PLAYER57832 wrote:Yes, and Thank you. I tend to agree with you on the analysis, but beyond that, I appreciate your answering/discussing the question itself.
Do you think this is actually a true fear? or is it something that maybe was a fear and is not now? (and I realize you cannot answer right now)
As I mentioned before, this requires a lot of understanding of definitions, especially on the notion of (in this context) money, love and even evil. So the question starts off with “what is evil.”
Here is where I'll jump off of a religious argument and take on the role of the role playing philosopher, otherwise known as someone who enters one too many D&D debates. While evil is defined generally as “not good morally” and “causing or tending to cause harm” the real core definition of evil involves the actions of the will. The comet that destroys the earth is clearly not evil. The insane person who does not rationally think through all his actions is not evil.
Now clearly, by this notion I have tended to whittle down the universe of actions that can be considered evil. Back in second edition, someone wrote a basic summary of the D&D alignment system as a priority based structure. Basically “Good” was defined as putting the needs of others above the needs of self; “Evil” was defined as putting the needs of self above the needs of others.
Yes, the Joker isn't evil; he's insane. Satisfying ones raw emotions is not per se a “need.”
Also note that putting one group above another group falls off of the radar as well. How that action benefits the self is what is important. I've basically whittled this thing down to a toothpick, but it's still a very important toothpick.
So now we get to “need” which for the most part can be all secured with “possessions.” The good room, the good food, the good transpiration, the pampered life are all provided for via possessions. What you see you want to acquire; the painting, the woman, whatever, and at any price.
Remember that money is just a fungible possession. Likewise power is important because it can be fungible to money which in turn is fungible to possessions. Thus money is at the core of all “needs” of the individual (that can be met by that individual in such a way that can result in a “good” or an “evil” act).
Is this a “fear?” Hardly. This is a realization (and a generalization which means that it is not perfect) that the obsession of self possessions, or in effect the obsession of self results in the lowering of and abandonment of the needs of others. While I've defined this above as the opposite of “good” what it is really is the opposite of true charity/love.
This is as true today as it was in the beginning of the human equation, since the fundamental nature of man has not changed.
