An analysis of the concept of demonizing and President Bush's "Axis of Evil" speech, with a focus on social substitution and the rhetoric of war and peace in American politics.
Abstract In his televised 2002 State of the Union speech, President George W. Bush characterized Iraq, Iran, and North Korea as the "axis of evil." An invocation of this type has been labeled as demonizing. This paper defines demonizing in terms of Raymond Kelly's hypothesis about the origin of war in his work, "Warless Societies and the Origin of War," as a social practice in relation to the development of a social doctrine of social substitution. It describes how it has been used in contemporary times and suggests likely reactions and consequences to President Bush's coining of the term, "axis of evil".
From the Paper "Demonization is the process whereby individuals, groups, organizations, or national leaders portray others in ontological in a suspicious, nefarious, corrupt, frightening, or immoral light. Demonization is ontological, that it, it is human nature to do so under times of duress and fear.3 Actions and ideas also subject to demonizaion. Spoken and written words, pictures, caricatures, theatrical or film portrayals, cartoons, and protest actions constitute the demonization substance. Those demonized represent a wide spectrum, ranging from politicians like Cambodia's Pol Pot pictured as a monster who oversaw the killing of millions of his fellow Cambodians, Saddam Hussein pictured as a despot who employed nerve gas against his own people and publicly called a "world menace" by British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, or Germany's Adolph Hitler who unleashed what was the most heinous barbarism known in history, as well as promoters of ideas like Malcolm X, who at one time advocated formal Black and White racial separation etc."
Abstract This paper will seek to understand the new development of the "Axis of evil" that has been coined by the new President Bush. By understanding the competing views on this very serious political statement, we can understand the Party platforms that are being created in the disagreement on the how to view the Middle Eastern world. By showing the definite problems with this 'axis', we can understand how power plays a large part into the domination that the United States seeks in the oil industry, and can largely be defined though this medium.
Abstract This paper proposes that Internet addiction, or Internet Dependence/Abuse Disorder, is a new DMS-IV, Axis I mental disorder. The paper cites symptoms of the proposed disorder which are symptomatic criteria for Internet Addiction.
From the Paper "The proposed DSM-IV disorder to be discussed in this report is Internet Addiction or Internet Dependence Abuse Disorder. Symptoms of this proposed disorder include tolerance or a need for markedly increased amounts for time spent online to gain the same satisfaction, withdrawal or anxiety, psychomotor agitation, excessive thinking about what is happening on line when not on the Internet and craving or accessing the Internet more often or for longer periods of time than was intended. Other objective symptoms include unsuccessful attempts..."
Tags: Internet addiction, Axis I, mental disorders
Abstract This paper explores the origins of evil symbols including the pentagram, the eye (the evil eye, the third eye), the horns, the cross, the ankh, the number "6" and the snake. It investigates the reason why these common symbols have become associated with evil in today's society. The paper includes many high quality images of the symbols.
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
The History of Evil Symbols
The Eye, The Evil Eye, The Third Eye
Horns
The Cross
666
The Snake, The Serpent
From the Paper "There are many symbols commonly found in art, architecture, and literature which are associated with evil. These symbols have come to denote evil or are used to add evil meaning to otherwise ordinary things, yet the true origin of such symbols is historically not linked to evil at all."
Abstract This paper explains that the problem of evil comes from the belief that a perfectly good God would not let evil exist in the world and that an omniscient and omnipotent God should be able to arrange the world according to his intentions. It argues that since evil clearly exists, it would seem that an imaginary God intends it to exist - such a God is not perfectly good; is not omniscient enough to predict all evil and suffering, or is not omnipotent enough to arrange the world entirely as he intends so as to avoid evil and suffering.
From the Paper "The argument basically says; if God exist, and is all powerful, all good, and all knowing, then there cant be evil, but there is evil, therefore an all powerful, all good, and all knowing God doesn't exist. But it is logically impossible to believe that both evil, and an all good and all powerful God exist in the same reality, because such a God without doubt could and would destroy evil."
Abstract This paper looks at the problem of evil as described in three religions: Buddhism, Christianity and Judaism. It introduces the concept of Karma and discusses evil as an essential component of the human condition, a part in the universal conflict between good and evil and the result or punishment of justice. The paper concludes that a Judeo-Christian description of evil is the most preferable.
From the Paper "Centuries before the establishment of modern religion, the problem of evil already plagued humanity. Early philosophers discussed its defining characteristics at length. Socrates, who roamed the Greek city-state of Athens nearly 400 years before Christ's birth, claimed that good and evil could only be distinguished through self-knowledge (Davis, 2000, sec. The Good). However, it seems that this discovery was no easy task; over 2000 years later, theologians continue to debate the problem of evil. At the core of this debate is a struggle to discover the essence of evil and to describe this essence in a way that will force humanity to confront and to judge its own actions. For Socrates, this confrontation took the form of knowledge. The world's theologians, however, sought to define the problem in more concrete ways. "
Abstract The purpose of this paper is to introduce and discuss good versus evil in two works, ?Young Goodman Brown,? by Nathaniel Hawthorne, and ?Hamlet,? by William Shakespeare. The paper breaks down both works and discusses the conflict between good and evil in both works. The author concludes that despite the struggles between the characters in both stories and how evil seems to triumph over good in both stories.
From the Paper "There are many contrasts in Hamlet. There is the good in Hamlet that turns to evil when he seeks revenge. His mother loved his father, but is turned by greed and ambition into a schemer who marries when the old king is barely in his grave. Ophelia is a good woman, but Hamlet tells her he does not love her, and she should go to a nunnery. Yet, after he finds out about her death, he raves that he loved her. Shakespeare loves to use plot twists and contrast to set up the endings of his tragic plays, and Hamlet is probably one of the best examples of the darkness of these twists and turns
Abstract This paper discusses the forces of good and evil and how man's character and nature is influenced by both childhood experiences and genetic composition. While in my personal opinion, a person's nature is dependent on his upbringing, some scientists maintain that there may be some genetic connection which urges a man to indulge in evil acts.
Abstract This paper supports Mackie's position that the traditional Judeo/Christian/Muslim God cannot possibly exist given the evidence of the existence of evil, since God is omnipotent, omniscient and most importantly, Good. The writer maintains that if God did exist and was as described, then evil could not possibly exist because God would do everything - could, in fact - to prevent it, yet evil abounds.
From the Paper "The question of whether or not God, in the Judeo-Christian and Islamic tradition, exists is as old as the religions themselves, and has been answered many times in many different ways. God is said to be omniscient and omnipotent, yet Evil still exists in the world. According to J.L. Mackie and other philosophers, this trilemma is irreconcilable, and therefore God must not exist. It is the writer's argument that Evil does exist, therefore God cannot exist if the statements regarding the power and knowledge of God are true. It is important to establish meanings of the words God and Evil for the purposes of this discussion. The definition of God given by the American Heritage Dictionary will suffice: "a. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions"."
Abstract This paper is an analysis of Shakespeare's play "Macbeth." "Macbeth" is the study of an honorable man and the savior of his country, falling through the turmoil of evil and corruption and ultimately becoming an unnatural man, isolated from his kinsmen, and meeting his inevitable demise. It deals with the effects of evil in "Macbeth" on four different levels of destruction: that of the fallen man, that of his family, that of the state and that of the physical universe.
From the Paper "Often in literature, the forces of evil play a major part in the downfall of the protagonist. As Lennox expresses to Macbeth: "The night has been unruly: where we lay,/ Our chimneys were blown down, and, as they say,/ Lamentings heard i"th"air", strange screams of death,/ And prophesying with accents terrible/ Of dire combustion and confused events/ New hatched to th? woeful time.? (Shakespeare 2.3 54-59) Ironically, he was telling of the horrors from the night before, when King Duncan was slain in his bed, while in actuality Macbeth had done the slaying. Shakespeare's play Macbeth is a ?complex study of evil and its corrupting influence on humanity.? (Richards, 236) It is also the study of an honorable man and the savior of his country, falling through the turmoil of evil and corruption and ultimately becoming an unnatural man, isolated from his kinsmen, and meeting his inevitable demise. The evil unleashed by Macbeth expands into even more evils that effect humanity on all four different levels of creation: that of the fallen man, that of his family, his state, and of the physical universe."
Abstract Nietzsche is known for his viewpoints on good and evil philosophy. This paper discusses the difference between good and evil. Nietzsche is known for the values that continue to affect us today.
Abstract The following paper considers good and evil as they appear in William Shakespeare's "The Tragedy of Macbeth" and Christopher Marlowe's "The Tragical History of Doctor Faustus". The present study examines good and evil in both the conceptual form and what could well be termed its objective correlative; how each are embodied within the plays.
This paper recounts the different treatments given by the renown Christian mystic, Meister Eckhart, on the problem of the existence of evil in our world.
Abstract By looking at primary sources written by Meister Eckhart and translated from High German, this paper explains that students can see the differences and similarities between the treatment given to evil by today's scholars and those given by contemporaries of Eckhart. It shows that, by looking at the journal writings of some of today's finest theologians, we can contrast the two viewpoints on the eternal mystery of evil.
From the Paper "The problem of evil has been explored by thousands of theologians the world over. How can the existence of a God, possessing infinite wisdom and infinite power, be reconciled with the existence of evil in the world? The origins and evolution of that question is the subject of this discussion, specifically as the question is dealt with by one of the most influential Christian mystics, Meister Eckhart. Eckhart's own teachings on this subject will be compared to the later thought of prominent theodicy scholars like Alfred North Whitehead and John Hick, whose own works have influenced the academic community's study of the problem of evil. To understand the correlation between the two is to understand just how far Christianity has come on the issue of God's benevolence, omnipotence, and immanence."
Abstract In this essay on theological philosophy, two of the fine philosophers of old are invoked in order to ponder and define just what evil is. The early Christian thinker, Saint Augustine, is used via his masterpiece "City of God". The seventeenth century philosopher, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, is also used, by way of his "Discourse on Metaphysics". Their ideas of evil (and good) are compared and contrasted.
From the Paper "The battle of good and evil: this is a question for the ages. Throughout the annals of philosophy and theology, from Christian-based works and in works from centuries before Christ's followers entered the philosophical and theological fray, the argument of just what such metaphysical, hard-to-grasp ideas such as good and evil are has been at these studies' forefront. What exactly defines true goodness? And thus, what exactly demonstrates or causes pure evil, good's supposed opposite? This quest to define and pinpoint precisely what evil is and why it occurs is the focus of much of the writings of two noted philosophers of the past millennium."
Abstract This paper compares the differing interpretations of good and evil in the texts of Frankenstein and Dracula. The paper argues that within the framework of the Victorian era and the emergence of science, the novels take opposing positions regarding the role of science in society and how evil tends to manage itself in the emerging world order.
From the Paper "Bram Stoker's "Dracula" and Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein" offer contrasting interpretations of what the nature of good and evil are in the world. To Stoker, the question of good and evil fundamentally hinges upon female sexuality; from the perspective of late Victorian England, the battleground between ancient demons and the divine new frontier was the particular role that women played in society. To Shelley, on the other hand, good and evil are more complex matters. Although both authors seem to believe that the possibility for evil resides in all of us, Shelley sees evil as being more elementally linked to selfish pursuits of knowledge and science. So, both books supply a different answer to the question, "What may not be expected in a country of eternal light?" (Shelley 6)."
