Submitted by Unity-Druid t3_zbm61o in philosophy
Polychrist t1_iytfivz wrote
This is such a well-written and engaging thought experiment. Thanks for sharing.
I’ll also add my two cents and say that I think maybe Hannibal, himself, was positioned as the “monster” which the loving community might not accept. Because Moloch, despite his large stature, actually seemed to conform perfectly with the happy, loving little society that the town had created. He was a kind and open-hearted giant; just like them, only a little bigger.
But the parasite was also a living creature, and it was the parasite who was truly seen as the monster. The parasite did not conform. The parasite was not like the townspeople— the parasite was selfish and destructive toward the existence of others. The parasite was a monster; and it had to go.
So maybe Hannibal’s experiment served as a way to draw the line between that which a “loving” society was willing to look past, and that which it was not.
And I think that the connection to mental health is really interesting because of that. Was Hannibal actually self-destructive? Or was he just ashamed of some of his own selfish thoughts, his own needs and desires, and he feared that if he expressed his actual truth then he would be treated like the parasite— dangerous, unfit to be among the townspeople, and better to be eradicated.
When people are afraid that their truth will not be accepted, that their truth will make people turn against them, are they more likely to hide it? I think so. They may even become a mental/emotional hermit, refusing to let anyone see their inner truth. And when they do re-enter society, they wear a mask, or a giant suit, and pretend to be just like everyone else. They pretend that they don’t see themselves as a toxic parasite.
But being a hermit for too long will eventually get to them, because believing yourself to be a parasite to that extent I believe will lead them to one of two possible conclusions: self-destruction (if they have given up the possibility of being seen as anything other than a parasite), or a push for acceptance (if they have enough hope that they’re willing to take the chance that someone will look out for them even if they are a parasite). And so I think this is where Hannibal found himself; he chose to take the chance and trust in this loving society, but their own thinking was not quite nuanced enough, not quite understanding enough, to recognize that the parasite, too, was a living thing that may be sentient, and that may be worth keeping alive itself. Arwen killed the parasite without a second thought— without even determining what kind of parasite that it was. And that, I think, was the folly— he never stopped to question whether there was a way to save them both.
I think that integration, rather than eradication, must be the key. Moloch did not know what his problem actually was— despite his claim, it was actually untrue that Moloch would die if the parasite were left as it was. Perhaps what Moloch actually needed was a sort of counseling and therapy— a means of keeping himself alive and well without removing the parasite at all. Maybe the parasite would not seem so inevitably destructive if the proper workaround could be implemented.
Regardless, it’s definitely an interesting thought experiment. Thanks again for sharing it.
Unity-Druid OP t1_iytpy8a wrote
I think you raise a great point. A patient who feels at war within themselves will not achieve peace by killing some part of themselves, and so often the course we take in psychiatry is exactly what you suggest, integrating things rather than trying to kill or remove them. For example, some patients on inpatient units I have worked on find the experience of being physically or chemically restrained to be enjoyable for some reason or another, and have learned how to create situations in which there is sufficient danger to the patient or others that hospital policy requires restraints. The clinical course for these patients involves 1) attempting to limit situations where an escalation to restrain is possible, and 2) attempting to understand and modify the motivations of this behavior, in order to allow the patient to obtain the emotional gratification they get from restraint, from other sources. If this desire for restraint is not acknowledged as part of the problem, however, the patient will continue to behave dangerously in order to be repeatedly restrained.
Malandirix t1_iyvmd58 wrote
Wonderful insight.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments