Nature of Good, Evil, and Balance in the Wheel of Time

[Agitel]

17 minutes ago, Wolfbrother31 said:

And we don't know how RJ would have ended it ... I would have found it more satisfying if the Dark One was finally defeated and they lived happily ever after. 

 

 

Brandon certainly had creative input, but Rand's choice is certainly 100% how RJ would have ended it. Brandon could not have done otherwise. RJ had planned to just have a dialogue between the DO and Rand, but while writing BS discussed this with Harriet and felt it needed to be more dynamic for the conclusion of the series, and Harriet gave her approval for the change.

[DojoToad]

1 hour ago, Elder_Haman said:

No. That’s not it at all. Those things will always be wrong. 
 

In order to eliminate them, however, you have to eliminate free will because there are some people who will always choose to do those things. 

That is one of the arguments that come up the most against Christianity.  If God is all powerful then why does evil exist?  Because He is good and allows us free will.

 

Plus, how can they be wrong if there needs to be a balance?

Edited October 24, 2021 by DojoToad

[DojoToad]

2 hours ago, Rose said:

 

No. That's not what it means. It means that people need to have the *option* of choosing not to steal, rape, and murder. If it's not done by choice, then there's nothing admirable about it.

 

If I have the option to lie or steal to get my way, but I choose to be honest instead, even if it makes my life harder, that's admirable. That's good. But if I'm honest because I don't have any other choice, because lying or stealing isn't an option, then my honesty is meaningless. It requires no effort. It involves no sacrifice. So it has no value.

But if there must be balance in the world than for every act of charity someone else needs to kick a dog.  For every act of generosity there must be an act of selfishness...

 

Not a world I'd want to live in - though it seems I do (whenever I read the news).  

 

But getting back to Randland - if someone in Andor forgives a large debt, then balance would dictate that someone in Seanchan gets collared.  So taking women as slaves is not evil, but balance.

[Elder_Haman]

I don’t think it needs to be a 50/50 balance. The “proper” balance may be closer to 85/15. But it can’t ever be 100/0. 

[DojoToad]

21 minutes ago, Elder_Haman said:

I don’t think it needs to be a 50/50 balance. The “proper” balance may be closer to 85/15. But it can’t ever be 100/0. 

Alright then this should work:

• I'll give $20 to a homeless person
• Mow my elderly neighbors yard
• Help a coworker with a project
• Loan my extra vehicle to a down-on-his-luck friend
• Step in when bullies are doing their thing

But then to keep balance in my own life, I'll steal an ATV from my neighbors garage.

 

The balance thing works out great.

[Elder_Haman]

I think we’re talking past one another. 

[DojoToad]

I thought we were talking about how WoT addressed a balance between good and evil as the way things should be. 

[WhiteVeils]

34 minutes ago, DojoToad said:

Alright then this should work:

• I'll give $20 to a homeless person
• Mow my elderly neighbors yard
• Help a coworker with a project
• Loan my extra vehicle to a down-on-his-luck friend
• Step in when bullies are doing their thing

But then to keep balance in my own life, I'll steal an ATV from my neighbors garage.

 

The balance thing works out great.

 

It's not a balance in one life. Are there murderers in the world? Yes.  Then there should be saints. The cumulative amount of evil that has been done and is being done in the worlds, between wars, selfishness, and oppression and cruelty, throughout history far more than puts us in a deep hole all ready. If you did wonderful actions every day of your life it wouldn't even begin to dig us out of that hole.  But, say, if your coworkers project ends up putting someone else out of a job, then maybe some good and some evil came from your action.  You do the best you can. 

The balance aspect isn't necessarily Robert Jordan  saying that philosophy is what "is" or is best.  He's using a worldview that doesn't come from the West, it's from Asia. The symbol of the Aes Sedai is the Yin/Yang symbol.   And Taoism is a much better model in this for describing what he's trying to get at.

In the philosophy of Taoism regarding good action, the best way to act is to act without acting.  If you are a person who wants to do a tremendous/large good, it is extremely likely that there will be unintended consequences that will cause tremendous harm to happen as a consequence. You might do the good you want, but you will also do a lot of harm you never intended.  If you can manage to do small actions that can steer things subtly, you're less likely to cause harm by your unintended consequences.  Your actions for good will cause evil, just as your actions for evil will cause good to rise up to meet you.  

You don't have to agree with this philosophy, of course. (I don't...I'm more Western in my philosophies, and if I'm studying a Chinese philosophy I tend to align myself with Confucianism).  But that is what balance as used in this is intended to get at, IMO.

 

[Tim]

I never thought RJ was ascribing any sort of moral purpose to the wheel. “The wheel weaves as the wheel wills” is pretty much a genuflection to the amorality of fate - things will happen that don’t make sense or seem fair.

 

In a lot of ways, Rand’s arc is an exploration of what it means to strive to do and be good in a world where evil remains inevitable, and where even your best efforts will ultimately be undermined by time. I see a strong narrative connection between both Veins of Gold and the confrontation with the dark one - both scenes are (at some level) coming to terms with the need to keep striving even though a “happily ever after” resolution is impossible.

[Acevillain]

It’s seems to me that the Creator and the DO are represented in each person’s soul. This is why when the DO wins the people’s eyes are off to Rand and much the same when Rand destroys the DO. This implies that the destruction of either destroys a piece of what it means to be human. It seems Jordan wanted people to have innate good and evil in them and what Rand did at the end was stop the undue influence that evil had with the bore there. So even though the world is cyclical and the battle against evil will have to be fought again and again that applies for a linear worldview as well. Everyday we as humans have to choose good and fight the temptation to do evil. Doesn’t matter if this is your one life and you are working for salvation or this is your life until your rebirth, day to day you fight this battle. 

[Rose]

8 hours ago, DojoToad said:

But if there must be balance in the world than for every act of charity someone else needs to kick a dog.  For every act of generosity there must be an act of selfishness...

 

Not a world I'd want to live in - though it seems I do (whenever I read the news).  

 

But getting back to Randland - if someone in Andor forgives a large debt, then balance would dictate that someone in Seanchan gets collared.  So taking women as slaves is not evil, but balance.

 

That's not at all what I said.

 

I didn't say that there needs to be an evil deed for every good deed. I said that there needs to be the possibility of doing an evil deed so that people can choose to do a good deed instead.

 

It doesn't mean there always needs to be people doing evil. Every single human on the planet could still potentially choose to only do good. But it would be a choice, because they had the option to go the other way, and they didn't.

 

And realistically, when you give people free will, some of them will choose evil. That doesn't mean we want evil. It means we accept that it's an inevitable side effect of giving people choice. And we can still try to reduce it as much as possible, both within ourselves (working every day to do better) and within others (working every day to make the world a better place). That's not a struggle that can end, though. There will always be space for improvement in the human condition. But maybe that's okay. Maybe striving for improvement everyday is what gives life meaning.

 

Or at least, that's how I understand it ??

Edited October 24, 2021 by Rose

[Dedicated]

HA! I love this thread. It's addressing exactly what I was kind of playing with in another post (which got unfair treatment from the mods IMO). I guess my humorous slant just wasn't appreciated. 

 

At any rate, I've started my second read and I'm just getting through the beginning of EOTW and this theme of right vs wrong is immediately introduced in the actions that Moiraine and Lan take while trying to escape the DO's minions (eg sinking the ferry and later the burning of the Inn). The Emmond Field folk struggle with these things because they had always been able to live in a village where their morality was never challenged by external forces. Rand and Egwene even yell at each other over the morality of it, but Rand was more emotionally charged because he felt he was losing Egwene and his home. 

 

I've read through this thread and a lot of people are struggling with the ideas that I was struggling with. I don't have an issue with the ending anymore, in fact I kind of like it now. I was hoping that the series would be addressing the question of how to overcome and eliminate evil or at least clearly define what it is, but I suppose I was hoping for the impossible. Because the sad truth may be that this universe and all of creation isn't innately good or evil. Good and evil, right and wrong are just the dualistic nature of our perceptions as sentient, intelligent creatures with the ability to shape and define the circumstances or our environment. I don't know about you guys, but looking back at my life I am not proud of everything I've done, even when I did those things with the best intentions. I think we're all just creatures in a neutral universe (objectively speaking) trying our best to bring out the best in ourselves and our world. And this ultimately leads to conflict between peoples with opposing interpretations of what good is. Maybe the "lesson" if anything is that we just need to pack a bowl (of tabac OF COURSE!), respectfully talk about it and chill. 

 

There is another thread here that posed the question of what was the point of the Seanchan. I think this thread is getting to the answer of that. I think the Seanchan was just another point to drive home that this is an exploration of good vs evil as opposed to the overcoming or defeat of evil because it's an everlasting battle as a result of our natures as creatures of this universe. Good and evil are just our interpretation of some aspect of the universe and we're all just trying to shape a world of joy as much as possible while avoiding as much suffering as possible. It's up to us to define what is good and what is evil within the context of the current circumstances. It is up to us to resolve conflict as diplomatically as possible. It kind of makes me think about what Tuon and Satelle Anan were talking about. Tuon at one point expresses her pleasure in her talks with Anan and that she has had to concede on some arguments, but ultimately thinks that she can turn Anan around and have her become a powerful ally. This is what we hope will happen between the Seanchan and everyone else. We hope that they will be able to resolve their differences diplomatically instead of doing the DO's work and pulling some shady stunt to incite a war which would eradicate them. IMO the Seanchan and the Aiel handle conflict best when diplomacy fails. They fight and kill one another, but they do it honorably on an agreed upon field of battle. But perhaps they do it too readily. 

[DojoToad]

8 hours ago, WhiteVeils said:

 

It's not a balance in one life. Are there murderers in the world? Yes.  Then there should be saints. The cumulative amount of evil that has been done and is being done in the worlds, between wars, selfishness, and oppression and cruelty, throughout history far more than puts us in a deep hole all ready. If you did wonderful actions every day of your life it wouldn't even begin to dig us out of that hole.  But, say, if your coworkers project ends up putting someone else out of a job, then maybe some good and some evil came from your action.  You do the best you can. 

The balance aspect isn't necessarily Robert Jordan  saying that philosophy is what "is" or is best.  He's using a worldview that doesn't come from the West, it's from Asia. The symbol of the Aes Sedai is the Yin/Yang symbol.   And Taoism is a much better model in this for describing what he's trying to get at.

In the philosophy of Taoism regarding good action, the best way to act is to act without acting.  If you are a person who wants to do a tremendous/large good, it is extremely likely that there will be unintended consequences that will cause tremendous harm to happen as a consequence. You might do the good you want, but you will also do a lot of harm you never intended.  If you can manage to do small actions that can steer things subtly, you're less likely to cause harm by your unintended consequences.  Your actions for good will cause evil, just as your actions for evil will cause good to rise up to meet you.  

You don't have to agree with this philosophy, of course. (I don't...I'm more Western in my philosophies, and if I'm studying a Chinese philosophy I tend to align myself with Confucianism).  But that is what balance as used in this is intended to get at, IMO.

 

But small actions or large, you are still claiming balance.  And if balance in my life is not the point, than me doing a great evil (or good) compels someone else to do the opposite to balance me - loss of free will.

[DojoToad]

7 hours ago, Tim said:

I never thought RJ was ascribing any sort of moral purpose to the wheel. “The wheel weaves as the wheel wills” is pretty much a genuflection to the amorality of fate - things will happen that don’t make sense or seem fair.

 

In a lot of ways, Rand’s arc is an exploration of what it means to strive to do and be good in a world where evil remains inevitable, and where even your best efforts will ultimately be undermined by time. I see a strong narrative connection between both Veins of Gold and the confrontation with the dark one - both scenes are (at some level) coming to terms with the need to keep striving even though a “happily ever after” resolution is impossible.

But if evil remains inevitable, why let the dark one live?

[Rose]

32 minutes ago, DojoToad said:

But if evil remains inevitable, why let the dark one live?

 

Evil is only inevitable if the Dark One lives. In RJ's world building, killing the Dark One means evil is no longer possible. But Rand realizes that comes at the cost of free will, and he decides it's not a price worth paying.

 

[Rose]

8 hours ago, Tim said:

In a lot of ways, Rand’s arc is an exploration of what it means to strive to do and be good in a world where evil remains inevitable, and where even your best efforts will ultimately be undermined by time. I see a strong narrative connection between both Veins of Gold and the confrontation with the dark one - both scenes are (at some level) coming to terms with the need to keep striving even though a “happily ever after” resolution is impossible.

 

I love this analysis. Trying to break it down for myself:

 

Veins of Gold is Rand struggling with the question: Why do we live if suffering is inevitable? And discovering the answer: Because we can always improve. The point of life isn't to avoid suffering, it's to strive to do better in spite of it.

 

This leads into his confrontation with the Dark One, in which Rand realizes that removing all suffering from the world would paradoxically render life meaningless.

 

I don't necessarily fully agree with this philosophy in the real world (it's not like we have the option of removing all suffering from our world anyway, and removing some of it would be really great imo) but in-world I think it's pretty neat how it all ties together. And it definitely gives some very interesting food for thought about the purpose of life and human nature.

Edited October 24, 2021 by Rose

[DojoToad]

1 hour ago, Rose said:

 

Evil is only inevitable if the Dark One lives. In RJ's world building, killing the Dark One means evil is no longer possible. But Rand realizes that comes at the cost of free will, and he decides it's not a price worth paying.

 

So inevitable evil is preferable to lack of free will.

[Elder_Haman]

16 minutes ago, DojoToad said:

So inevitable evil is preferable to lack of free will.

Yes. 

[DojoToad]

17 minutes ago, Elder_Haman said:

Yes. 

Hmm.  Gives a new perspective on anti-vaxxers and government mandates.

[Elder_Haman]

3 minutes ago, DojoToad said:

Hmm.  Gives a new perspective on anti-vaxxers and government mandates.

One does not have to be anti-vaccination to believe that government compulsion is a poor method of achieving desirable results. 

[DojoToad]

6 minutes ago, Elder_Haman said:

One does not have to be anti-vaccination to believe that government compulsion is a poor method of achieving desirable results. 

Correct.  Just a timely topic...

[Tim]

Another way to think of it is: the price of living in a world where people are free to question authority is that some people will invariably do so in silly and counter-productive or even harmful ways. I think the proper comparison is not really with vaccine mandates - you can comply with mandates even while you question them politically - but with the capacity to be strongly pro or anti a social position in general.
 

Presumably in Rand’s “no evil” world, everyone would comply with such a mandate without question, but in such absolute compliance - no matter how sensible or rational in that specific instance - something essential to the human condition would be lost. 

[Dedicated]

7 minutes ago, Tim said:

Another way to think of it is: the price of living in a world where people are free to question authority is that some people will invariably do so in silly and counter-productive or even harmful ways. I think the proper comparison is not really with vaccine mandates - you can comply with mandates even while you question them politically - but with the capacity to be strongly pro or anti a social position in general.
 

Presumably in Rand’s “no evil” world, everyone would comply with such a mandate without question, but in such absolute compliance - no matter how sensible or rational in that specific instance - something essential to the human condition would be lost. 

 

Have you ever thought about what humanity would have been like if original sin had never happened? Set aside the argument of whether or not it's true. But the consequences of eating the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was that humanity suddenly became aware of good and evil or they developed some perception of it. Before eating the fruit hanging out nude was deemed "good" by god and humanity was none the wiser, but then post fruit consumption being naked carried some sense of shame or wrongness so they started covering themselves up. 

 

I think Rand's "no evil" world was one in which Rand had defined what was good and what was evil, but then everyone was rendered to be like a "simpering", "vapid" child. Challenge and struggle defines character. There is a line in Romans about how suffering demands perseverance, perseverance builds character and it goes on and elaborates more, but I'm just pulling from a vague recollections here. Free will is a major theme here and free will cannot exist unless an alternative option is available. 

[Acevillain]

2 hours ago, Dedicated said:

 

Have you ever thought about what humanity would have been like if original sin had never happened? Set aside the argument of whether or not it's true. But the consequences of eating the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was that humanity suddenly became aware of good and evil or they developed some perception of it. Before eating the fruit hanging out nude was deemed "good" by god and humanity was none the wiser, but then post fruit consumption being naked carried some sense of shame or wrongness so they started covering themselves up. 

 

I think Rand's "no evil" world was one in which Rand had defined what was good and what was evil, but then everyone was rendered to be like a "simpering", "vapid" child. Challenge and struggle defines character. There is a line in Romans about how suffering demands perseverance, perseverance builds character and it goes on and elaborates more, but I'm just pulling from a vague recollections here. Free will is a major theme here and free will cannot exist unless an alternative option is available. 

This makes me wonder on how free will interacts with the Wheel. Since the WoT creates the pattern of the age with the different threads of our lives, how does this fatalistic concept interact with the notion of free will? I know this is something that Ishamael and Rand bring up a lot, but I don’t think it was satisfactorily dealt with is the series. How can someone, especially a Taveran, honestly think they have free will when making decisions?

[Guest Wolfbrother31]

13 hours ago, Dedicated said:

 

I've read through this thread and a lot of people are struggling with the ideas that I was struggling with. I don't have an issue with the ending anymore, in fact I kind of like it now. I was hoping that the series would be addressing the question of how to overcome and eliminate evil or at least clearly define what it is, but I suppose I was hoping for the impossible. Because the sad truth may be that this universe and all of creation isn't innately good or evil. Good and evil, right and wrong are just the dualistic nature of our perceptions as sentient, intelligent creatures with the ability to shape and define the circumstances or our environment. I don't know about you guys, but looking back at my life I am not proud of everything I've done, even when I did those things with the best intentions. I think we're all just creatures in a neutral universe (objectively speaking) trying our best to bring out the best in ourselves and our world. And this ultimately leads to conflict between peoples with opposing interpretations of what good is. Maybe the "lesson" if anything is that we just need to pack a bowl (of tabac OF COURSE!), respectfully talk about it and chill

 

I love that our discussion of the WoT brought us to these deep philosophical questions... That's awesome. Thanks for sharing man. I respect you, as a person. 

 

But I (respectfully) find your philosophy here to be ... Mmm words escape me ... I want to be kind but I threw up a little in my mouth there. The idea that there is NOT real evil comes from choosing to keep one's eyes shut... And it really ticks me off. 

 

There is very real and true evil in this world we live. 

 

Cause let me tell you about the time I spent in SE Asia working to rescue just a few of the millions of women sold into sex slavery. Let me tell you about the multiple times I've seen and been part of setting people free from demons/deliverance ministry.

Let me tell about people I've counseled who have experience domestic abuse. 

 

Let me tell you about the very real evil I've done (and you have too man) including: bullying kids in middle school, verbally abusing my little brother, becoming an addict in high school, ect... 

 

No. You see - the fact that we are all capable of real evil (and actually choose that more than we choose good) I.E the doctrine of original sin from Judaism/Christianity... Is empirically the most unassailable doctrine that exists...and yet, it's typically the one most people deny. 

 

Can't tell you how many people I've talked to who think they're basically good people ...

 

Oh really? 

By what standard of good??? 

You're not a Nazi? 

 

Oh. 

But you are a bully. A thief. A liar. Occasionally abusive. Impatient. Unkind. Rude. Ect...

Hmm. 

 

Nah man. 

There is evil in this world and you know it. 

 

And my whole point ... Is that there is a better answer to the problem of evil than the one given by WoT ... But I appreciate that WoT asks the questions about good/evil and free will/fate of the cyclical worldview.