Demons: A Philosophic Introduction

Historically, demons played a significant place in history.  Millions have died because of the assumption of demonic influence, by monotheists and polytheists and spiritualists.  Some see demons behind every corner, even today.  Demons are the epitome of evil, the enemy of humankind and of all that is good.  From a philosophic standpoint, how do we consider the demonic, or that which is called demonic?

Many call demons just a myth, just stories to entertain and to encourage certain moral practices.  Certainly the tales of Faust and Hellboy are but stories. But how does one explain the many, many experiences of evil spirits that people claim are true?  The story of The Exorcist by William Peter Blatty is supposed to be based on true events, and other exorcisms are confirmed.  What do these real events mean?  Are they all mechanisms of the insane? 

Eugene Thacker, in his philosophic work, In the Dust of this Planet, suggests that the demonic is a method by which we culturally explore the reality of nothingness. The absence of life, of meaning, of purpose frightens us so that we personify it and label it as a being itself.  This would make sense with demons being our own temptations, and evil circumstances.  But what about the stories of spirits who attack?  Of those who are innocent, but experiencing judgment?  Are demons just a way to speak of evil coincidence? Of statistical probability that bad circumstances will happen to us?

It is also true that in ages past many items that we have labels and some understanding of were called demonic in the ancient and medieval world. Schizophrenia, seizures, fits of rage and fevers were often “caused” by evil spirits in the ancient world.  So is that which we do not really understand (like schizophrenia, which we can describe and label, but not really determine the cause), or cure still a black box, even though we do not call it “demonic”?  Are we really any better off than those who called it demonic?  Is a book collecting a list and descriptions of mental disorders really any better than a witch hunter’s manual which catalogs and describes demonic activity? What is really the difference?

Associated with mental disorders are those who cannot fit into society or belong to a different culture. In the past, some were called demonic, even though they had a place in their original society, such as spiritualist healers and astrologers.  The foreign or strange is often called demonic by those who do not understand certain actions.  Is the demonic fundamentally a way of us describing our own discomfort of those who act in a socially awkward or unacceptable manner?  Are those who cannot understand or appreciate societal nuances still make outcast in the same way, even if we do not use the term “demonic”?  Are the labels that separate the unwanted any better or worse than the term “demonic”?

Testing Our Rationality

It is the goal of philosophy to attack the irrational and to accept the rational.  Philosophers like to do this in pristine environments, which allow for the best thinking possible, either alone or with colleagues who have the same intensity to answer the questions asked.

However, what if our very premise of how to do philosophy is irrational?  What if there is no such thing as a pristine, stress-free environment?  What if, in having others participate in our seeking of answers, we are fooling ourselves that our relationships will be stable enough to create a place to produce answers?

Albert Ellis came up with Ten Irrational Beliefs that many of us have about our lives and relationships.  Which of these do you agree are irrational beliefs?  Which of these beliefs do you have a hard time letting go of?  Which of these beliefs do you deny are irrational, but that they are simply necessary for a human life?

1. The idea that you must have love or approval from all the significant people in your life

2. The idea that you absolutely must be thoroughly competent, adequate, and achieving or the idea that you must be competent or talented in some important area.

3. The idea that other people absolutely must not act obnoxiously and unfairly, and that when they do, you should blame and damn them, and see them as bad, wicked, or rotten individuals.

4. The idea that you have to see things as being awful, terrible, and catastrophic when you are seriously frustrated or treated unfairly.

5. The idea that you must be miserable when you have pressures and difficult experiences; and that you have little ability to control, and cannot change, your disturbed feelings.

6. The idea that if something is deemed dangerous or fearsome, you must obsess about it and frantically try to escape from it before it happens.

7. The idea that you can easily avoid facing challenges and responsibilities and still lead a highly fulfilling existence.

8. The idea that your past remains all-important and because something once strongly influenced your life, it has to keep determining your feelings and behavior today.

9. The idea that people and things absolutely must be better than they are and that it is awful and horrible if you cannot change life’s grim facts to suit you.

10. The idea that you can achieve maximum happiness by inertia and inaction or by passively enjoying yourself.

One more question: How do you usually respond to such a circumstance as it is described?  Is your response rational or irrational?

The biggest issue here is the relationship between personal need and what we can actually demand from our environment.  Rationally, we cannot demand from our environment what the environment does not have.  But even the most rational of us do just that, and when our expectations our dashed we are angry and we might lash out.  Yet the issue is not a lack in our environment, but the lack within ourselves.  How can we rationally deal with that? 

When Should We Not Forgive?

"There is a time for peace, a time for war; a time to sow, a time to reap;" a time to forgive and a time to... what?

Forgiveness is often stated as a general virtue: "To forgive, divine"; "Forgive and forget"; "I'm not perfect just forgiven."  To forgive is something that is an assumption, the moral equivalent of following the rules in a game-- of course you do that.  But should we always forgive?  Are there times when it is better for everyone that we not forgive?

Before we begin our questions, we must first know that when we speak about forgiveness, we are talking about three different actions.  The first action is releasing one's bitterness against a wrong done.  This is the kind of forgiveness that is being spoken of in the statement, "To not forgive is like punishing another by cutting your own hands off."  To not be bitter is to stop being angry about the situation, and it is a personal psychological state.

Honestly, there is no real reason not to forgive in this context.  The question is often whether a person is psychologically able to release the thoughts of anger against another.  As the statement above says, not to psychologically forgive only harms the one not forgiving.

The second action of forgiveness is at the root of the word.  Originally to "forgive" means to wipe away a debt. This means that there was money or some other debt that is no longer held to another's account.  The slate is wiped clean, there is a "zero" in the account book instead of a negative number.  This has the moral connotation of complete mercy.  There is no moral requirement for a person to not demand what was owed to them.  However, at times compassion overrules quid pro quo.

The question of not forgiving in this context is more complicated.  For some, there is a moral lapse in forgiving what was owed you.  For many people there is a basic principle upon which the world works: You reap what you sow; Nothing in life is free; You must pay for what you use.  If one forgives what was clearly owed (whether it be economically or some other kind of agreement), then that system breaks down, and people begin to assume that you don't have to pay for anything.  Is that really true?  Do we have to pay for everything-- the air we breathe is free, you are reading this post for free.  Does use or ownership always require payment?  Or are there aspects of life in which barter isn't ever required?  There are large chunks of the internet that are free, including valuable software and hardware.  Craigslist and other classifieds have whole communities that exchange items without cost.  Do these communities hurt the normal way the world work?

There is a different question if someone is demanding forgiveness of what is owed.  Clearly, forgiveness is something one asks for, not one demands.  Grace is a gift, but it is not a principle of life.  Unless one is in a community of giving, in which grace can be a demand.  If one is in Craigslist "free" listing, is one right to be angry if money is required when you come to look at the item?

The third kind of forgiveness is related, but goes a step further, which is to release from punishment.  Often there is a punitive requirement beyond a quid pro quo.  If someone steals from a grocery store, the store not only demands the item returned (or the financial equivalent) but also will have the person arrested and punished for theft.  Punishment is also meted out in everyday relationships.  To insult a teenage girl is to be "punished" by her not speaking to you for a time.  To sin and not repent in an Amish community is to receive shunning, or cutting off from the community. Adultery often ends in divorce, rejection of one friendship often means cutting the ties with other friends, to hit a person can mean to be hit back twice, or shot.

To forgive in this punitive context is to release one from any kind of continuing punishment.  This is not necessarily releasing one from a quid pro quo (although it might include that), but it is releasing one from any other requirements.  Once the debt is paid, the incident is set aside, not mentioned, as if the incident had never happened.

Why should we punish a wrong done?  Some say that it prevents wrongs from being done.  A person doesn't steal not only because it's wrong, but because there is an attached punishment that prevents one from doing that crime.  A person doesn't commit adultery not only because it would be breaking their commitment, but there are also consequences to such action.  But does forgiveness in one instance mean that all crimes are allowable?  Will people really do whatever they want because wrongs are at times unpunished?

Other times we punish because it is emotionally satisfying.  It is not enough for a person to pay back the same amount lost, there must be an additional payback. If our kid brother hits us, then we will hit back harder (unless he cries, which makes our dad hit us-- and he hits a lot harder). Unless we hurt a person a little more than they hurt us, we don't feel like we are able to forgive.  Is this emotion morally correct?  Is there a benefit of increasing punishment?  Or does "An eye for an eye make the whole world blind" like Gandhi says?

Where Does Morality Come From?

I think it is pretty clear that grasshopper morality comes from grasshoppers.  Even crickets, while they might occasionally be irritated at grasshoppers for their quiet, manipulative ways, agree in the end, "Well, they are grasshoppers.  They don't operate by our rules."  The same with dogs, sparrows, dinosaurs, and mosquitoes (although the latter's morality still encourages humans to kill them coldly, occasionally gleefully).

Thus, human morality comes from humans. While some might claim that God is the source of human morality, one would have to claim that God made humans to be a certain way.  Sacred texts give some general direction, but none say, "Yes, give 20 dollars to the beggar on 20th and Main on Tuesday of next week because it will change his life."  No, we figure out what to do, every day, with a holy book only giving us the most general of directions.

So where is the source of human morality?  Where does it come from?  This has been argued since the day of Plato's Republic, and is still being discussed today. The three main contenders are: a.Self interest; b. Moral reasoning and c. Emotion.  Let's take a moment to look at each.

Self Interest
Glaucon in The Republic presented this case long before social Darwinists did.  His argument is this: If a normal human being (not some goody-two-shoes Harry Potter) had an invisible cloak, he would get away with as much as he could.  He would steal, have sex with whoever he wanted, find out secrets to cut down his enemies, etc.  On the surface, if we have a fairly critical eye on human nature, we might agree. Micro economics is based on the idea that groups of people will always act in their own self interest.  Studies have been done to show that if a person thought no one was looking, people-- almost all people-- would certainly cheat.  However, those same studies show that people only cheat a little bit.  The cheating might increase over time, if they were allowed, but most people aren't interested in stealing Ft. Knox, but only a little bit more than they have right now.  Very few would become criminal masterminds.  Yet this doesn't deny the power of self-interest in morality.  But can we say that self-interest is the basis for all morality?  Darwin speculated that morality is based on what is best for the group or species, not the individual, which accounts for traits of  altruism.  But does that really explain a person jumping into a river to save a drowning child, although he might himself die?  Does it explain that we, as a species, are willing to let five people die as long as we don't kill one person?

Reason
The Enlightenment scholars said that the best kind of morality is reasoned morality, that which is considered and plotted.  Plato agrees, which is why he felt that the Philosopher King is the one to rule.   John Stuart Mill thought that morality could be measured like a mathematical formula, quantifying the right morality by measuring the total amount of pleasure by all people in any one action.  Kant felt that reason can determine the correct action, by determining the most consistent good, without contradiction.  But is reason actually the way we ever determine the right course of action?  If so, why do all of the moral principles determined by strict reason seem to be missing something?  Should we, like Kant says, never lie without exception?  Certainly it is wrong to lie most of the time, but sometimes isn't it the right thing to do (like when my wife asks me how she looks before we go out)?  Is the majority of pleasure really the best course of action, always?  If an entire city could live in complete happiness for a year if a single, young child is tortured and killed, does that equation really equal morality?  And in fact, studies have found that more often than not, reason is used after a moral course has been chosen.  Do we reason to determine morality, or to make our actions seem more moral, no matter what we have chosen?

Emotion
Emotion isn't, strictly speaking, irrational. When we are angry, we sense injustice and we respond to that injustice.  When we are fearful, we sense a danger to ourselves or our loved ones, and the emotion of "fear" drives us to respond to that.  So emotions are less "irrational" and more of an innate, intuitive rationality.  We are responding to a hidden reasoning that isn't necessarily conscious or even knowable.  And it could be that our morality is based on that?  How often is it that we know what is right or wrong instantly, without a moment's thought, even if we had never done a certain action before?  And we do not always choose self interest as our motivating factor.  People who make great sacrifices for others often do so instantly, without a thought for themselves, or really, thinking at all.

And yet, is morality strictly instinct?  After all, people can be trained in certain moral thinking, even as a martial artist is skilled in precise movements. Certain Buddhists, Jews and Christians live a very peculiar mode of life, based on a certain morality given to them from their teachings.  Is this a special kind of reasoning, or some divine guidance that allows them to live differently?  Or is it their society that molds them and trains them to become so morally unique, until their moral decisions become just as quick as capitalists? And is society completely to be blamed or praised for the creation of saints or serial killers, neither of which is trained by any society at all?  They seem to have their own set of moral codes that they follow, whether for ill or for good.

Or is it simply too complex to be determined?

Are Emotions Necessary?

In a world of logic, emotions have no place, so says Mr. Spock.  And we can see the difficulty of emotions.  Emotions can cause violence, or cause breakdowns-- either too much or too little action.  They can cloud our thinking by causing us to jump to conclusions or to hide significant pieces of information.  But are emotions always bad?  In fact, can we even function without emotions?  For what reasons do we have emotions anyway?

Emotions give us personal information.  While emotions may not always help us understand the world around us, they can give us information about ourselves and how we are responding to that world.  How do our emotions show us what is significant to us?  How do our emotions communicate what we fear or what we hope or what we long for?

Emotions drive us to action.  If we did not have emotions, for what reason would we do anything?  If our emotions were absent, would we care enough about anything to act with appropriate drama when necessary?

Emotions are one form of communicating.  Were it not for our emotions, would anyone else know what was significant to us, whether positive or negatively?  If we always spoke in even tones of voice, would we be effectively communicating not only information, but depth?

Emotions help us process events.  Could we process what needs to be done in a short period of time without emotions?  With anger, we instantly see options for injustices done-- perhaps they are not the best options, but they give us options to begin the process of judging and determining right courses of action.  Depression may slow us down, but this is important for us to do after a time of significant stress.  Fear may lead to fight-or-flight, but when we see that these are only the first responses to a varied situation, but often the instant response is the correct one.  Without emotions would we accomplish what we need to do, as quickly as they need to be done?

In the end, the question is: are emotions necessary, or should we get rid of them?  As useful as emotions are in these ways, could they be better replaced by more rational, thoughtful responses?  Or do we need the instant, intuitive, personal response-- is it a part of being human?  Could we even reason appropriately without emotions?  Is it possible, or desirable, to live on planet Vulcan?