Proving Good and Evil by Any Means Necessary

One of my favorite conversations to engage in is the philosophical debate focused on whether Man (capital M, i.e., human beings as a single entity) is inherently good or inherently evil. Often, from this one question, a person's entire worldview can be elucidated. Such an immense, metaphysical notion does wonders to shed light on one's most intimate thoughts and can often prove useful in predicting their future reactions/actions to external stimuli. It all depends on what shade of grey that light happens to be. Personally, I'm illuminated by a darker lamp. My mother, conversely, basks in as close to unfiltered, white light as I've encountered.

This color spectrum, of course, can be directly correlated with how optimistic/idealistic/hopeful/just a person is—the lighter greys to white light—or how pessimistic/dystopic/cynical/unjust a person is—the darker greys to black light. This color palette has been used to great affect—and, unfortunately, to great cliché—in all sorts of media. Westerns are especially fond of this symbolism, i.e., the morally upstanding Sheriff dressed in white and the lawless villain dressed in black. Because of this cliché, the direct color correlation has oft been switched, where the man-in-black is actually the hero—most usually an antihero who, while morally justified, lives by his own code rather than society's—and the man-in-white is the villain. Within single media properties, characters have been known to switch color-correlations to reflect the growth of a character, whether it be from light to dark or dark to light. Most notably, we first see Luke Skywalker dressed in white, optimistic, idealistic, ignorant of the dark side, but last see Luke dressed completely in black. It's not that he's turned to the dark side, but rather that he recognizes the dark side as a part of him (his father) and a part of the world around him. By embracing that knowledge, he's ultimately able to shield himself from it.

All of this good/evil, light/dark, order/chaos talk is meant as a primer for the actual topic of this post. And that, readers, is the sixth and final season of the anomalous hour-long genre series, LOST.

POSSIBLE—nay, PROBABLE—SPOILERS BELOW

Last night, the episode "Ab Aeterno" aired. Within it, its audience was privy to a heap of (probable) confirmations that (for the most part) did not lead to another, larger heap of new questions. If you've seen even a single episode of LOST, you'll know how odd an experience that is. The most global (probable) confirmation is that of The Island's purpose and the subsequent purposes of The Island's most tenured residents, Jacob and the man-in-black, who I will forthwith refer to as Seth.

We learned last night that The Island, as described by Jacob, is akin to a cork in a wine bottle: it is the barrier between our world—the one in which we live, fight, fuck, and do laundry—and a force of evil/chaos. The Island, for all intents and purposes, sounds very much like a kind of Pandora's Box. Since Pandora's Box was never really a box at all, but a jar, it is unlikely that LOST's braintrust represented The Island as a vessel more akin to a traditional jar in Jacob's metaphor unwittingly.

The Island's keeper and protector, Jacob, is furthermore revealed to be—as his clothing indicates—of the side of light. And it is Jacob who is engaged in a seemingly timeless wager with Seth over the very nature of Man. Whether we are inherently good or inherently evil. While Jacob attempts to prove to Seth that Man is inherently good—that, when given absolute free will of choice, Man will do good for his fellow Man—Seth attempts to prove that Man will do evil/create chaos/do good only for himself. And while Seth is a captive of The Island, apparently representative/incarnate of the very evil/chaos that The Island is meant to block, Jacob is able to bring people to The Island in order to be the very test subjects upon which Jacob and Seth try their antithetic theories.

It is this point that I wish to delve into. LOST is about a lot. But, most importantly, it is a show about choice (and the lack thereof). Jacob states that, while on The Island, he will not interfere with his candidates' free will of choice. And it is to be inferred that since Seth can not kill any of the candidates outright, he, also, can not interfere with their free will of choice. Those are the rules as I've gleaned them from the series up to this point. In other words, Jacob will not/can not tell his candidates (his word, by the way, for those who are most likely to prove that Man is inherently good or, rather, those who are most worthy of being tested) exactly why they are on The Island. Exactly what is going on. Seth, as well, can not (even though he, much more than Jacob, would like to).

But it's in the minutiae that the most interesting dynamic exists. It's the subtle nudges toward the light or dark that Jacob and Seth both use to influence the candidates. The slight bending of the rules, if you will. Instead of an explicit fork in the road, Jacob and Seth are both able to act as pebbles atop the asphalt causing only the slightest of course corrections that are then able to increase with time. Most often, Jacob uses his power of influence on the course of his candidates' lives to get them on The Island in the first place (or, in some cases, second place). He provides Sawyer the catalyst which ignites his life-long vendetta. He removes hope from Sayid's vocabulary in order to then allow him the free will of choice with which to choose hope. He saves John Locke, conversely providing him with hope, in order to bring him to The Island so John Locke can choose for himself just what type of man he is.

But are not these manipulations inherently perverse? Is fueling a child's rage and thereby directing the very path of his life any less evil than lying to a man's face in order to convince him to do what you desire? Shades of grey. Light and dark, good and evil, order and chaos overlap far more often than is generally recognized. Does committing an act of evil, no matter how small, in order to eventually achieve an act of good, no matter how large, make that original act of evil any less evil? Conversely, does committing an act of good in order to lead someone toward an act of evil make that original act of good any less good?

These are the questions LOST is asking with Jacob and Seth. It's these answers that I'm most eager for; it's with these answers that the series will then be painted. It's the rubric with which the shade of grey will be chosen.

My answers to the questions above? Acts of evil are necessary to prove acts of good; for without evil, by what would we measure good? Those acts, however, are no less evil. They are not to be absolved due to their result. That much is, in fact, black and white. For just as we could not have good without evil, we can not have grey without its parents, black and white.

Comments

[loquaciousmuse]

I wish you'd named the Man In Black Edward.... ;)

But really, great post! Keep em coming!

[MOMMA]

THANK YOU... I have learned mostly from mistakes in my life & have lived in the "gray" (& darker) most of my life. I strive to live in the "light" as my mind has gained wisdom from just living the experience. So what you say about the dark side, heartache, hard times, makes us appreciate the good. To this day, I am deeply disappointed by the cruel reactions of people in general. I hope to keep passing on the "good" to my children, as my mother did. I pray from you & your sister always. Love is what truly matters.
A TRUE COMPLIMENT, my son...

[MOMMA]

By the way... AWESOME LOST!!!!!!!!!!!!!