Following on from yesterday, I want to continue using my Paladin example-come-metaphor.
What does the Paladin do?
Naturally, most people would immediately say that not killing the goblin children is the best choice. They pose no threat and there is no need to kill them in order to rescue the farmer’s daughter. However this is not about what most people would do. This is about what happens when there is too much Light, and all that word implies in this context as I did my best to explain in part 1.
The Paladin with too much Light knows that the goblin children are innocent, but does not see past their being goblins and goblins are inherently evil in the mind of the Paladin. In those circumstances the Paladin with too much Light would kill the goblin children. To such a person the fact that the goblins before them are children does not matter because they are goblins and therefore evil which is the enemy of Light. The total dedication to the principles of Light dictate that there is no compromise in the face of the Light’s opposition.
It should go without saying that this is only a demonstration of logical extremes, an approach which can be applied to pretty much any situation or philosophy.However this shouldn’t detract from the idea that too much ‘good’ very quickly and dare I say easily, becomes bad. Which is really the crux of my thoughts on this. Too many people taking up a single perspective of thought, even one as seemingly harmless as a ‘Light’ perspective, can cause a phenomenon like what I demonstrated with the Paladin.
This is why I feel that it is important to have a breadth of understanding and at least a capacity to accept other perspectives. Working with ‘Light’ and everything that could be described thus and similarly is, on its own fine and dandy. However, there are perils to thinking that approach is the only way, or even worse, the best way of doing things.