise elements into exclusively good and evil entities, even though most would think we are all essentially inclined to uprightness based on experiences of anxious moral obligation in us when we see acts of evil carried out before our eyes. Yet, when we condemn such acts, there is sometimes this creeping realisation and suspicion that somewhere within us there is a similar potential to do evil. For myself, I'm very guilty of putting up a strong super ego in front of others where I desperately try to present myself as a good person worthy of acceptance and favour. I smile and laugh, come off as very polite and friendly, and strive to gain favour with others by being agreeable. All of it is very insincere. Sometimes I feel like a disguised time bomb, where I could potentially detonate and destroy the image I have set up for myself. But for now, I'm clinging on to my rationality to maintain myself since it would work to my disadvantage if I let my thanatic instincts loose.

It irritates me so when I see people going with the Manichaeistic thought. They set themselves up in a position that focusses on the evil of others, such as taking strong offence at a remark or action and presenting their responses or reactions as justified morally upright acts. It is too brash in my opinion. It makes me wonder why we cannot afford try to understand things more, to consider these "evil acts" as an inevitable part of life and accept them without having to raise a conflict or start a fight. Doing so achieves nothing. Tell me, would any proud human suddenly decide that what they are fighting for is actually groundless and humbly admit defeat easily? If so, why do you think they started fighting in the first place? It just makes for a futile cycle of unnecessary waste of energy. I absolutely detest conflict. Especially futile ones.

But ultimately, I long for a reconciliation with both strands of thought. While I identify with the latter more, it presents a stagnation. It is very possible that acknowledging such futility leads to an increased need and desire for redemption that could be provided by the Manichaeistic thought, where good could one day actually overcome the evil within us.