Our Arts Editor has some objections to Mr. Brodsky’s viewpoints.
OK, where to start?
In his commencement address, Brodsky seems to infer that:
- One’s self is wholly good, and one’s own opinions and attitudes are, of course, correct and right.
- Since I am wholly good, my “enemy” must, by definition, be evil, and (therefore??) all his opinions are wrong.
- If my enemy seems good or right in any respect, then we can assume he’s just faking.
WTF? Is Brodsky so full of hubris that he can’t conceive of a situation where he might be wrong, or his motives might not be totally pure? If I’m reading him correctly, he seems to be saying that you need to continually assess your opinions, and that if you see that your “enemy” agrees with you on any point, you need to either change your opinion, or find out why he’s lying about agreeing with you. Apparently, Brodsky’s world is painted in such a chiaroscuro of black and white that there’s no room for people to be neutral. If you’re not for good, you must be evil.
Just because someone is an extreme individualist does not mean he is, by definition, good. It just means he doesn’t give a rip what the larger community thinks of him. That can be good. That can be extremely bad. I’d say more likely than not, serial murderers are a very individualistic lot, just to give one example.
In my observation, people in large groups tend to settle for a middle ground: gravitating to those opinions that most of the group agrees to believe are correct. Some dissenters are pushed out of the group if their dissent is too forceful. Some fanatics in the group make it their mission to prove that their beliefs are right and all others are wrong. But the vast majority of the group’s members really don’t much care about abstract ideology; they’re just trying to live their lives as comfortably as they can manage, and being part of a herd is generally safer than being alone, even if being a part of the herd requires one to espouse certain beliefs.
I would assert that there’s no such thing as good and evil, at least in the sense that Brodsky seems to be using the terms. Yes, some creatures are mean. They do unpleasant things to other creatures, sometimes just because it makes them feel good to do so, or purely for their own gain. And some creatures are kind. They strive to make the lives of other creatures more comfortable, simply because that’s the best way for everyone to live.
But most creatures are neutral. They’re just trying to eat, sleep and reproduce in the easiest way they can find. If that means living in a herd where there are certain rules, then maybe complying with the rules of the herd and espousing the beliefs of the herd is an acceptable price for gaining the security of living in a herd. And when the rules of the herd become too burdensome, the creature may choose another herd, or no herd at all. That’s not good. That’s not evil. That’s just the way it is.
I wonder if Mr. Brodsky would have distinguished between evil institutions and serial killers on a quantitative or qualitative basis.
