The dark side of mbti types

John K said:
Of course - Voldemort was thoroughly bad. The point I was making was to explore and try to expose the nature of undiluted evil, and in his case there was some dilution, though he made use of people among his followers who were almost pure evil, such as Fenrir for example who bit children and turned them into werewolves like himself, just for the fun of it. It's interesting that Voldemort suffers from the same fate as real world tyrants in that he becomes the embodiment of what is a collective problem. We do the same in the real world with Hitler, Stalin, Napoleon, Genghis Khan, etc - but these guys simply became the focusing lens for the distress and the evil collectivism of their times and societies. The mass of people who put them into power and supported them are the real source of that evil and the way to challenge it is to challenge and confront the deformed collectives in my opinion.

But as you say, this is getting a bit off-topic, interesting though it is.
Click to expand...
Well said.

There's a lot more to this, and I should explain myself more, but does this imply that 'cowardice' is evil?

Abrogation of responsibility, dereliction of duty... it's certainly something like 'anti-ethical' in the deontological sense.

Can we say that there are unethical behaviours of omission in addition to commission?

If so, I think this is probably by far society's greater affliction of 'evil', and in my personal experience, too.
 
Deleted member 16771 said:
Well said.

There's a lot more to this, and I should explain myself more, but does this imply that 'cowardice' is evil?

Abrogation of responsibility, dereliction of duty... it's certainly something like 'anti-ethical' in the deontological sense.

Can we say that there are unethical behaviours of omission in addition to commission?

If so, I think this is probably by far society's greater affliction of 'evil', and in my personal experience, too.
Click to expand...
Most definitely Hos! It’s not just a personal impression either. You have probably come across The Confiteor - a prayer that has been said at the beginning of the Catholic Mass since ancient days:
I confess to almighty God
and to you, my brothers and sisters,
that I have greatly sinned,
in my thoughts and in my words,
in what I have done and in what I have failed to do,
Click to expand...

For myself I wouldn’t say that faults of omission are greater than those of active evil - it all depends on the specific circumstances - but at the very least it can make us accessories to evil.

Part of the problem is that the way evil manifests is often ambiguous - who’s judgement is going to call it out? Just look at the controversy over issues such as euthanasia or abortion for example. Confrontation takes skill as well - not many of us have it and can wield it in ways that avoid simply amplifying the evil. I was watching a documentary last night about Nick and the VIP paedophile ring scandal in the UK. The police did immense harm by taking action on this fantasists stories.

What I find challenging is that many of these situations in life creep up on us slowly and there is no obvious threshold to trigger action. I had this problem with my father for example- not a situation of evil but it illustrates the point. As his dementia developed there was no obvious time before which he was ok to drive, and after not; no point where he was suddenly no longer able to take care of his finances, or live alone. Clearly he was headed in those directions but he was not the kind of guy to come to me and volunteer giving them up. Each time I had to take action in his best interests against his will, and each time it took some of his freedom away. And each time it knocked hell out of me even though it was necessary. To this day I don’t know if I got the timing right, though hindsight suggests that I was on the verge of being a little too late. My guiding star was that personal freedom was king.

I think this is a big dilemma for good men - whether doing nothing is better than taking action against a perceived evil. There is always the risk of misjudgement; and of collateral damage in the action - for example, many Innocent people were killed in the American Civil War through the action of good men who were themselves less inconvenienced by their own actions. There is also the issue of thresholds I was talking about - our societies are delicate balances of forces that have to work together to preserve an environment in which people have the necessities of life. When these forces are infected by a slowly creeping evil, it takes a very great insight to determine when to intervene because that intervention may well destroy the balance and do more harm than the evil is doing. Very many innocent people can be harmed or killed as a result.
 
Last edited:
John K said:
I think this is a big dilemma for good men - whether doing nothing is better than taking action against a perceived evil. There is always the risk of misjudgement; and of collateral damage in the action - for example, many Innocent people were killed in the American Civil War through the action of good men who were themselves less inconvenienced by their own actions. There is also the issue of thresholds I was talking about - our societies are delicate balances of forces that have to work together to preserve an environment in which people have the necessities of life. When these forces are infected by a slowly creeping evil, it takes a very great insight to determine when to intervene because that intervention may well destroy the balance and do more harm than the evil is doing. Very many innocent people can be harmed or killed as a result.
Click to expand...

If the evil is merely perceived to be 'creeping in', is not the best course of action simply involvement in democratic processes of reform, campaigning etc.?

At least you wouldn't risk upsetting democratic institutions if you are making use of them to channel your own actions.

One of the things I've observed about the so-called 'radical left' or identity politics camp is that they are quite bad at making use of those institutions. I'm sure they think that they are in some sense taking action against evil lol, but I greatly doubt that their action is more constructive than disruptive. This might be a good example of upsetting the societal balance/polarising social life despite good intentions.
 
Ren said:
If the evil is merely perceived to be 'creeping in', is not the best course of action simply involvement in democratic processes of reform, campaigning etc.?

At least you wouldn't risk upsetting democratic institutions if you are making use of them to channel your own actions.

One of the things I've observed about the so-called 'radical left' or identity politics camp is that they are quite bad at making use of those institutions. I'm sure they think that they are in some sense taking action against evil lol, but I greatly doubt that their action is more constructive than disruptive. This might be a good example of upsetting the societal balance/polarising social life despite good intentions.
Click to expand...
I very much agree with this. Watching US politics from the sidelines, I find it baffling that so much energy goes into street politics in a presidential election year when it should have gone into the selection and championship of an effective candidate who can support your views. I don't buy the idea that the selection processes are corrupt in the established parties because that too can be addressed if the level of energy for change that seems to be washing around over there were properly focused.

Just thinking out loud ....
There is a problem with the democratic process of course in that it needs maturity within a community, because it's always going to result in a compromise. Some of the people are always going to think or feel that the guys in power are rogues who must be challenged at all costs. We have to accept that there will be some truth in the accusation sometimes (maybe even frequently) though this may depend on a conflict in value systems of course. The maturity that's needed is not to waste energy in unfocused civil unrest but to use the democratic instruments effectively to gain public support for your viewpoint and challenge the perceived faults. It seems to me from history that when people confront evil by destroying or bypassing their civil constitutions chaotically it's very likely to spin out of control, and that often leads to more evil than was present originally. This goes for external intervention as well - Iraq and Libya are manifest examples of the consequences of righteous idiocy imho.
 
Ren said:
If the evil is merely perceived to be 'creeping in', is not the best course of action simply involvement in democratic processes of reform, campaigning etc.?

At least you wouldn't risk upsetting democratic institutions if you are making use of them to channel your own actions.

One of the things I've observed about the so-called 'radical left' or identity politics camp is that they are quite bad at making use of those institutions. I'm sure they think that they are in some sense taking action against evil lol, but I greatly doubt that their action is more constructive than disruptive. This might be a good example of upsetting the societal balance/polarising social life despite good intentions.
Click to expand...

They are pawns in someone's game but as to who exactly is moving the pieces and for what reasons isn't exactly clear for all to see as it is complicated but that all said one can conclude that it is about weakening the nation so another likely China as well the EU can take its place on the world stage. I do know the powers that be do intend on suiciding the old powers in another war to force things to switch over even though it would cause a big drop in the overall population.
 
Deleted member 16771 said:
I'm pretty sure that Milgram already proved how Fe is the source of all evil.

'Agreeableness' is the most dangerous trait anyone can have.
Click to expand...

I want to agree with you because I’ve allowed myself to shut other out for so long feeling things ARE typically unsafe due to trauma, so I would go into a loop and eventually use introverted feeling of myself or of others in an extremely unhealthy and halfhazard way, and I think it’s explained that this is our shadow. Using parts of us that aren’t apart of our better halves. So do I hate agreeableness due to abuse of power, yes, but do I understand the value of being kind and trying to understand, more so over. Not to allow evil to stop myself from BEING the injustice.

Infjente said:
I think the most evil INFJs are those who have managed to kill all evil within themselves. Never evil by intention, always evil by outcome.

.
Click to expand...

and this being my point. We can’t destroy evil within ourselves, we’re human and we have a nature within being an animal. Natural psychological responses, hormones, we compete, we kill, we hurt eachother, and ARE hurt. So I have learned to value Extraverted feeling to not value myself but to value others so that I can value to myself in humility. otherwise I am an avoider and ultimately at the end as evil as I attempt to avoid evil towards myself.
 
Don’t get me started on my dominant tertiary loops. They’re absolute HELL if I don’t use Fe. So I appreciate attempting to understand that. I guess my point at the end is, Fe can seem that it isn’t with the best intention when done in society. It isn’t valued it feels robotic. It doesn’t have to look just at the whole of all humanity as it can understand a human within the greater picture of the whole as much as vice versa. I agree about this balance between things making large decisions that benefit the whole without understanding where its coming from is a scary notion because you want to know where it’s leading, but Fe can still see the bigger picture of all of humanity just as it attempts to understand the individual under the same application of a precreated fabric or outline. I won’t get into spirituality. Just my thoughts on the matter.
 
Last edited:
KimChiRx said:
Don’t get me started on my dominant tertiary loops. They’re absolute HELL if I don’t use Fe. So I appreciate attempting to understand that. I guess my point at the end is, Fe can seem that it isn’t with the best intention when done in society. It isn’t valued it feels robotic. It doesn’t have to look just at the whole of all humanity as it can understand a human within the greater picture of the whole as much as vice versa. I agree about this balance between things making large decisions that benefit the whole without understanding where its coming from is a scary notion because you want to know where it’s leading, but Fe can still see the bigger picture of all of humanity just as it attempts to understand the individual under the same application of a precreated fabric or outline. I won’t get into spirituality. Just my thoughts on the matter.
Click to expand...

Absolute hell you say, turning it up to 13.

 
In Tengriism (the religion of the Mongols), there isn't a concept of 'evil', just 'black' virtues to contrast 'white' virtues.

Tengriists believe that the white and the black must be in balance, rather than one or the other gaining dominance.


I think it's possible to see how this makes sense, if we consider 'Black' virtues to be things like punitiveness and vengefulness, which in 'balanced' doses fuel justice. Malice is harder to reconcile for someone raised within an Abrahamic culture, but it would have its 'necessary place' in Tengriism.
 
I’m particularly not allowed to talk about my beliefs of God about what is or is not evil, I can only say what I’ve seen personally or observed myself and even then it’s considered a shame for me to do in what is “religion” in non secular groups. I understand the discomfort of having a Christian around and wondering what my intent in, I’m just willing to learn. I don’t care if you consider me a sham or someone who’s only out to teach you about God. That’s not my intent and not something I would want to do anyway. Spiritually I’m not allowed to, nor would I like to and I understand how that can make others view me and that’s okay. I take my licks for it and it is what it is. I can be seen however others see me, but it doesn’t say who I am or who I should be.
 
Alright. Think I e processed this enough. The dark side is a protective barrier. An instinct and knee jerk reaction to pain, fear, anything negative that may occur psychologically. Your brain is protecting itself from the truth of what could be occurring in your life.
Evil can’t be classified here. Evil is an existential question that can’t be answered by any terms of life since it is in contrast to life itself. Therefore, going into the shadow side is irrelevant to what is defined by evil within the fluidity of culture.
 
In thinking of my positions and comments on certain threads, I see that when it comes to issues of right/wrong (or what I perceive to be right/wrong) I simply do not care about feelings. And it's like I won't let myself consider the feelings of someone who I think is acting wrong, whatever their reasons. Maybe my judgemental side kicks the door in and bellows: "Pick yourself up by your bootstraps! Suck it up and do the right thing regardless of your feelings. And don't waste your sympathy on the unworthy!" Maybe this is similar to how some NTs don't care if the evidence or argument hurts feelings in a debate. They don't care how you feel about the information, only what's true or logical.

I find myself amazed that some of you guys can have sympathy for people who may be acting wrong. Or people I would judge as undeserving. I think that's pretty dark of me. It's judgmental. But I've not really thought about it until I found myself astonished by the sympathy given at times here. It was startling to me.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top