Was Cole Evil?

[ljones]

I don't know whether we are, as ljones would have us believe, that good and evil are natural to all sentient beings. I am skeptical of her claim, given the lack of evidence in its favor.

Are you kidding me?


You know what? Forget it. This is the main problem about this show. It allows many humans to wallow in the illusion that good and evil can be separate within all sentient beings. No wonder, as a species, we have never really developed emotionally. I'm sorry, but I find such beliefs . . . forget it. I'm just too disgusted beyond words to continue this discussion.

By the way, Vandergraaftk, you're entitled to your opinions about BUFFY and ANGEL. Although, I'm quite amazed that you consider the characters on both shows to be one-dimensional in compare to the characters on CHARMED. I find this opinion to be quite laughable. In fact, I suspect that many TV viewers would share my opinion. But you're entitled to it.

I don't know. I just find this narrow view of morality both on the show and amongst its fans to be rather sad.

That's it.

[vandergraafk]

Trap sprung, trap entered, quarry ensnared.

Now, for the rest of you who actually read beyond the headlines and the first few sentences of a posting and give it some thought before outright rejection, please read the posting in its entirety, reflect upon it and provide some feedback. It is a re-interpretation that I'm trying out and would like to hear some critical comments on. I've tried to answer Elder's query about the struggle between Cole and Belthazor by providing a motive, and I've tried to assess this notion of duality.

And, by the way, I do not consider myself "entitled" to an opinion about Angel or Buffy. I have my initial reactions, ones that I've not tested by making direct comparisons among the shows in order to arrive at a more informed opinion, but ones reinforced by occasional, but repeated viewings of Angel. (I can't abide Buffy the series at all!) Nor am I interested in counting heads. Can 25% of the American public be so misinformed about Iraq and Bush as to praise this ill-advised, morally disgusting misadventure? Indeed, after reading the Physics of the Buffyverse, I am more persuaded that the science in Angel and Buffy vastly exceeds that in Charmed. Does that make me a Charmed hater?

As you perhaps have suspected, I am an empiricist rather than an ideologue. And, even when I was inclined to ideology, I was open to empirical evidence favorable and unfavorable and have altered opinions as need be. Would that we were all so inclined!

However, pronouncements such as the above do not make the analysis any less difficult. For example, I choose to reject the idea that Belthazor/Cole was a priori evil because I find it difficult to reconcile such a position with the empirical evidence from Season 3. At the same time, I reject ascribing to the Charmed Ones any characterization which asserts that they are inherently good. By their actions and intentions, the Charmed Ones shall be judged. That leaves me, though, with an acceptance, one fully in accord with the Charmed perspective, that demons are inherently evil. As ljones noted, such was not always an understanding of daemons. Is that evidence of Judeo-Christian bias? Or, is it unquestioned acceptance of one of Charmed's integral ideas? Why should one-side be inherently one-dimensional, while the other side is capable of multi-dimensionality? Can we still maintain this notion and agree that warlocks are humans who have chosen evil over good by virtue of their intentions and deeds, but are not inherently evil? In other words, the Charmed Ones could become warlocks, but never demons!

P.S. Ljones quoted from me while this was a work in progress. I made the posting several times and modified it as I went on. She replied whilst I was in the middle of a modification. Thus, you will no longer find the original quote in my previous posting. The sense is similar, though not exactly the same.

[pubesy]

as usual v, excellent post. it took me a good ten-fifteen minutes to read the thesis but it was well worth the effort, some interesting points were raised.

but first let me just address one issue...

No wonder, as a species, we have never really developed emotionally. I'm sorry, but I find such beliefs . . . forget it. I'm just too disgusted beyond words to continue this discussion.

i don't think you are too disgusted, ljones, i think you have been out argued! Human society has developed emotionally, what an outrageous claim! just because you cannot logically argue a point, or someone disagrees with you point of view does not mean you have to insult the ENTIRE HUMAN POPULATION.

i find that incredibly insulting, immature, and shallow.

now that is off my chest, let us continue further into the realms of the charmedverse.

As ljones noted, such was not always an understanding of daemons

charmed never incorporated daemons into its writings, and for good reason. daemons are complex, ancient beings which are incredibly ambiguous to say the least. they are sacred to many religions, and cultures. incorporating them into a prime time tv show which warps pagan and wiccan beliefs into a Christian viewpoint would just be adding further insult to such cultures. thus demons were used. these demons were MEANT to be evil. because the charmed ones were meant to be "good".
making EVERY character in the show ambiguous would lead to the show to being too complex and plots too slow, for the average prime time viewer.

I don't know whether, as ljones would have us believe, that good and evil are natural to all sentient beings. I am skeptical of her claim, given the lack of overwhelming evidence in its favor. Nor do I wish to debate a concept that is analytically underdeveloped at this stage. However, we might accept - at a minimum - that humans may be placed or find themselves in situations where they might be required to "choose" a path. Their educational upbringing, the morees of the society in which they find themselves, the extent to which they as individuals are perceived to have rights to self-choose, all these and others are relevant variables that I cannot begin to generalize from, given the research that is available. We do know from the Stanford Prison Experiment that humans are capable of doing horrible things to others when freed from any shackles. Doesn't Abu Ghraib lend credence to that?

Religion, philosophy, family upbringing, societal morees, all of these are relevant factors in "determining" how we might act in any given situation. At best, they are probabilistic factors that might suggest how we might respond. Are we then inherently good or evil? Doubtful. Do we make choices? Sometimes. Are choices made for us? Oftentimes. I don't know whether, as ljones would have us believe, that good and evil are natural to all sentient beings. I am skeptical of her claim, given the lack of overwhelming evidence in its favor. Nor do I wish to debate a concept that is analytically underdeveloped at this stage. However, we might accept - at a minimum - that humans may be placed or find themselves in situations where they might be required to "choose" a path. Their educational upbringing, the morees of the society in which they find themselves, the extent to which they as individuals are perceived to have rights to self-choose, all these and others are relevant variables that I cannot begin to generalize from, given the research that is available. We do know from the Stanford Prison Experiment that humans are capable of doing horrible things to others when freed from any shackles. Doesn't Abu Ghraib lend credence to that?

Religion, philosophy, family upbringing, societal morees, all of these are relevant factors in "determining" how we might act in any given situation. At best, they are probabilistic factors that might suggest how we might respond. Are we then inherently good or evil? Doubtful. Do we make choices? Sometimes. Are choices made for us? Oftentimes.

humans are not inherently good or inherently evil. nor are they both good and evil at the same time. in fact, i dont even like using the terms good and evil to describe a person. they are too one dimensional. like v was saying, it is the choices a person makes that can be good or evil.

in charmed, being human meant you had a sense of morality, something that demons lacked. this morality was influenced by factors such as upbringing, exposure to what is considered "good" and "evil", religion etc.

however, when a person is given an extreme amount of influence and power to control another being (such as the Stanford prison exp) the sense or morality, and identifying "right" from "wrong" goes out the window. A person will abuse their power to dominate and assert control of another.

this can be linked to the experiment more commonly known as "push the button-or else" where a participant is told by a researcher to push a button every time a "student" gets an answer to a question wrong. this "student" (who is really an actor) is hooked up to electrodes, and the participant is lead to believe that pushing the "button" electrocutes the student. even though 100% of the participants initally showed some hesitation in pushing the button, all the participants ended up pressing the button, because they were "told" to do so by the researcher. it showed that humans will repress their sense of morality to gain approval from their seniors. (it explains why german soldiers were able to torture so many jews)

i believe that cole being half human meant he had a sense of morality. even in the underworld he had such morality. however such morality was repressed due to having great power to influence both other demons and human innocents alike. repression was also due to his desire to please his elders, being both the source and the triad. however, cole was taught how to "embrace" his morality, through assimilating into human society, and intimately knowing another (phoebe) for the first time, and watching how she and her sisters struggled with morality and doing "good. " such morality them made it difficult if not impossible to follow through with the plan of killing the one he loved.

however being a demon with a conscience does not make you equally human and demon. by cole following his conscience and protecting others from demons, helping the charmed ones, and trying to save innocents, all the while trying not to use his demonic powers or morph into belthazor, does that make him still truly demonic? is he equally human and demon?

What ljones seems to be suggesting is that Belthazor/Cole should have come to an acceptance of the evil and good within. How is that possible?

it isn't i dont think, as discussed above, how can anyone be both EQUALLY good and evil?

Plot-driven, serial TV tends to eschew the typical literary conventions of character development in the hopes of creating a fast-moving, attention-grabbing plot lines.

exactly. as i was trying to explain to ljones, and everyone else reading, if charmed was a book, each season being 1000 pages or more, characters could be as completely developed as the fantastic characters in anne Rice's vampire chronicles, there plot movement is slow, but character development is vast and exciting.

however charmed is a primetime show where viewers are more interested in following an action packed plot with twists and turns, and lots of use of magic and spells. if the plot was slow, prime time viewers would quickly lose interest. (isnt it interesting, that when charmed changed into its "sunday" timeslot, the show started to become more plot, less character development?)

Interestingly, the shows where characters are sometimes allowed to develop have been shows where initially characters were disdained (Law and Order) or whose elaborate plots with unexpected twists and uncertain conclusions (Law and Order: SVU) have given us shows where some of the characters are intensely rich.

but the difference is with SVU and L&O, most of the characters are only there for one episode so they can be richly developed then booted off the show. the few characters, such as the cops, detectives and ADAs are still 2D.

[ljones]

I decided to break my rule about not responding to this thread and answer the following question:

What ljones seems to be suggesting is that Belthazor/Cole should have come to an acceptance of the evil and good within. How is that possible?

Because that is his natural state. He has both good and evil within him, whether he likes it or not. Cole is not the only one who has to accept this. The Halliwells, Leo, Darryl and just about every living being in existence has both good and evil . . . or light and darkness. Why is this such a problem to understand? When Leo had declared Cole "good" because the latter's powers had been stripped, he was wrong. No one is inherently good . . . or evil. Just about any of us is capable of choosing one path or the other.

A writer named Mary Hines had once written this essay about Cole called ""The Strange Case of Cole Turner and the Demon Belthazor":

As powerful as love is, however, it's never enough in the struggle against evil. Love is not the end result, but the catalyst of change. In "Bride and Gloom," Phoebe initially left Cole because she knew she couldn't change him. The evil inside him would always be there. Later, after Cole made efforts to prove his goodness, Phoebe decided to take a chance. Cole's efforts to repress Belthazor, however, didn't work, as we saw in "Exit Strategy," and Phoebe was terribly hurt by the fact that her love wasn't enough to keep Cole good. Then, in "Look Who's Barking," Cole was the one doing the walking away. He realized, too, that even though he and Phoebe loved each other, nothing could change the fact that he'd killed that witch. However, after Phoebe realizes that Cole was tricked by Raynor, she, like Psyche, decides to win her lover back by traveling to the underworld in "All Hell Breaks Loose." Even though her sacrifice (and a little magical elixir) may soften Cole's heart, it's not what's ultimately required. Both Cole and Phoebe have to face the reality that love alone won't stop evil. Phoebe already knows the answer, even though she may not be completely aware of it. She said it in anger at the end of "Exit Strategy." If Cole is to be saved, he has save himself. And, if Cole wants to be good, he has to make that choice for its own merits and not simply to keep Phoebe's love. Thus, while love is the catalyst that helps each of us to find our inner goodness and strength, only the exercise of that fourth and final big mystery -- free will -- will allow us to achieve our goals.

How does one accomplish this, however? We've already seen that you can't just choose one side of your nature and renounce or repress the other. Most writers on the subject agree that you have to step back and look at the big picture. You have to "transcend" the question of good and evil and enter Mr. Campbell's "sphere of eternity, beyond the veil of time and space, where there is no duality, they are at one; death and life are one; all is peace." Doing that without actually dying requires that the ego portion of yourself die. You have to let go of your preconceived ideas of self. I think that if Cole is to survive (as a convincing character, anyway), he has to stop looking at his demon half as evil and his human half as good. In fact, he has to stop looking at them as halves. He has to let those old ideas die; he has to integrate the split personalities of his nature into something new and whole. I think that means embracing his demonic part as a source of power. For example, I think about that scene in "Exit Strategy" where Cole kills Raynor. Seeing Cole shove that knife into Raynor's gut appealed to my inner demon. I wanted to see that bastard die. Didn't you? Raynor, as he's dying, says this: "This is what I hoped for: your inner demonic nature finally showing itself in all its glory. You're truly evil now, Belthazor. Welcome home." I have to admit, I agreed with Raynor in a way. I loved seeing Cole indulge his demonic nature. That's not to say I want him to use that power for evil. I just want him to use the power that he has. Just like Krishna in the "The Bhagavadgita" wanted the warrior Arjuna to stop worrying about whether killing in battle in the service of his lord was a bad thing and just pick up his sword and go. Some people are made for the fight. Cole is made for the fight. He's at his best when he's tapped into that primal, cunning, and violent energy. He's beautiful when he's outsmarting his enemy, sneaking through a darkened room, or stabbing something. If he'd stripped himself of his powers, he'd have been just half a man. Cole's greatness, I think, relies on him tapping into and gaining control of his demonic nature and using it -- in the exercise of his free will -- for good. There's this great line from M. Scott Peck's psychological study of human evil, People of the Lie: Toward a Psychology of Healing Human Evil. Peck, describing evil people as serpents, writes: "Serpents can grow wings to become dragons, and dragons can be tamed to become simultaneously fierce and gentle servants of God." This is how I see Cole, as the Charmed One's dragon, poised and ready to rip the throat out of anything that threatens them. I hope that is where the writers take Cole, eventually. I'd really hate to see a good demon go to waste, especially since he's already come so far on his own hero's journey.

Unfortunately for Miss Hines, she probably ended up very disappointed.

in charmed, being human meant you had a sense of morality, something that demons lacked. this morality was influenced by factors such as upbringing, exposure to what is considered "good" and "evil", religion etc.

Being human and having a "good" upbringing did not prevent the Halliwells from committing some of their most heinous acts. It didn't prevent the likes of Agent Jackman being willing to burn a woman alive, because she was a witch. It didn't prevent Leo from committing murder. Being human and having a "good" upbringing is not going to prevent someone from choosing evil. And even the CHARMED universe has proved this . . . whether Kern and his writers are willing to admit this or not.

[pubesy]

Being human and having a "good" upbringing did not prevent the Halliwells from committing some of their most heinous acts. It didn't prevent the likes of Agent Jackman being willing to burn a woman alive, because she was a witch. It didn't prevent Leo from committing murder. Being human and having a "good" upbringing is not going to prevent someone from choosing evil. And even the CHARMED universe has proved this . . . whether Kern and his writers are willing to admit this or not.

morality does not mean a person is good. it means knowing right from wrong and choosing accordingly

[vandergraafk]

Two comments, I suppose, are in order. First, I am very glad that ljones decided to "break" her own self-imposed rule and provided us with the lengthy post from Mary Hines. I'm not certain that this helps explain the issues we are debating, but it is interesting in and of itself. And, as this was written at a time, when Cole was still around, it is perhaps all the more fascinating. (The source might help. Was this in Totally Charmed, the collection of essays about Charmed? I have that book, find it fascinating, and will have to look it up to see if her essay appeared there.)

Second, there has been an argument made along the lines of Noam Chomsky, that just as each of us - as humans - has a "grammar" template, so too there is a moral template. I will dig out the reference and include it here. In short, the argument is that every human born has a moral capacity, just as every human has the capacity for speech. To the extent that it is argued that Cole embodied the capacity for moral thought in the demon Belthazor, I find this entirely consistent with the point of view advocated in this perspective.

I wonder, however, how this moral template idea can square with the point of view expressed by ljones on page 3 above. There, ljones stated: "Good and evil are ambiguous. It's all a matter of POV." I'm not sure what the first part of this sentence means. Good and evil - as concepts - seem to be fairly straightforward. Certain actions might appear morally ambiguous. Is Bush's Iraq campaign an act of evil or a misguided action based on flawed intelligence and sustained by constant misdirection and duplicity? I don't know. I do know it would easier to classify the actions if we could point to Hitlerian acts of genocide that accompanied the American invasion of Iraq. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like we can!

[ljones]

pubesy said:

Being human and having a "good" upbringing did not prevent the Halliwells from committing some of their most heinous acts. It didn't prevent the likes of Agent Jackman being willing to burn a woman alive, because she was a witch. It didn't prevent Leo from committing murder. Being human and having a "good" upbringing is not going to prevent someone from choosing evil. And even the CHARMED universe has proved this . . . whether Kern and his writers are willing to admit this or not.

morality does not mean a person is good. it means knowing right from wrong and choosing accordingly

Why would assume that demons do not know right from wrong?

There, ljones stated: "Good and evil are ambiguous. It's all a matter of POV." I'm not sure what the first part of this sentence means. Good and evil - as concepts - seem to be fairly straightforward.

I disagree. I have learned over the years that our concepts of what is good and what is evil is not as straightforward as we would like it to be. And that is due to the fact that each individual or society has its own moral compass.

[vandergraafk]

So say you! I'm not certain that your philosophy is supported by evidence in the field. That's the whole point of the moral template research.

Now, there may be divergences in specific areas. Most Americans, I suppose, would find it horrible to eat horses or dogs. Such moral repugnance does not extend to parts of Europe and Asia. However, we might all believe that it is wrong to eat other humans.

Most cultures that I'm aware of have strict codes with respect to murder. They might disagree about the inclusiveness of such codes. For example, members outside a tribe or clan might be more easily murdered in some cultures than in others. And, some cultures might find it easier to justify the death penalty than others while still sharing the repugnance, say, of murder or rape.

[ljones]

vandergraafk said:

So say you! I'm not certain that your philosophy is supported by evidence in the field. That's the whole point of the moral template research.

Now, there may be divergences in specific areas. Most Americans, I suppose, would find it horrible to eat horses or dogs. Such moral repugnance does not extend to parts of Europe and Asia. However, we might all believe that it is wrong to eat other humans.

Most cultures that I'm aware of have strict codes with respect to murder. They might disagree about the inclusiveness of such codes. For example, members outside a tribe or clan might be more easily murdered in some cultures than in others. And, some cultures might find it easier to justify the death penalty than others while still sharing the repugnance, say, of murder or rape.

My philosophy is not supported by evidence in the field? What are you talking about? The very fact that we cannot agree on this topic tells me that individuals and societies do not have a specific idea of what is considered good or evil. We all have our own moral compass. We all have different ideas of what is considered morally sound or not. That is all I'm saying. All you have to do is read the numerous message boards and forums on the Internet to discover this, let alone other materials and conversations with other people. I certainly didn't require . . . "evidence in the field" to discover this.

However, we might all believe that it is wrong to eat other humans.

Are you speaking of all Americans . . . or all human societies around the world?

[vandergraafk]

No, the fact that we disagree about a particular issue tells us absolutely nothing about our moral compasses as it were. You assert that yours is different. And, it may be in some particulars. For example, you have argued that "borrowing" Darryl's soul in Valhalley of the Dolls was tantamount to rape. I disagreed about the concept's applicability to the particular instance you cite. I don't believe that we disagree that rape is morally repugnant.

In Hyde School Reunion, you accuse Paige and Phoebe of murder by allowing or creating a situation whereby Rick is done in by the demons chasing Chris. I disagreed because your statement does not meet any of the known criteria for murder - at least in the United States and Europe. Nevertheless, we both might find murder morally repugnant.

In this case, we refers to you and I. In the case, you are questioning, I referred to we collectively as humans. Again, you seem certain that your philosophy accurately reflects the human experience. I demur and prefer to let my opinion be governed by research in the field, not by the mere counting of anecdotal evidence.

[ljones]

In this case, we refers to you and I. In the case, you are questioning, I referred to we collectively as humans. Again, you seem certain that your philosophy accurately reflects the human experience. I demur and prefer to let my opinion be governed by research in the field, not by the mere counting of anecdotal evidence.

Well . . . apparently we still have different opinions. Don't we? You stick to your "field research" and I'll stick to my powers of observations.

[vandergraafk]

Wherein, precisely, do we disagree? Okay, you suggest your observations lead you to support your view regarding individual compasses. I suggest that there's far less disagreement about what constitutes right and wrong than your "relativism" suggests.

Yet, when we discuss two specific issues - the "raping of Darryl's soul" and "the murder of Rick" - we both seem to share a moral repugnance about rape and murder, though we disagree about whether either of these instances is worthy of the moral condemnation that use of words "murder" and "rape" would seem to imply.

That's why I noted that cultures may differ with respect to the inclusiveness of their moral concepts. They might even disagree with respect to the threshold that behavior must attain before moral condemnation applies. But, cultures do share many common notions with respect to good and evil. And, as I noted, there are some researchers who believe that this is hard-wired into the human psyche.

And, even within a culture, there might be disagreements about whether a moral standard has been breached. (Hence, we have lawyers, ethical philosophers and religious scholars.) There might be disagreements about whether the death penalty should apply or whether juveniles should be tried as adults. These are not evidence of differing moral compasses. They are disagreements about the scope and applicability of moral standards and perhaps about the utility of certain punishments or their moral standing as acceptable forms of punishment.

[ljones]

And, even within a culture, there might be disagreements about whether a moral standard has been breached. (Hence, we have lawyers, ethical philosophers and religious scholars.) There might be disagreements about whether the death penalty should apply or whether juveniles should be tried as adults. These are not evidence of differing moral compasses. They are disagreements about the scope and applicability of moral standards and perhaps about the utility of certain punishments or their moral standing as acceptable forms of punishment.

All you did was paint part of the picture . . . not all of it. Sorry, but I'm not impressed.

[whitelightertony]

I don't view Belthazor as some kind of manifestation of Cole's demonic heritage. Nor do I see him as some entity that had taken over human Cole, as Leo had viewed him.

To me, Belthazor is Cole . . . and Cole is Belthazor. Both are two sides of one coin.

I agree with this, for the most part. I certainly disagree with Leo's interpretation of Belthazor "taking over" (insofar as possession) Cole's body.

But I do believe that the manifestation of Belthazor comes, in part, from the genes that Elizabeth Turner passed down to Cole. Belthazor was a demonic entity. Elizabeth Turner was a demon. Benjamin Turner was a powerless mortal. Where else would Belthazor have come from?

Admittedly, perhaps my Freudian analogy was a bit too heavy...I only used it to try to illustrate a point.

The problem with Cole is that he had spent his life either repressing one side of his nature. He had never learned to accept both his human and demonic natures as a whole individual. The Source, Raynor and possibly his mother probably encouraged him to supress his human side. Phoebe and the Halliwells had encouraged him to suppress his demonic.

I agree with all of this.

I wish that the writers had allowed Cole to finally tell them all to take a walk . . . and learn to accept both his human and demonic heritage in order for him to be a complete individual.

That would have been a fascinating way to develop Cole's character.

But here's the thing. I don't see why Cole had to be a hybrid to viewed as having both good and evil within him.

Even if Cole had been born to two powerless mortals, as a powerless non-magical full mortal himself, I agree he still would have possessed the ability to commit both good and evil acts.

Ben Turner himself wasn't inherently good. He provided Cole with the potential to make either good or evil decisions.

Elizabeth Turner committed herself to fighting on the side of Evil. She was predisposed to Evil...yes, in theory, Elizabeth Turner, even as a demon, could have made the choice to tell other forces of Evil to take a walk, and maybe even fight against them. But obviously, she never made that choice. She embraced the cause of Evil. And she raised Cole with the expectation that he would do the same.

Cole's tendencies to side with Evil during his life were largely a product of nurture, and also nature (by virtue of being a product of Elizabeth's DNA, and possessing the magic passed onto him by her, which enabled him to carry out evil acts). This is a clear distinction from the capability (and physiology) of a powerless mortal who chooses, by sheer free will, to behave immorally. Like it or not, Elizabeth's personal beliefs as well as her biology partially fostered Cole's predisposition toward Evil.

Pubesy, to expand on my earlier comment, in regard to your inquiry: I believe that whenever Cole would morph into Belthazor, it was a way of his innermost hedonism/lust/selfishness bubbling to the surface.

Sort of like when a human being gets stressed, and sprouts acne on one's skin as a result.

It was largely a sensory/behavioral/psychological circumstance, but it was also influenced heavily by Cole's magic (in this case, the demonic magic he inherited from his mother).

[vandergraafk]

For those of you interested in pursuing the general question of good and evil, let me direct you to a new thread: Good versus Evil. For those of you who wish to continue debating Cole/Belthazor, feel free to keep writing in this thread. That is, after all, its TITLE. Still, there seems to be an interest in discussing good and evil in general terms.

Ljones, you continue to baffle me. I know you view your own raison d'etre at best as an instigator or provacatrice. You've admitted as much a long time ago. Maybe you're just a contrarian, I don't know. But, to dismiss my comments as "part of a picture" when you reject the very notion that there is such a picture is really silly. Whole books have been written on good and evil. And you find it lacking that I didn't write a book in such a short space! Whew!!!! That takes rejectionism to a whole different level.

Whitelightertony, I don't think your use of Freudian categories was wrong or ill-advised. Indeed, some of us appropriated them and probably abused them anyway. Besides, none of us considered the role of the ego in all of this. Thus, maybe we shouldn't overemphasize Freudian categories that are suggestive, but by no means universally applicable.

[~B@MeLiSsA30@B~]

Cole was part demon and grew up with demons and that's all he ever know till he met phoebe and she brought out his human side that has feelings, compassion for human life. Although that happened, he was evil for so long, it's hard to change who you are and what you've always known your whole life.

[ljones]

Cole was part demon and grew up with demons and that's all he ever know till he met phoebe and she brought out his human side that has feelings, compassion for human life.

Why do you people consist of believing the show's ridiculously positive portrayal of humanity. Why do you continue to preach on this board that being human means "feelings and compassion for human life"? Most humans are not like that. The only human life they ever have any feelings or compassion for are those who are close to them. Being human also means being unforgiving, unremorseful, murderous, greedy, careless, rude, cruel and an array of other negative emotions. Why is it so hard to include those descrptions of humanity? Even "CHARMED" has included a good number of human characters who have shown no "goodness, feelings or compassion for human life".

[pubesy]

Why do you continue to preach on this board that being human means "feelings and compassion for human life"? Most humans are not like that. The only human life they ever have any feelings or compassion for are those who are close to them.

so ljones, you are stating that...
mother teresa was selfish and vindictive?
youth workers only care about their own families, and not their families they are assigned to.
all doctors are more interested in the financial rewards of their occupation, rather than helping people?
volunteers of various organisation who give up hours of their time for no reason other than helping others dont care about the people they help?

think about the 2004 boxing day tsunami. billions of dollars were raised around the world to help the victims rebuild their country. even the army went in to help. there are still people over there now.

how about the millions of people who sponser a child they have never even met, just so that child can live a better life with food and education?

watch what you are saying ljones. there are MANY people in the world who care about others. not everyone is as selfish and bitter, as you suggest.

just because horrible things happen in the world, does not mean wonderful things cannot happen as well. humans have a great ability for human compassion. if you open your eyes, you can see little things everyday

[~B@MeLiSsA30@B~]

Those are the first things that came to mind and I wasn't referring to MOST people, I was referring to the way the sisters lived and what Phoebe brought out in Cole.

[ljones]

so ljones, you are stating that...
mother teresa was selfish and vindictive?
youth workers only care about their own families, and not their families they are assigned to.
all doctors are more interested in the financial rewards of their occupation, rather than helping people?
volunteers of various organisation who give up hours of their time for no reason other than helping others dont care about the people they help?

No Puseby, I'm not. I don't recall saying a word about Mother Teresa, period. Come to think of it, I don't recall stating that ALL humans were selfish and vindictive. Let me check . . . Ah yes. I said "MOST".

I'm sorry if you don't like my view of most humans, but I've been around long enough not to view humanity through rose colored glasses. And if "CHARMED" was so bent upon portraying humans as inherently good, they would not have included so many human characters who were far from "good" - both major and minor characters.

watch what you are saying ljones. there are MANY people in the world who care about others. not everyone is as selfish and bitter, as you suggest.

You better watch what you're saying, Puseby. Because I never said that EVERYONE was selfish and bitter. I suggest you refrain from exaggerating what I had said.