Psychological Disorders and Janus

[Hadriel]

I know, I know.  I was trying to make a question out of the information, the question being: Why do some people pity and try to help one being, but denigrate another with the same set of circumstances?  It happens with depressing frequency in real life.

Perhaps it's because Janus likely has some kind of disorder, whereas Carth doesn't seem to.  He certainly doesn't match any catalogued symptoms of AS.  And yet in real life, oftentimes people just look at you and say "deal with it" no matter how horrible the circumstances are.  To me, such an attitude is a clear indicator of a lack of empathy and sensitivity to others.  Crying over spilt milk is one thing -- being depressed because your former mentor murdered your world, your wife, and most of your friends is something else.  Some might say that Janus dealt with the fall of Zeal, but he didn't.  Becoming an evil warrior magus and trying to destroy the western half of the planet is not dealing with it.  To do as Carth did, to just "keep on keepin' on" isn't exactly dealing with it, either, but it's not antisocial.

[Leebot]

People are, by and large, stupid (not to mention greedy, shallow, shortsighted...). If someone's been through hell and turns evil, they're cool (unless of course this is reality   ). If someone's been through hell and gets a little depressed, they're a pansy. The world's general view is that if you've been through hell, "I'm glad it's not me, now shut up about it."

Times like this I'm glad I'm not human...

<_<
>_>
What?

[Hadriel]

I can think of a few notable people in history who fit that same "go through hell, turn evil" pattern.  Adolf Hitler comes to mind.  I could list many more examples, but it's hard to top Hitler.  

I think it's also possible that Hitler suffered from some sort of mental disorder, though nothing I know of fits his behavioral patterns and war tactics other than the charisma and oratory skill he used to take over Germany.  But he was irrational in terms of his tactics -- he was a brilliant politician, but he couldn't conduct a war if he tried, except by sheer force of numbers and delegation of tasks to generals.  This is quite similar to Janus' apparent tactics -- he mostly foists military tasks on Ozzie.  Of course, he doesn't really care about the war, which is remarkable considering how well he manages to execute it.  As much as Janus wanted revenge on Lavos, however, I think even he would cringe or be angered at Hitler's atrocities.  I don't know anyone that honestly thinks Hitler is anyone to look up to, and if I do, they aren't stupid enough to say it around massive me.

It seems like the dividing line between Janus and Hitler is that Janus is driven by an entirely different goal than that which he sets forth to the public -- the recovery of his sister and revenge against the patently evil Lavos.  On the other hand, Hitler apparently believed he was doing God's work in eradicating the Jews.  The history between him and his church, the Catholic Church, is rather interesting.  Hitler actually conspired with the Church against German Jews in the 1930s to gain a majority vote in the Reichstag, the German parliamentary body.  But later on, Hitler went on record stating that religion had to be removed for humanity to make progress.  Perhaps he thought he was God.  Perhaps not.  Either way, Janus isn't that downright stupid.  But Janus did believe in what he was doing, and yet he met failure at the end as well -- he was humiliated by Lavos in the Ocean Palace.  They met roughly the same end to their quest, with the exception of Janus not quite dying.  But it's interesting to see the slight differences in one's path that arise from motive, and it is in turn fascinating to trace that motive to its origins.  Whatever disorder Janus had may have saved his life, and the history of the world with it, when he adopted new methods after the Ocean Palace debacle.

But, as far as public perception goes, barely anyone likes Hitler, while Janus is the most popular character in CT.  I suppose that's the "glad it's not me, now shut up" complex kicking in.

[Leebot]

Well, that goes back to my comment about "unless of course this is reality." An evil character in a video game may be cool (Sephiroth and Magus are prime examples), but an evil person in reality is just evil. Go figure.

[Radical_Dreamer]

I'd argue that Magus isn't evil at all. Machavellian, but not evil. He has a noble goal, but isn't concerned about how it gets accomplished. For the most part, he doesn't seem to seek out evil to cause, just vengance against Lavos, which is a fine goal.

[Swordmaster]

That sounds more like negative utilitarianism than nihilism.

This is another interpretation.
If the being think that the current universal order does more quantitative harm than good, the destruction of the current order could be good act because it will prevent more harm and evil acts. But for this it need a calculus to measure the good and evil of acts.

[Leebot]

Actually, that's simple, extreme utilitarianism. Here's a comparison:

Utilitarianism: If there's more harm (unpleasantness) in the universe than good (pleasantness), get rid of it.

Negative Utilitarianism: If there's harm in the universe, get rid of it.

[Hadriel]

For all we know, Lavos could have wanted to destroy the universe and start over from scratch with a paradise in which none of the fear or hate he was plagued with existed.

[GreenGannon]

Hm...That's an interesting point. Worth considering...

[Swordmaster]

Actually, that's simple, extreme utilitarianism. Here's a comparison:

Utilitarianism: If there's more harm (unpleasantness) in the universe than good (pleasantness), get rid of it.

Negative Utilitarianism: If there's harm in the universe, get rid of it.

on my little knoledge this is:

Utilitarianism: Doing the greater Good prevent the harm. In this case still some hope for the universe.

Negative Utilitarianism: Preventing the harm or doing the lesser harm make the Good. Theres no hope: annihilate all.

In both case the being would need to know if  the result of the destruction of the universe will result in some thing of utility, welfare or pleasant than the original.

[Leebot]

Well, I've studied philosophy a lot, here's my brief explanations on the two:

Utilitarianism: The best action is that which does the most good and the least harm (taking both into account).

Negative Utilitarianism: The best action is that which does the least harm (not taking good into account).

[Hadriel]

Nihilism is consistently misused -- if Kato used it to describe Kid, then he's somewhat correct, but it would be more Lavos' hatred, sorrow, and insanity than that.  

Nihilism is best illustrated by someone taking actions based solely on their effect on that person, not taking any welfare of any other being into account.  It's best described in terms everybody can understand...

"WhatEVAH!  Ah do what ah want!" -- Eric Cartman

[Swordmaster]

The negative and positive Utilitarianism have this idea of pleasantness, harm and no harm.
So how could the destruction of the universe, and many lives or non-existence of life be considered  as doing less harm ?

[War]

I've just finished taking several courses on psychology and sociology. I hope any of this is helpful. All of this is verbatim from "Summary"s at the end of my textbooks chapters. I'm aiming for things that "suit his personality" more than picking the answer myself. You be the judge.

Narcissistic Personality Disorder: marked by an exagerrated sense of self importance, self centeredness, an exploitive attitude, and lack of empathy.

Obsessive Compulsive Disorder: persistant, recurring, involuntary thoughts (obsessions) or behaviors (compulsions), or both.

Major Depressive Disorder: refers to overwhelming feelings of sadness, despair, worthlessness, and hopelessness, and in extreme cases, suicide.

Dystymia: a milder form of depression than Major Depressive Disorder; none the less is chronic.

Disorganized Schizophrenia: is marked by extreme social withdrawel, hallucinations, delusions, and bizarre behavior.

My personal beleif: Janus decided when he was a kid that Lavos could not live. He became hellbent on revenge, like any child would have given those set of circumstances. I beleive if he had any of the above, it would be Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. He is so single minded on the slaying of Lavos, it fits the bill nicely. The other disorder spoken about in other posts sounds like a variation of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (no offense meant to those whom have it)

-War

[Leebot]

The negative and positive Utilitarianism have this idea of pleasantness, harm and no harm.
So how could the destruction of the universe, and many lives or non-existence of life be considered  as doing less harm ?

Painless destruction of life isn't considered harm (in the NU sense). Harm is seen as any pain or displeasure one experiences during life. Therefore, if all life were removed, all harm would be removed.