I find that sin can sometimes be described as an excess of something that when done in moderation is considered by most virtuous. Wrath can come from an excess of justice, Pride from an excess of confidence, and Envy from an excess of consideration for your neighbor. I wonder if sloth can be manifested from an excess of kindness. From your description of the events of the movie, it seems as if the doctor’s favored outcome is to do nothing when it comes to most situations.
The idea of sloth as an excess of kindness is very compelling in general. Kindness when warped and perverted like this has often felt to me like a kind of cowardice. As if the kindness is rather being used to shroud and unwillingness to act. And isn't the worst kind of sloth an unwillingness to act when action is necessary?
I think true sloth is exactly that, “an unwillingness to act.” I’ve found the modern mainstream understanding of sloth as chronic laziness to be so reductive that it masks what true sloth looks like. How common is it that hard working people will accept the state of injustice around them as inevitable as if that frees them from the responsibility of improving the world around them. I think the world has never seen so many people simultaneously so driven while being so slothful as today.
I think kindness is a path ro sloth, as if we are also too kind to ourselves, we do not see the need to improve.
But also I find that people who are kind and claim that they do not judge others are those who so desperately do not want to be seen or judged particularly because they know what they are doing is wrong. They try and take the high road quickly before anyone else can rise to it.
Thanks for the article, a fascinating read. I tried my hand at writing a similar article but framed it as "mercy without justice." Naturally, leave it to a story to form a much more compelling case. Not all is lost however. It's a very nice reference for my own use.
I remember many YouTube critics praising the three main villains of "Puss in Boots: The Last Wish." Many appreciated the villainy of Jack Horner, who, much to the dismay of Jiminy Cricket, is a completely irredeemable PoS without a tragic backstory. A strange amnesia regarding intrinsic evil drips from many contemporary stories, no doubt related to the ignorant ideal that "we can nurture our way out of nature." I wonder if this is a feature of a corrupt and coddled perception of 'love and compassion' which seems to pervade post-Christian Western civilization.
To paraphrase Chapter 4 of "The Problem of Pain" by CS Lewis, "for about a century we have tunnel-visioned on the virtues 'kindness or mercy,' that most of us do not feel anything except kindness to be really good or anything but cruelty to be really bad...the real trouble is that 'kindness' is a quality fatally easy to attribute to ourselves on quite inadequate grounds. Everyone *feels* benevolent if nothing happens to be annoying him at the moment."
CS Lewis calls this attitude a "covert propaganda" for cruelty, and this seems a fitting description for Dr. Washiya.
It's often been said, through the villain with good intentions, that "the ends do not justify the means." With the perceived collapse of Western civilization (our deeply unserious circus of geriatric institutions and politics), I think stories which ask, "do the means justify the ends" will grow in salience, as seen with Andor, Puss In Boots:TLW, and The Brain Man.
I think this provides an opportunity to ask what it means to be truly kind. Can it actually be a form of kindness, not just to the victims of criminals and society at large, but also to the criminal, to be harsh? I think, perhaps, that something modern society often forgets is that suffering and facing fatal consequences can be transformative. If you want a soul to change, niceties and gentleness doesn't always work. However, as society has continued to secularize, the fact that the transformation of a soul is not entirely in human hands has been forgotten. Sometimes, a heartless person is simply a heartless person; whether or not they change is up to a higher Power. Recognition of this fact does not mean that we should let such people continue to destroy the lives of other people; though it might help curb modern hubris.
I would be interested in your thoughts about Rumer Godden's book "Five for Sorrow, Ten for Joy". I don't know if you've read it or not; if you haven't, it would be right up your alley. It similarly deals with themes of justice, mercy, and kindness set in the context of criminal behavior and institutional justice, as well as a Dominican convent.
I am reminded of the graphic novel "The Dark Knight Returns" in which Batman, after decades of capturing the Joker only having to see the maniac escape again and again, finally realised that he could have saved hundreds of lives by ending one. Batman, who vowed vehemently to himself for years that killing is wrong and it makes him no better than the criminals he hunts down to turn over to the justice system, accepted that he was wrong. The Joker had to die.
We have monsters in human form who walk among us everyday. Vile parodies of human beings who like nothing more than to watch the world burn. No amount of empathy or kindness will ever reform or change them. I'm not saying that empathy and kindness are pointless, rather they need to be carefully applied in regards of circumstances.
All disharmony comes from a lack of respect for hierarchy. In a merchant democracy, consumption and the lowest form of patronage is the highest good. Thusly if everyone must be able to use any institution or structure like it is a public toilet, expect the quality of one.
If it is meant to present an argument this movie is seriously flawed. It does not treat the alternatives fairly. The avenger is perfect, has perfect knowledge, executes his plans perfectly. The bleeding heart is ineffective. Her cure does not change the behavior of the criminal she tries to cure. This is just as bad as any Hollywood movie that pretends to explore patriotism but makes its hard ass patriot character a secretly self serving hypocrite. For your movie to make its argument interesting the bleeding heart needs to be just as good at curing as the avenger is at killing. Only then can you fairly compare and decide which is better.
In real life there is no perfect avenger any more than a perfect redeemer. Likewise, in normal, earthly, life there isn't any frictionless motion but a physicist who does a Newtonian thought experiment pretends there is. This movie only made a fair thought experiment for one side.
She is effective and very good at her job. Her compassion and her keen psychological awareness are the only reasons they were able to figure out the truth about the "brain man". Her tenacity is the only reason they kept digging. The cop and his colleagues were able to save many, many lives at the hospital. And, in the end, the "brain man" faltered because he questioned himself given the psychiatrist's compassion, because he had no real experience with emotion and didn't know how to process it. His hesitation nearly killed them all and it was the cop's "illegal" execution of the bomber that saved their lives. The psychiatrist was renowned and respected. But she had thrown ALL her weight behind kindness as a kind of trauma response.
In the movie the avenger was not perfect. The cop was not perfect. The psychiatrist was not pure evil. However, the idea presented was that the good, compassionate psychiatrist was crippling herself from even SEEING reality by her obsession with kindness and her refusal to "judge". This emotion was so powerful that for a split second it infected the avenger. Yet it never once infected the flawed, imperfect cop. It was extremely important that the cop was the one who killed the bomber in the end, and that the avenger hesitated. Partly because a keen understanding of our impassioned emotions is essential to overcome their influence. The cop was a hothead, but he was calm when he killed the bomber. He could only do that because of his higher understanding of emotion.
Fair thought experiments are only relevant if one side isn't objectively wrong. It is objectively false that kindness can erase or cure evil. If a movie or thought experiment pretended otherwise it would be silly and impossible to take it seriously. This movie wasn't about the possible validity of kindness as a cure. But about the merits (or lack of merits) of emotion to the overall process of justice.
I haven't seen the movie so I'm at great disadvantage. I depend on your presentation. In practice I think avengers are as likely to misfire and fail as redeemers, and that we are way more inclined to indulge revenge fantasy than kindness fantasy. You've made me take the movie more seriously but I'm not a taken with its ideas as you are. Maybe that would change if I actually saw it. Thanks for your response.
I find that sin can sometimes be described as an excess of something that when done in moderation is considered by most virtuous. Wrath can come from an excess of justice, Pride from an excess of confidence, and Envy from an excess of consideration for your neighbor. I wonder if sloth can be manifested from an excess of kindness. From your description of the events of the movie, it seems as if the doctor’s favored outcome is to do nothing when it comes to most situations.
The idea of sloth as an excess of kindness is very compelling in general. Kindness when warped and perverted like this has often felt to me like a kind of cowardice. As if the kindness is rather being used to shroud and unwillingness to act. And isn't the worst kind of sloth an unwillingness to act when action is necessary?
I think true sloth is exactly that, “an unwillingness to act.” I’ve found the modern mainstream understanding of sloth as chronic laziness to be so reductive that it masks what true sloth looks like. How common is it that hard working people will accept the state of injustice around them as inevitable as if that frees them from the responsibility of improving the world around them. I think the world has never seen so many people simultaneously so driven while being so slothful as today.
I think kindness is a path ro sloth, as if we are also too kind to ourselves, we do not see the need to improve.
But also I find that people who are kind and claim that they do not judge others are those who so desperately do not want to be seen or judged particularly because they know what they are doing is wrong. They try and take the high road quickly before anyone else can rise to it.
Thanks for the article, a fascinating read. I tried my hand at writing a similar article but framed it as "mercy without justice." Naturally, leave it to a story to form a much more compelling case. Not all is lost however. It's a very nice reference for my own use.
I remember many YouTube critics praising the three main villains of "Puss in Boots: The Last Wish." Many appreciated the villainy of Jack Horner, who, much to the dismay of Jiminy Cricket, is a completely irredeemable PoS without a tragic backstory. A strange amnesia regarding intrinsic evil drips from many contemporary stories, no doubt related to the ignorant ideal that "we can nurture our way out of nature." I wonder if this is a feature of a corrupt and coddled perception of 'love and compassion' which seems to pervade post-Christian Western civilization.
To paraphrase Chapter 4 of "The Problem of Pain" by CS Lewis, "for about a century we have tunnel-visioned on the virtues 'kindness or mercy,' that most of us do not feel anything except kindness to be really good or anything but cruelty to be really bad...the real trouble is that 'kindness' is a quality fatally easy to attribute to ourselves on quite inadequate grounds. Everyone *feels* benevolent if nothing happens to be annoying him at the moment."
CS Lewis calls this attitude a "covert propaganda" for cruelty, and this seems a fitting description for Dr. Washiya.
It's often been said, through the villain with good intentions, that "the ends do not justify the means." With the perceived collapse of Western civilization (our deeply unserious circus of geriatric institutions and politics), I think stories which ask, "do the means justify the ends" will grow in salience, as seen with Andor, Puss In Boots:TLW, and The Brain Man.
A few meandering thoughts...
I think this provides an opportunity to ask what it means to be truly kind. Can it actually be a form of kindness, not just to the victims of criminals and society at large, but also to the criminal, to be harsh? I think, perhaps, that something modern society often forgets is that suffering and facing fatal consequences can be transformative. If you want a soul to change, niceties and gentleness doesn't always work. However, as society has continued to secularize, the fact that the transformation of a soul is not entirely in human hands has been forgotten. Sometimes, a heartless person is simply a heartless person; whether or not they change is up to a higher Power. Recognition of this fact does not mean that we should let such people continue to destroy the lives of other people; though it might help curb modern hubris.
I would be interested in your thoughts about Rumer Godden's book "Five for Sorrow, Ten for Joy". I don't know if you've read it or not; if you haven't, it would be right up your alley. It similarly deals with themes of justice, mercy, and kindness set in the context of criminal behavior and institutional justice, as well as a Dominican convent.
I've heard of Rumer Godden but I've never read anything of hers. Though that one sounds quite interesting.
Excellent essay 👏 👌
I am reminded of the graphic novel "The Dark Knight Returns" in which Batman, after decades of capturing the Joker only having to see the maniac escape again and again, finally realised that he could have saved hundreds of lives by ending one. Batman, who vowed vehemently to himself for years that killing is wrong and it makes him no better than the criminals he hunts down to turn over to the justice system, accepted that he was wrong. The Joker had to die.
We have monsters in human form who walk among us everyday. Vile parodies of human beings who like nothing more than to watch the world burn. No amount of empathy or kindness will ever reform or change them. I'm not saying that empathy and kindness are pointless, rather they need to be carefully applied in regards of circumstances.
I think I want to watch this film. Thank you for the thoughtful essay about it.
the emotionless “brain man” Ichiro Suzuki.
The Hall of Fame Right Fielder for the Seattle Mariners?
All disharmony comes from a lack of respect for hierarchy. In a merchant democracy, consumption and the lowest form of patronage is the highest good. Thusly if everyone must be able to use any institution or structure like it is a public toilet, expect the quality of one.
If it is meant to present an argument this movie is seriously flawed. It does not treat the alternatives fairly. The avenger is perfect, has perfect knowledge, executes his plans perfectly. The bleeding heart is ineffective. Her cure does not change the behavior of the criminal she tries to cure. This is just as bad as any Hollywood movie that pretends to explore patriotism but makes its hard ass patriot character a secretly self serving hypocrite. For your movie to make its argument interesting the bleeding heart needs to be just as good at curing as the avenger is at killing. Only then can you fairly compare and decide which is better.
In real life there is no perfect avenger any more than a perfect redeemer. Likewise, in normal, earthly, life there isn't any frictionless motion but a physicist who does a Newtonian thought experiment pretends there is. This movie only made a fair thought experiment for one side.
She is effective and very good at her job. Her compassion and her keen psychological awareness are the only reasons they were able to figure out the truth about the "brain man". Her tenacity is the only reason they kept digging. The cop and his colleagues were able to save many, many lives at the hospital. And, in the end, the "brain man" faltered because he questioned himself given the psychiatrist's compassion, because he had no real experience with emotion and didn't know how to process it. His hesitation nearly killed them all and it was the cop's "illegal" execution of the bomber that saved their lives. The psychiatrist was renowned and respected. But she had thrown ALL her weight behind kindness as a kind of trauma response.
In the movie the avenger was not perfect. The cop was not perfect. The psychiatrist was not pure evil. However, the idea presented was that the good, compassionate psychiatrist was crippling herself from even SEEING reality by her obsession with kindness and her refusal to "judge". This emotion was so powerful that for a split second it infected the avenger. Yet it never once infected the flawed, imperfect cop. It was extremely important that the cop was the one who killed the bomber in the end, and that the avenger hesitated. Partly because a keen understanding of our impassioned emotions is essential to overcome their influence. The cop was a hothead, but he was calm when he killed the bomber. He could only do that because of his higher understanding of emotion.
Fair thought experiments are only relevant if one side isn't objectively wrong. It is objectively false that kindness can erase or cure evil. If a movie or thought experiment pretended otherwise it would be silly and impossible to take it seriously. This movie wasn't about the possible validity of kindness as a cure. But about the merits (or lack of merits) of emotion to the overall process of justice.
I haven't seen the movie so I'm at great disadvantage. I depend on your presentation. In practice I think avengers are as likely to misfire and fail as redeemers, and that we are way more inclined to indulge revenge fantasy than kindness fantasy. You've made me take the movie more seriously but I'm not a taken with its ideas as you are. Maybe that would change if I actually saw it. Thanks for your response.
adding to my watch list