PEOPLE OF THE LIE, IS EVIL A KIND OF PSYCHIATRIC ILLNESS?
Dr M Scott Peck a psychiatrist who is in the self-help genre wrote the famous
book People of the Lie. It is about evil people and what he learned from his
patients regarding what evil is and what it does.
Peck notes that "one of the characteristics of evil is its desire to confuse."
He argues that if you are evil you will avoid psychotherapy like the plague.
Evil people don't want help for they think they are great the way they are. He
softens that a bit by saying a person can be ambivalently evil so that some part
of them will allow a therapist to help.
[I would suggest that maybe the person is using a therapist who she or he senses
will not be able to change things. The person then goes to therapy like it was
scratching an itch that is prolonged by the scratching.]
Naturally then Peck asks if evil is a psychiatric illness. He quotes Martin
Buber as pointing out that evil people demand, "affirmation independent of all
findings." They expect then you to say nothing about their sin and to condone it
and even reward it. Sin then is not just the sinner's business - it reflects on
how the sinner thinks of you and society. Thought leads to action so the sinner
is not an island.
So is evil a psychiatric illness?
One objection to that he says is how evil people have no overt suffering just
from being evil. But he says you could see them as diseased but asymptomatic.
You don't have to be in pain to be ill. He says the evil hide their pain for
evil causes fear. "The evil live their lives in fear." And he goes, "The evil
are to be pitied - not hated - because they live their lives in sheer terror."
My response to that is if their fear is that bad and they don't see it, imagine
what they would be capable of thinking they are defending themselves.
Christianity teaches that sin does harm the sinner though the sinner may be
blind to that and everybody else thinks the sinner is happy and grounded. Such a
doctrine virtually tells sinners to do harm in self-defence. Fear is the root of
all violence. It warns that an asymptomatic fear in a sinner will explode. The
symptom has to come.
A sensible person would say that so-called sinners not suffering is proof that
there is no God or no God who cares about sin. Peck is engaging in vindictive
wishful thinking that makes him look for ways to imagine sinners are suffering!
If sin did come with fear it would not prove that sin is an illness. Falling in
love brings fear but we do not consider love an illness for the fear is separate
from the love.
Another objection is that to be ill or sick is to be a victim and evil is based
on choice so you are not a victim. Peck says you can put yourself in a bad
situation by choice and still be a victim. A child is hit by a car is a victim
despite being told not to go out on the road.
He claims that the sinner is both actor and victim. If you say you must hate the
malevolent actor side of the person and love and pity the victim side of the
person.
I see that he wants you to love the sinner and patronise him as a victim! This
patronising love will only fuel sinners. They will sense how superior and fake
and condescending you are.
He says that if evil is untreatable that does not prove it is not a disease. He
says that our failure to know how to treat evil is the best reason of all for
seeing it as a disease. He quotes a priest with approval who said evil was the
ultimate disease. Peck reasons from that that "despite their pretence of sanity,
the evil are the most insane of all."
The interesting thing about that is the person needs to be very sane and clever
indeed in order to fake sanity! How can we trust anybody? How can we trust those
who tell us about the paranormal and the supernatural for it is easier to lie
about them than anything else? The best way to fake sanity is to get people to
think the supernatural or paranormal are real and yet elusive and you can tell
people about them for you have special access to information. Perhaps you are a
prophet or Messiah or just divinely inspired.
I wish to note that one advantage of this approach is that it urges us to meet
the evil with compassion for that alone allows the solution to come. But
compassion based on the assumption that you are insane when you are a very
functional person and good in society will not be compassion to you. It will be
patronising.
It is very judgemental to say that sinners are lying to us and taking us for
fools by pretending to be sane. If the pretending is evil or a sin then if it is
a symptom of insanity that is not pretending. Only a sane person can pretend.
Peck thinks science is not about the problem of evil or the nature of evil at
all while religion is. Science does not test moral values. It is about the
physical.
My response that science can test the part of moral values that is about
avoiding harm. The harm part is the important bit. The rule part is less
important. Any decent person will worry more about a baby's pain when he is
attacked than about what any God has to say about it. History is not about
morality but its method is to discern truth as far as possible so though science
does not equate to morality that does not mean there is no connection. In fact
there has to be.
Peck says that it is only because there is good in the world that we even
consider the problem of evil. That makes good and bad two sides of the one coin
and you are stuck with both forever. One needs the other, one goes with the
other.
My response is that if that is true then God has to be a coin with a good side
and an evil side. We have to accept that we will be good or evil and keep
changing forever. Many us feel that this is so and that is why they do evil when
they get the chance. They think there is no point in trying to avoid being evil
forever.
Peck says you can do evil things and not be evil. He say sin and evil are not
exactly the same. He suggests that being evil is not easy which does not fit the
coin image.
If evil is a power and good is a power then God made the coin - that is he made
good and evil and made one need the other.
If evil is a loss of good or an absence of good then there is no coin. If pink
is one side of the coin and the absence of pink is the other that gives you a
non-coin for it has only one side. Good in Christianity is not made but is just
a default.
Believers probably all, deep down in some way at least, use the coin methodology
and approach. The danger of holy people being secretly happy that people are
suffering and dying so that they can help them must be astronomical.
MENTAL HEALTH DEFINED AND AUTISM
The line "mental health requires that the human will submit itself to something
higher than itself." He goes to say this something for religious people is God.
He says those without religion or who are not interested in religion have truth
or love or the need of others instead. He defines mental health as "an ongoing
process of dedication to reality at all costs. The utter failure to submit
oneself to reality is called autism." He sees autism as living inside your own
head and being in a world of your own. It is a world where "the self reigns
supreme." Later he writes, "autism is narcissism in its ultimate form. For the
complete narcissist, others have no psychologic reality than a piece of
furniture."
This controversial material shows no knowledge of what autism really is and
insults autistic people. Autistic people can be narcissists but autism and
narcissism are not the same thing. Peck is inconsistent for he sees evil as
narcissism so why is he not saying that evil and autism are just two different
words for the same thing?
KILLING - IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT MENTAL ILLNESS IS USUALLY BLAMED FOR IT
Peck says unlike animal killing "human killing is not instinctual." He is
referring to how animals hunt and kill or they do not while we can do either.
He says that some feel that war is neither side's fault and comments on how that
turns it into virtually spontaneous combustion. I see that it turns war into
something that is to be just accepted and that trying to work for peace is a
waste of time!
Peck says that evil is antilife but is a form of life itself which is why if you
try to destroy evil by killing evil people you become evil yourself. He says
that trying to destroy it in yourself will not kill you but will kill you
spiritually.
We must all be evil realistically we only care about not killing people and do
not see killing them spiritually as as bad or even worse. The doctrine is
rubbish and is passive aggressive. It amounts to making murder no big deal. If
you say it is for if you kill you kill your own soul then how narcissistic are
you?