Cormac McCarthy on the Origin of Evil 

All The Pretty Horses is a great follow up. McCarthy write is concurrently with Blood Meridian and many of the core themes are present in both explored from a different angle.

I've read/heard No Country for Old Men. Incredible book. Felt like the book was really an inquiry into human values. How values change over time and why good values must be transmitted because indeed values make us fulfilled humans. As the title suggests it's no country for old men because the old men feel that values have changed too much. I tried hearing Blood Meridian, but couldn' finish it. Just wanted to ask, it's about violence and America, in that it's supposed to show a core of American Identity, which cannot be separated from dominance and violence. Your thoughts on the book and it's core theme?

@@ilinkthereforeiam it was incredible. It’s kind of hard to completely put it into words. It’s got a lot of deep elements and themes. After my first listening to it. I watched a five hour breakdown on it and then watched about two hours of Yale College lectures on it. It is considered one of the absoluteAmerican literature classics. I don’t have to tell you that. I definitely can see that some of the core themes and elements of the story have to do with mindless violence, particularly the real world history of the west in 1849. I better understood it when I looked into that era of America. Probably at first, the main reason why I wanted to read the book and who is now become probably one of the most fascinating characters in all of literature is the Judge. Just imagining such a character and just how insane he is by our standards, but in his own mind, just how he sees the world there’s so much nuance and mystery around him. You don’t know if he’s really even a human or if he’s the embodiment of evil or the devil himself. So very fascinating I think him believing that the world and all of humanity is only existing because, and for war and violence, he submits himself fully and thrives in this so-called world of only war. I would almost say that he is a God of war. You should definitely try to finish it. It is definitely worth completing.

I would agree that language as cultivated by human culture is a tool and that we can manipulate it consciously, but it being an internalized tool it is also influenced and used by an unconscious force that is itself influenced both consciously and unconsciously by external and internal stimuli and makes it more than just a tool. Though it’s not something I fully understand presently. I would be looking into the essay. Thanks for sharing.🤙

100% - Love that series! Haven't read it in seven or so years though, so a lot of it is fuzzy for making content!

I think this is actually really interesting comment. From my reading of McCarthy he vacillates between the “light and darkness”. I have found his work to be mostly pessimistic, but with a little sliver of optimism sometimes peeking through. Now in relation to the claim that is made by John 1:1-5 I think that McCarthy would agree that from a phenomenological or species state perspective that these verses are absolutely true. In other words I believe McCarthy believes the world as humans perceive it is wholly created by symbolic relations (I.e. language, I.e. “The Word”). I think that this claim can be somewhat founded in the margin notes of Whales and Men in which he speaks about his agreement with the Garden of Eden expulsion story due to man eating of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (Ian has a great video on this topic called Cormac McCarthy on Language and God). Humanity whenever it was given the ability to reason symbolically was then able to sin (I.e. be evil) Now, all of that can be believed by anyone, without believing in the other religious dogma implied in the passage (which I do happen to believe as I am christian). McCarthy here agrees with the nature of man as described by Christianity; however, he is skeptical of two main things: the tangibility of God, and the actual utility of language. Now both of these points can be grouped together because the utility of language should be to “find the truth” (God), but this to McCarthy seems to be a fools errand due to the issue of inevitable Simulacra due to the loss of the relative immediacy of the non-symbolic species states of all other species of creatures. On this point I wholly disagree with McCarthy (if I’m interpreting him correctly) but I think to write someone off for having a different perspective is even more foolish. I disagree with Nietzsche and Kierkegaard on most things but that doesn’t mean that they aren’t HUGELY important to my thought. You can only know something truly if it has been through the furnace of opposition. (Imma edit this Tomorrow, I’m writing it at 1:00 and I sleepy and don’t want to edit it.)

@edwardspiezio9793 , Thanks so much for your thoughtful reply. A little sleepy myself, I will retire with your profound commentary to ponder. A Christian myself, I was trying to frame my thoughts in the form of a question so as to avoid potentially offensive dogmatism, which you seem to have picked up on. We can communicate charitably, thanks to the Word. God bless.

I'm coming back today! Traveling across the country right now.

No, trying to get it going! I'm stacking content though. Have 3+ hours done. Traveling across the country right now! But, when it does launch, you'll be the first person I approvel lol

@@WriteConscious I am pleased to note you have understood and willingly acknowledge my stature and importance.