I think that we would all like to believe that good triumphs over evil; however, that sentiment is biased with optimism that is engrained within us, we are taught to persevere and to think of the good, not the bad. We think in a unidirectional, linear manner, but a line goes in two directions, and our thinking is flawed by our ignorance to the opposite direction by only recognizing one direction.
Personally, I would like to think that good triumphs over evil, but after reading the narrator's description of the evil that spontaneously manifested in Andrew Durant (and presumably people in real life), I am not so sure that I can do that anymore. I cannot even be certain that goodness has a chance against evil. I'll let you decide for yourself though, the narrator said, "It was a hatred directed against everything and everyone, including himself. He was not appalled by it; he regarded it with curiosity, and felt its intense and concentrated power. It was phenomenon, objective and subjective, a thing that was, disassociated from any human touch, unsoftened by shame. he recognized it as evil, and not actually part of his own personality; it was substantial and real as a stone, existing alone and undiffused, having its own intellect and directions," (Caldwell, 172). How can a human being who is inherently flawed compete against a coexisting entity that has no emotion, just direction, just a desire to destroy?
Looking back in history, the power struggle between good and evil is cyclical; evil overpowers what we perceive to be the good, but good eventually triumphs, or so we think. What if Caldwell's notion of evil is what evil truly is, something that does not exist within us, but something that exists with us? That would mean that the struggle between good and evil is not a struggle between men, but a struggle between man and something else. Because that something else is unbiased by human nature, it feels no need to win; instead, it acts independently of prior events to carry out its objective and act as the embodiment of malevolence.
With this said, when man and the goodness he represents triumphs over another man that he thinks represents evil, he is just triumphing over a man that was once aided by evil. This triumph then becomes a triumph of good over nothing, for there is no evil anymore, it has gone elsewhere. Evil cannot be beaten because it is unflawed, it can only be endured.
Personally, I would like to think that good triumphs over evil, but after reading the narrator's description of the evil that spontaneously manifested in Andrew Durant (and presumably people in real life), I am not so sure that I can do that anymore. I cannot even be certain that goodness has a chance against evil. I'll let you decide for yourself though, the narrator said, "It was a hatred directed against everything and everyone, including himself. He was not appalled by it; he regarded it with curiosity, and felt its intense and concentrated power. It was phenomenon, objective and subjective, a thing that was, disassociated from any human touch, unsoftened by shame. he recognized it as evil, and not actually part of his own personality; it was substantial and real as a stone, existing alone and undiffused, having its own intellect and directions," (Caldwell, 172). How can a human being who is inherently flawed compete against a coexisting entity that has no emotion, just direction, just a desire to destroy?
Looking back in history, the power struggle between good and evil is cyclical; evil overpowers what we perceive to be the good, but good eventually triumphs, or so we think. What if Caldwell's notion of evil is what evil truly is, something that does not exist within us, but something that exists with us? That would mean that the struggle between good and evil is not a struggle between men, but a struggle between man and something else. Because that something else is unbiased by human nature, it feels no need to win; instead, it acts independently of prior events to carry out its objective and act as the embodiment of malevolence.
With this said, when man and the goodness he represents triumphs over another man that he thinks represents evil, he is just triumphing over a man that was once aided by evil. This triumph then becomes a triumph of good over nothing, for there is no evil anymore, it has gone elsewhere. Evil cannot be beaten because it is unflawed, it can only be endured.