Can you all count the logical fallacies in this one?
_http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Study-of-Evil---Whats-It-All-About?&id=5278771
_http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Study-of-Evil---Whats-It-All-About?&id=5278771
The philosophical debate about good and evil or rather good versus evil is even older than the any written record of mankind. Still, today people are fascinated by the topic, and as a coordinator for a think tank which operates online, and consider the number of religious folks out there, the topic will never die; it's always just a breath away it seems. Not long ago, an acquaintance from Australia and I were discussing this topic.
He suggested I study up on Lobaczewski's Scientific Studies of Evil, and so I did, and then I told my acquaintance; "I did check out Lobaczewski website, and found myself intrigued and thus, read the whole thing, quite interesting. You have given me new insight to think about, and I thank you for that. It is a pleasure to learn new things, or listen to other views." Still, as interesting as these notions are I am skeptical of this philosopher's assessments.
You see, after reading his website, I feel as if I should email Andrew Lebaczewski and recommend some books for him to read, although I doubt he'd like my recommendations. In fact, I bet he'd discard my suggestions as irrelevant, and in a fit of hypocrisy dismiss their contents completely. It had occurred to me when reading his website, that maybe he does know a thing or two about this abnormal behavior, as he almost appears to have many of the same traits, which he himself rails against.
Indeed, it seemed to me as I studied the philosophy behind his notions more, that perhaps, it is a almost to the point of the same paradox he describes when defining this abnormal psychopathic behavior which he has observed in his scientific studies. Perhaps, that is a miss-read on him on my part, although, I suspect not. And then I asked my acquaintance what he thought. He indicated to me, that he'd never considered that, and was more focused on the scientific theory than anything else.
Since my acquaintance was good enough to recommend this philosophy and scientific study of evil to me, I also recommended a couple of books to him on the topic, namely John Douglas' books such as "Mind Hunter" and "Obsession" as these too might shed some light on this over all topic. It seems that much of what Lebaczewski has to say does fit in-line with works such as "The Prince" and "Theory and Practice of Hell" as well as some others, and other such things we observe in human societies, and other species as well.
It's all interesting and worthy of discussion, thus I am quite happy to see my acquaintance brought this all to my attention. Still, I was bothered by Lobaczewski's accusations about bloodlines - Royal Lines specifically and this ridiculous notion of evil genes. Why you ask, simple, you see, in fact, since I do have Royal Lines, and share genes with the Cheney Family (which Lobaczewski calls evil) on my grandmother's side and the Bush's on my Mayflower ancestry side, that would mean if Lobaczewski is correct and he has indeed figured it all out, then I personally would have all the traits he describes.
However it also since I know self, and know myself to be quite honorable, I see much of his work as a hit piece, at least on the website which displays his name. Therefore, perhaps that old adage; "It takes one to know one," rings true enough and has in a round-about-way caused me to write that article that you read? Or perhaps Lebaczewski is merely full-of-it, which is another possibility.
Nevertheless, my acquaintance stated; "It's from the book, "Political Ponerology, the science of evil adjusted for political purposes". It was written by a group of psychologists secretly in the 1950's in Eastern Europe under communist rule."
Okay, that's interesting, however, if this was written in the 1950's then all the references to President Bush, Cheney, Neo-conservatism is a later add-on right? Thus, someone took that original work, someone who was a left-leaning individual and forced it onto the President Bush years. And in fairness the author of the secondary works of this line-of-thinking did also mention issues with gangs, groups, religion, and other sides of the political spectrum as well.
Indeed, also, I suppose if a right leaning person got a hold of that work, and went to update it they would mention folks like Soros, Gore, Clintons, Obama, Ruben, and Rahm Emanuel for instance. And really the original work addresses Marxism, Czars, Hitler, etc., and the updated seems to go after Christian Right, etc. Which means in a way - the updated is nothing more than a carefully contrived political hit-piece and thus, it would pay to read the original first, and then the reader (me, in this case) needs to use this knowledge to apply to the present period.
Thus, I asked my acquaintance if this was his thinking as well, or if did he did enjoy the updated due to the references against the right-wingers? It's okay if he does, I am not to judge a man by his political persuasion, still, it might be good "if my acquaintance and I were to open a dialogue" that I could know where he was coming from? Speaking of which, it is a very interesting topic, and I did enjoy studying it immensely.
Although in many regards the implications of labeling people "evil" has been overplayed far too much to introduce fear and incite the masses to attack a political opponent. So, where does evil come from, maybe it comes from labeling something else evil without looking into your own mirror to see if it's just a reflection. Please consider this.
Lance Winslow is a retired Founder of a Nationwide Franchise Chain, and now runs the Online Think Tank. Lance Winslow believes it's hard work to write 21,300 articles; _http://www.bloggingcontent.net/
Uh, I'm apparently the 'acquaintance from Australia'. I don't know why he said I was from Australia, and I'm not an aquainance either. I came across his articles, and he had some interesting topics, to include those that Ryan pointed out, so I emailed him the Ponerology website. I'm pretty sure I didn't respond when he wrote back (he basically replied with most of the things in the article). So this part of the article was interesting, "And then I asked my acquaintance what he thought. He indicated to me, that he'd never considered that, and was more focused on the scientific theory than anything else." 
