Evil and tragic hero

This entry is originally posted on today20’s blog. With her permission, I bring it here, including the comments, so anyone interested in this topic can say something.

today20: Letter from a former professor of philosophy. God, I have never learned decently any kind of philosophy.

I’m curious what Vietnamese think about “evil”. Do you have such a word or concept parallel to our western concept?

The roots of our word/concept in western languages lie in our Christian tradition. So it’s not clear to me whether and what it might mean in the absence of that tradition.

We tend to apply evil to the “intentions” of actions as opposed to the disadvantageous (bad) consequences that may or may not result from certain choices. So for instance, the concept of evil evolved in the Christian tradition around the time we started thinking and talking about the “will” and the “inner” springs of human action and behavior. Traditionally, an early Christian differentiated him or herself from their Jewish (or pagan) brethren in that it was sufficient for the latter to obey the laws in order to be pious whereas a Christian must do more … he or she must also “want” or “will” to do good in order to truly fulfill the law.

The Greek and Roman tradition (pagan) had no concept of the “will”. Actions were determined by “reason” vying against the passions; and a bad outcome was attributable to an irrational “calculation” of the costs/benefits of the consequences. No separate “inner” or mental faculty of the will. Which is why tragedy as a literary form was born and thrived in Greece (and died under the intellectual conditions of Christianity) because actions, no matter how rationally chosen and ordered, could still inevitably lead to bad consequences because what matters is not the inner intention of the actor but the external unpredictability of making choices in a pluralistic world involving other free agents capable and liable to react. There could be no concept of a “good man” in the Christian sense in Greece (good totally apart from his efficacy in the world); nor could there be a concept of a tragic hero in the Christian era.

The Jewish commandment not to commit adultery is replaced in the Christian tradition by not “coveting” thy neighbor’s wife. A Jew is pious simply by restraining himself and obeying the commandments of his faith regardless or even against his inner impulses; a Christian is only truly pious and “good” if he is pure in his will “inside” as well. According to Jesus, this was a radicalization of the Jewish law … “I come not to break the law but to fulfill it.”

It was only once this “inner realm” of the “will” was opened up for inspection (by St. Augustine) that the idea of evil emerges in our tradition. It was applied to the will and the inner intentions of man not simply to the “bad” outcome of his choices. Without the whole metaphysical and theological apparatus of Christianity behind it, I’m wondering if it’s possible (natural from an anthropological point of view) to still have a concept of evil?

The most articulate and intriguing answer in the west to this question is Nietzsche. Generally a pretty inaccessible writer because he wrote in aphorisms and assumes a significant degree of familiarity with the entire western tradition of philosophy and theology in order to read. (He also was clinically insane most of his active life). But two of his most easily readable books address this issue: “Beyond Good and Evil” and The Genealogy of Morals”. Have these or any other of his works been translated into Vietnamese? Arendt’s “banality of evil” lies squarely in this Nietzschean tradition and its attack on Christian values.

Does Vietnamese have anything like the concept of a tragic hero?

Linh:

Well, of course, I’m not a student of philosophy so I don’t know much about the terminology of evil, will, etc.
But I think that professor understands “evil” and “will” completely in their religious meanings. In their religious meanings, “evil” things are whatever you did in contrary to the law or the will of God (or gods). But I think that concept is not purely a Christian concept. In our language, “evil” things are the things done in contrary to the accepted moral law of the community. We call it evil. And in fact, though the moral law in Western countries has deep roots in Christian tradition, I think in general meanings, “evil”implies things done, which violated the accepted morality. And generally, what people did count, not their inner intentions.
In Confucian tradition, I suppose there are two kinds of evils. The first kind is committed by the wicked people (tiểu nhân) though they can be prevented by the law and by imitating the good ones. The second kind of evils is committed by the “good people” (quân tử) if they are careless. So, in the Confucian philosophy, people are entitled with free will, much more than in the Christian tradition, where free will is predetermined by the law of God- which seems contradictory to me.

I also disagree with his ideas about tragic hero and will. Aristotle defined tragedy as a form of art involving the hero’s change of fortune. And he mentioned that “The change to bad fortune which he undergoes in not due to any moral defect or flaw, but a mistake of some kind." (wikipedia entry of tragedy). So, it’s clear that the “inner” faculty of the will is what drives the heroes to their bad fortunes. It’s true that in Greek tragedies, human fates are often driven by the will of God, regardless what they did or think. But they still have certain choices and indeed, it’s their choices that make them more tragic and more human. Prometheus declined Zeus’s offer is a choice. Achilles killing Hector is fate but returning his body to Priam is a choice. Oedipus killed his father is a fate but noone asked him how to punished himself as he did by his force of will. I also disagree with this sentence “nor could there be a concept of a tragic hero in the Christian era.”. How about Hamlet, King Lear? Aren’t they tragic hero? Or the concept of evils. Ajax Minor is “evil” when he violated God’s law and so is Orestes, in the same religious manner as some Christians being evil when they violate God’s law.

For some of his questions, there are several works of Nietzsche having be
en translated, most notably “Thus spoke Zarathustra”. I don’t think the two aforementioned were translated.
For the last question, I don’t think we have kind of tragic heroes in our Confucian tradition. It’s because of the old beliefs that if you do good things, you will enjoy luck and happiness. I think this belief is derived from both Buddhist theology on cause-and-effect (nhân quả) and by Confucius teaching that men should strive to perfection and goodness in whatever situations.

Nam: I've never heard of "tragic hero" and I don't really understand this concept, but was Tống Tương Công a tragic hero ? what about hara-kiri people in Japan, are they tragic heroes ?. Anyway, either if they are (in Christian or Western view) we probably don't have the concept.


Linh: Tống Tương Công is a comic figure, not a tragic hero. Everybody ridicules his actions.
I think in some sense, Kinh Kha and Cao Tiệm Ly are two tragic heroes.
The closest one to a tragic hero in Vietnamese tradition perhaps is Quan Âm Thị Kính. No matter what she tried with good intentions, she was always misunderstood and got bad consequences. However, this fact is unbearable in our traditional thinking so she is still eventually rewarded by nirvana- which proves that in our traditional concept, there's no place for a tragic hero, who's got a reversal of fortune regardless of his qualities or actions.