Heroes and Villains: is there a difference?

Villain is only a human definition, it is not a term that can be applied to any other living thing and retain its original meaning. It’s purely a human idea. And as a purely human idea, I will say…it sucks. A hero is just a villain who kills in the name of something, but that hero STILL kills. In fact, if you think about it, it’s the villain who has accepted himself for what he is, and the hero who denies his misdeeds. Killing is killing. To pretend it suddenly has some magical ‘justification’ is just denial. Embrace your inner monster, accept your own evil. We are all disgusting traitorous monsters, we just need to accept that fact and cease dressing up our endeavors as ‘humane’ or ‘right’.

I sat down the other day and tried to define ‘evil’, which I don’t even believe in. A dictionary definition said something like: deeply immoral and malevolent. Before I start throwing a tantrum over the word ‘immoral’ and how it doesn’t exist, I will say that malevolent is a terrible definition. Already, even if I did believe in such things, it is apparent that their are huge inconsistencies. Malevolent: wishing evil to others. So we’ll take that as wanting ‘bad’ things to happen to other people, perhaps we can stretch that to ‘wanting to hurt people’, more similar to the word malicious. Generally evil people want to hurt others, correct? So if evil is wishing for bad things to happen to others, or wanting to harm people, what does that make a hero? Heroes kill villains. They do murder, yes? They want bad things to happen to ‘evil’ people. So now is evil defined as ‘killing only those who are undeserving or innocent’? Is a hero innocent? If a villain kills a hero because the hero tries to kill him (simple action/reaction), does that not equal ‘justification’?

If a villain kills with no reason in mind, then what is he doing ‘wrong’? He is not all that ‘evil’ by definition if he is killing indiscriminately, is he? If we were to just define evil as ‘murder, or harm’ then the definition would be too broad…. Heroes kill with the intent of harming, with malevolence…. They are singling someone out and taking their life, which by those definitions IS evil, worse than killing with no purpose, if you think about it.

It’s almost comical how this can all be twisted around. It just shows how flimsy human ideas are to begin with, and how bias can turn anything into “right” and anything into “wrong”.

So let’s take this another way, as I can already see a few flaws in the current analysis.

Heroes kill with the intent of saving lives. Take one life, save many, if you will. So evil then, is someone who kills/harms others either with intent or with no intent (to include all of the villains, of course). If the intent is to save lives in future, then it is not evil. If the intent is to only take lives or cause pain, then it is evil. Long definition, but at least there aren’t half so many loopholes.

With that in mind, Heroes take lives to save lives, Villains take them, period. What a double standard.

This is a prime example of just how fucked up human ideas really are. It’s like trying to figure out why sharks eat like garbage disposals. I mean a license plate? You know they can’t be THAT dumb, and if they are, that sure doesn’t explain how they’ve survived the damn near longest out of just about everything.

So basically, anybody who thinks that they are killing someone who is going to take lives, is technically ‘good’, right? Which would make the villain a good guy if he decided to go and kill a hero who was going to take out some of his villain posse. Taking life to save a lives, right?

That’s just it, the damn truth, right there: You can’t define evil, and you can’t define good when they are biased ideas to begin with.

Anybody can say something is good or bad, heroic or villainous. Each person’s idea of what those things are, are different. Some people think it’s okay to steal if they’re poor, others think it’s downright evil.

The conclusion that can be drawn from all of this is that humanity is the ONLY species that believes in such things. If we’re the only one, that says quite a lot right there. Other animals plain just don’t give a shit (or don’t have the same capacity for stupidity as us evolved apes), which is precisely the way it should be. Once you start trying to decide who’s opinion is right, you know that there must be biases if there isn’t a common consensus that can be applied to everything.

Therefore, good and evil are but ideas. In nature, who loves balance, there is only giving and taking, no definition of which is better or worse, “right” or “wrong”. They simply exist. Animals do what they will (both “good” and “evil” by human standards), yet you never see the scales tipped any which way for long. If the natural world can exist when it is filled with creatures doing only what is good for themselves, what does that tell you? It is humanity that is filled with discord, it is humanity that has so many problems, while nature resides just as peacefully as ever while each animal fights to the death.

We try to make definitions and be selfless, yet WE are the ones who struggle to survive, not nature which is based off of selfishness. It’s a beautiful thing.

Advertisements

Projects: An excuse to be occupied.

I’ve been trying to keep busy; staring into space gets old after awhile.

I’ve had a halved elk skull sitting on my deck for at least a few months, telling myself that I’d get to it eventually. Apparently ‘eventually’ was a few days ago when I was struck with a creative streak. Don’t ask me what happened, I have no idea…. I think it was the curtains. Yes, I moved beyond “caveman” and decided that sheets just weren’t cutting it. Now I have curtains to match Salem’s fur. They don’t have black curtains anywhere; it’s this huge mystery I can’t solve. Curtains are technically there to block out light, so what the fuck is somebody supposed to do with white curtains? I’ll never know…. Anyway, I had to make curtains. Came out quite nicely, actually. Who knew I could be so domestic.

On with it…I’m rambling today…. So let’s just pretend that black spray paint is my muse, because I took one look at the can, then glanced over at the skull and had an idea…. I was spraying the curtain rod things, because they were unevenly painted and bothered the perfectionist in me, but that damn skull, I saw it when I walked by with the can…. Well, I have an obsession. I shouldn’t have really even kept that particular skull, as it was in HALF and broken a lot inbetween, but I can’t resist skulls. And I knew it was going to look like shit if I just glued it together with superglue and glossed it over with furniture gloss. There are pretty substantial chunks of skull missing compared to the others I’ve collected—it is in very bad shape compared with Belial, but elk skulls are hard to come by, so hey….

I spray painted it black after I glued the two pieces together. I made certain to cover over the teeth with tape so that they could stay blinding white, which is a nice contrast to the black.

There it is just black.

Then I did something totally unexpected…I took out my paint set…. I think originally I was thinking “day of the dead”, you know, the happy flower shit. And then this is what happened:

I only realized when I started to paint the eye on the upper part that there was a whole theme to it. I was putting meaning into it. Nature, life, death. Nature sees everything, she accepts it all, perpetuation, cycle, etc. The eye is red, because to any normal person nature seems cruel and uncaring, but it’s just her way.

It’s not done. I have some blank spots to fill in and I’ll gloss it over when I finish painting on it.

The weak justify the strong, the strong justify the weak.

This is something I definitely have to talk about; I had a revelation this morning. I guess I’ll dedicate this to the Marquis de Sade, since he was the one who made it more clear to me, and it was one of his books that reminded me of it in the first place.

Natural selection dictates that the animal most suited to a particular environment is the one most likely to breed, and hopefully more than once so that its genes can be spread. But along with that is something few people talk about, the weaker animals. What purpose do they serve besides being fodder for predators and failing miserably in competition with their more evolved counterparts? They must be there for something….

I like how de Sade points out that thieves are always justified; this is a very interesting concept. In the case of the weak who have had their food stolen from them, why should they not steal for themselves to get that food back? In the case of the strong, why should they not steal if nature has allotted them superior skills over others in their own species? Equilibrium is extremely important. Without both the weak and the strong, the world as we know it would not exist. What seems to be unfair competition is in fact all part of nature’s plan to keep up the food supply and perpetuate life.

If a wolf is stronger than the other wolves in its pack, and over a few generations that particular wolf’s genes are spread, what happens? You get very strong wolf packs that maybe have an easier time taking down larger prey animals, such as elk. But what happens if every wolf pack became stronger and as a consequence the food supply started to dwindle from over-hunting? Many wolves die off until the prey population has sufficient time to repopulate.

Now here’s the interesting part: what if a few normal wolf packs still exist? Say that those stronger wolves need more caloric intake to survive (which makes sense, as more muscle means larger caloric needs), then they are going to die out quicker than the normal wolves who need less food to remain living. So what happens? Things go back to the way they were. The predator that most suits his environment is the one who lives, even if he may not be the strongest or the fastest he can be.

What I’m trying to make clear here is that every being’s design serves a purpose. There is no reason for everything to be strong or everything to be weak. Equilibrium is only obtained when there are reasonable amounts of both, and for things to become otherwise means that nature has to compensate. In that case, prey animals become quicker to match the skills of superior predators. Think antelope and cheetahs. It’s more than likely that antelope and gazelles came before the cheetah. Another predator, like lions for instance, had to learn to compete with the very fast prey. Over generations that predator evolved. This is how you get specialized predators like the cheetah, who really aren’t suited to live anywhere else on the planet.   

Basically, it’s as de Sade said: equilibrium is nature’s only bias.

It’s amazing how far ahead of his time he was. What pisses me off is that when you go to the bookstore to pick up one of de Sade’s books they are generally stupid enough to put him in the “erotica” section as though he was writing trashy Harlequin romance novels (which is why I ended up spending about an hour looking through the philosophy section to no avail…). All of the sex, all of the crimes, he uses them as examples, ways to demonstrate his points. What people see as an excuse for violence and sex, is actually the most intelligent way of getting your work read by the people who are most likely to benefit from it. Sex sells, after all, and I’m sure it wasn’t exactly difficult for de Sade to write about…probably spurred on the process…. Which might explain why all of his books are so fucking long. And why I find him more interesting than Nietzsche. Hmm. But either way, de Sade still only has a very select audience; mass amounts of sadism have the tendency to alienate others, unfortunately, which is precisely why one should always surround themselves with masochists. It makes the world more fun.

Sick, demented, fucked-up, grotesque, philosophical to the point of being nihilism…. That’s the only sort of text I find worthwhile these days. I’ve become jaded, I suppose. And I apologize if any of this was choppy; my brain has absolutely no focus today, and it was a bitch to get out what I did manage to write.

This is uninspired.

Human speech taints clear air
Sounds that should never have been heard
Nothing but pollution of everything sacred
Desecration of everything I hold dear
Corrupted things are given devious tools
They use and abuse, simply by being alive
Those voices so shrill, so imperfect
Lies that spill from foolish minds
A gift that wasn’t deserved
The solution is to seal them shut
Sew closed those grotesque mouths
Never to speak again

People talk and talk. It drives me up the wall sometimes. They don’t seem to understand just how much stupid words can ruin a moment that would have otherwise been flawless. I suppose that is the way of people though: to see nothing of their own shortcomings, nothing of their own gracelessness. Nothing compares to silence…nothing.

Hatred stinks of evil they say
It drips the blood of the ages
An ancient tool, worn, well used
The weapon that absorbs all souls
It controls, it twists
Even the wielder can not escape its grasp
Hatred will outlive all things

I don’t know where any of this poetry is going; I’ve had horrible writer’s block lately. Nothing I write is up to any sort of standard. I’m hating every line of poetry I manage to extract from the chaos…. I feel as though my writing is at its absolute worst. The words don’t flow, and I struggle with every little line. I hate this state of being. It makes me feel worse than ever, but I had to write something “creative” anyway, because otherwise I may just…explode. So to hell with good writing! If I want to write shit, I shall! And I won’t be stopped either….

Instinct tells me….

Why is it when I’m in the woods I forget that anything is wrong? It’s as though I’ve stepped out of this Hell and into some sort of sanctuary. A place where worries about homework or family life slip into some dark corner of my mind, forgotten, uncared for. It suddenly all doesn’t matter in light of my own insignificance.

I am a speck, one meaningless, unimportant object. I am not a beautiful and unique snowflake, but just another human whose decided to ruin nature with its presence. If I speak, it would destroy the moment. Human voices should never be heard in such a place, it would be desecration. But yet speak they do, and I hear them on their quads on their dirt bikes shouting at one another, killing everything that is impotant to me, drowning it in harsh tones, in ignorance.

The woods whisper that I deserve to die. That were I to venture into such a place without my bottle of water without my pathetic little energy bar, my life would slowly wither away. I don’t want to believe that, I won’t believe that. But I know that is what it means. The slow bending of those spindly trees, the wind blowing all of my hair into my face. The hot sun, the clouds that cover it, protecting me from the burn. The world speaks to me, yet it doesn’t have to say a word. I know I am unwelcome, that just walking into such a place should be considered a crime against everything that is naturally beautiful, perfect. Chaos.

And that’s what it is, chaos. There are no rules. This is why I am not thrown out of the forest for desecrating it, because such crimes are allowed. Crime and beauty, peace and war, they exist together in this place, for everything goes. Animals murder, steal, and it is permitted. Victims and perpetrators, all trying to exist in the same plane, and killing or running away to do so. Reminds me of something…but that something is a copy, a fake. It was never meant to be real…yet for some reason we made it reality. We tried to make a safer, generic copy of nature…but you cannot replicate something so inherently perfect in every way. Animals will always have the rage…there is no breeding it out of them. The world will never be safe, for Nature purges that which irritates her….