Is it better to be unimportant than to be evil?

What do you think?

you know that.. let say you were taught that as a child...or through religion.. or through nature... then you can be interconnected. And that is where it is at. The only way to fly.

on extinguished self is where it's at.

Stage and film actors can play evil in a role. But even then it can be done with great subtlety. Not many are absolutely, 100% evil. Most have at least one redeeming quality.

I'm thinking of, for example, David Bowie's role in THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST. Hardly a good guy but by no means completely evil. A delicious existential vibe ripples through his speech and across his face.

I invoke Walt Whitman here: "I believe a leaf of grass is no less than the journeywork of the stars."

my guess is that such questions are irrelevant

traditional ways.

The Western alliances of Buddhist groups see an "engaged Buddhism," one in which dissolution into nothingness is less the point than conscionable assistance toward compassion.

The question is always relevant.

I guess I'm not bright enough to understand the relevance of being "unimportant" vs. "evil"

of course one wouldn't normally aspire to be evil IMO

and we are all unimportant in the scheme of things, only to ourselves and those we love and care about are we important.

Noteriety doesn't equal importance.

I suppose that GWB might be considered important. He might also be considered evil.

If he were unimportant, would he not be evil? He might not have the opportunities to spread his evil ways and kill and mame others through his proxy. But he could easily still be evil in his ideas and in smaller deeds.

so the relevance is not understood by this unimportant person

I think Power does corrupt, and that sometimes people can be corrupt already and seek Power to validate their self-important corruption. (ie Condi Rice)

I don't believe in evil as an absolute force, only as a consideration in degree of collapsed character. Even in plays and films and novels there are almost no truly, purely, 100% evil people.

There is Roger in Golding's LORD OF THE FLIES. He might be the closest to 100% evil there is. All the others have that redemptive element. Sometimes it is even markedly vital to understanding everyone else in the story. Even Blofelt -- the psychotic S.P.E.C.T.R.E. agent in several James Bond tales -- turns in an abusive man who has done genuine harm.

I have greater affinity with the unimportant than with the evil, or famously evil. 'Bet you do, too. Emily Dickinson's "I'm nobody; Who are you?" comes to mind.

The people whose versions of reality I trust most are in her 'Who are you' question.

Just because someone won't be in the history books doesn't mean they didn't matter to a lot of people. You can flip burgers your entire life and still have a huge effect on so many. That's not "unimportant" at all.

Secondly, it is better. Your question is like asking whether it is better to just live your life or to do something terrible or stupid just to get on TV. I think the right answer is obvious.

I have never been important and I don't care.

is something else, ie. long term outcomes, statistical outcomes et cetera that mean it is better to be unimportant than evil.

Unimportant isn't a really good adjective, though. Even the unimportant are important if you follow me. (Or they don't exist if you want to move the definitions around until we are using the same one twice rather than 2 different ones)

Hell, than serve in Heaven."

Within our our culture, the social systems that we have developed, dictate what is right and wrong but again that differs from culture to culture.

edit for spelling