Evil is the absence of good... Really?

A source in 1528 stated - 'For the one rotton apple lytell and lytell putrifieth an wholeheap'

Sometime in the 1940's this phrase became 'One rotten apple can spoil the barrel'.

It's an interesting phrase with depth never quite understood by logic - rationally speaking the majority of anything always takes the lead. If nine people voted yes at an ellection and one voted no, the candidate with the majority vote would win, and it would be a landslide victory with a 90% majority.

However if nine apples are in good condition, and one is spoiled... the spoiled one will slowly rot the others.

A reasonable question is why don't the good apples influence the bad one? There are nine of them and there is only one of it...

Well, the rotton apple has something the good ones do not - it used to be good. You see, apples don't grow rotton - they are good until something happens to them - whether that is an environmental factor, an insect or human it needn't matter, the point is, something caused them to change from being 'good' to 'rotten' apples.

So is it possible that the same theory applies to good and evil? St Augustine famously quotes 'For what is that which we call evil but the absence of good?' but is it the absence of good that causes evil or is good a stage that leads to evil?

Assuming evil occurs when good becomes influenced by fear - a perfectly good person can become evil due to envy, jealousy competition etc (fear of replacement)... this is natural, and it complies with laws of individualistic survival - becoming evil and scheming can and has in many cases been an excellent way to get rid of a potential threat. But is being good (when evil is, theoretically speaking a stronger instinct) a natural act?

Is it as natural to become good after being evil as it is to become evil after having been good?

Fear

Despite your admirable efforts 2015, I am determined to get a long with you.

I can’t believe its April already, seriously – How?

My wireless internet has been down for the past couple of weeks so amidst researching the history of Sudan on my phone (very tedious) I somehow ended up taking the ‘Richard Step’ personality test to find out what my strengths and weaknesses are.

Honestly, I have no idea how I ended up taking a personality test – I mean of all the things I could have stumbled across. Anyway, this test was actually quite useful but it reminded me of something incredible that happened a couple of days ago.

A very close friend of mine whatsapped me (yes, that is a new term) a link to watch a program on YouTube. The program (usually hilarious) is hosted by a cocktail of women from different backgrounds – but they all share a quality, they are all Americans of an ethnic minority.  

During this particular clip the ladies were asked what their biggest fear in life was/is and as usual they took it in turns to express their fears. One of the hosts however expressed a fear so deep that it managed to make me rethink some of my ideas.

This particular host is married but decided along with her husband that she would never have children. Their decision, often disputed on the show (due to the husband having a change of heart) is something she refers to as her right to be selfish ‘I am a selfish person and I enjoy travelling and being care free’.

During this episode, the host – Jeannie, expressed her fear of one day not being able to provide for her family… The root of her fear was once seeing her father scramble through their trash for food late at night when he thought his wife and children were sleeping.

‘He never ate with us, he always said he wasn’t hungry and had a heavy lunch’ – she stumbled while speaking. Her father cared for them so much, that he would work on an empty stomach and then spend his money on his children and wife before himself.  

The effect that this had on Jeannie was positive to some extent, she became an excessive hard worker and was determined in her life to never let her parents work again… But it also had a negative effect, one that I would never have guessed until her co-host asked her about it.

The trauma that came with finding out that her father was in actual fact suffering for her wellbeing made Jeannie so afraid of one day becoming like that, and she confessed that that is in fact the real reason behind her choice not to have children.

To say I experienced one of Oprah’s ‘Aha’ moments is probably an understatement – and it made me think. On the surface she blames being ‘selfish’ as being the reason for her not wanting to have children, but in reality it is the contrary. She fears so much that she won’t be able to take good care of her children, and equates this with them suffering in life, and due to this irrational fear, she has decided it is better to just not have any children.

But does she realize that this isn’t the same as being selfish?... and is her thought process conscious or subconscious?

I doubt Jeannie is lying when she says ‘I’m selfish’ she probably genuinely believes that she is selfish because to her, the work that needs to be put into having children (which she irrationally overestimates) is not worth having children for – It’s too much effort. 

The childhood trauma caused her to overestimate the responsibility and work that needs to go into having children and therefore she decided (based on this irrational analysis) that she would prevent herself from one of life’s most significant steps – Parenthood.

Which made me think, what are my biggest fears? Do I have 'fears' that are stopping aspects of my life which I would otherwise be enjoying? 

Developing a deep rooted fear during childhood is dangerous because you never rationalize it, at that age you simply don't have the mechanism to, and also, you probably would be too ashamed or embarrassed to talk to anyone about it because you somehow always blame yourself which allows it to grow with you and become buried deeper and deeper within you...

Thinking about your fears can reveal a lot about a person... But the question is, how do we access them?