Doctor Doom

[darthbrooks]

The thread on masks got me thinking about one of the great comic book characters of all times, Doctor Doom. Created by Jack Kirby and Stan lee in the 60's, the character partly inspired Darth Vader and a host of other villains.

His origin was that he was a brilliant but arrogant student, a potential friend of Reed Richards, the lead hero of the Fantastic Four back when both were in college. Richards looked at an experiment that Doom was running and pointed out a flaw. Doom ignored his warnings and went ahead anyways and the machine literally blew up in his face. He then left to walk the path that lead him to become what was really the first Supervillain of Marvel Comics.

Doctor Doom's mask was never taken off in the comic book. It was always assumed that he had a horribly disfigured face that was hidden by the gray skull like mask. After he left the series artist Jack Kirby was asked to draw Doctor Doom without his mask. That drawing is my new avatar and the hidden story behind Doctor Doom.

Kirby's drawing revealed a handsome man with one small scar on his cheek left over from the accident. From Kirby, "Due to this slight imperfection, Doom hides his face not from the world, but from himself. This is the motivation for Doom's vengeance against the world; because others are superior due to this slight scar, Doom wants to elevate himself above them."

Most geniuses are assumed to rationals, I would make Doom out to be an idealist. The absolute perfection he demands of himself drives he. He see's his proper function as the world's leader and will not accept less than that. This unwillingness to acknowlegde his own flaws makes him dangerous but it also gave the heroes a way to defeat him.

[SunPath]

So, why did you choose him as an avatar?

[stellarrenegade]

hm. Wow.

Most geniuses are assumed to rationals, I would make Doom out to be an idealist. The absolute perfection he demands of himself drives he. He see's his proper function as the world's leader and will not accept less than that. This unwillingness to acknowlegde his own flaws makes him dangerous but it also gave the heroes a way to defeat him.

Well aren't Rationals supposed to drive themselves, too? "Work! Work! Work!"

[darthbrooks]

So, why did you choose him as an avatar?

Shytiger's thread about an idealist hiding behind the mask of a rational made me think of the character. I think Doom is an idealist, he see's the world as perfect if he and only he runs it. Rationals too, sometimes stay hidden behind their temperament, hiding their passion and potential behind a mask of cold, distant looks.

[shytiger]

So, why did you choose him as an avatar?

Shytiger's thread about an idealist hiding behind the mask of a rational made me think of the character. I think Doom is an idealist, he see's the world as perfect if he and only he runs it. Rationals too, sometimes stay hidden behind their temperament, hiding their passion and potential behind a mask of cold, distant looks.

Wow! That "perfectly" summed up my feeling during my Rational phase. I saw imperfection everywhere and in anything but especially in myself and strove to eliminate it and avoid anything that I did not perceive as perfect. Because of this I even tried to convince myself that I was a Mastermind and it was all "perfectly" normal. Of course, true Masterminds are not like that . One of the most profound moments that led to my taking off the mask was when I was looking at an article on the word "misanthrope". Shytigress came up behind me as I read it and said, "that sounds like you." That may sound mean but it was what I needed to hear. In fact, I think that's why I married her because only she could tell me the truths that I refused to accept. Indeed, I think it's not surprising that one of the most famous stories about a misanthrope, A Christmas Carol, was written by a Champion, Charles Dickens. We of all types know that the line between a lover of all people and a hater of all people is a thin one.

[keirsey]

We of all types know that the line between a lover of all people and a hater of all people is a thin one.

Being a misanthrope I am not so sure this is true. I don't think that I ever considered that I ever "got close" to being a lover of all people.

[Johan]

We of all types know that the line between a lover of all people and a hater of all people is a thin one.

Being a misanthrope I am not so sure this is true. I don't think that I ever considered that I ever "got close" to being a lover of all people.

Yeah, I'm with you on this DMK. I'm a ''lover of all people'' in the sense that I consider human society fascinating and I appreciate the ''contribution'' that everyone makes to that society. And I mean ''contribution'' in a totally neutral sense. That doesn't mean I ''love'' all the various idiots, crackpots, meddlesome control freaks etc, etc. that help deform the timber of mankind. As Melville said in Moby Dick,

''There is no quality in this world that is not what it is merely by contrast. Nothing exists in itself.''

No joy without pain, love without hate etc, etc. So I ''love''(deep appreciation of the necessity of their existence) them for their ''contribution'', i.e. allowing me something to define what I think is ''not good'', but on a personal level, I am hostile to their existence. (Not that kind of hostile, before you ask...)
There's a pretty thick line between people I ''love'' and ''hate'' in the typical meaning of those words.




On a side note

Out of the crooked timber of mankind, no straight thing will ever be made
-Immanuel Kant

Love throwing out that quote when people start talking about ''changing the world''

[shytiger]

We of all types know that the line between a lover of all people and a hater of all people is a thin one.

Being a misanthrope I am not so sure this is true. I don't think that I ever considered that I ever "got close" to being a lover of all people.

I was referring to my personal experience and that of Ebenezer Scrooge. It's possible that Dickens was personally familiar with Scrooge's experience as well. There may be many angry, misanthropic Champions who would wear the mask of a Rational, perhaps even a Mastermind. When we hurt, we hide behind hatred because we see hatred as strong and protective. When we learn to take off the mask and acknowledge our true selves, we become filled with love and finally see that that is the ultimate security.

[SunPath]

This Idealist felt a little dimming in my soul; I felt a bit disheartened--discouraged--when I read your quote.

Out of the crooked timber of mankind, no straight thing will ever be made
-Immanuel Kant



Love throwing out that quote when people start talking about ''changing the world''

But I am curious about people, why they do what they do, believe what they believe, what their perspective and take on things are. What is it that makes you like to put that up there when people start talking about changing the world? (genuinely asked out of curiosity, not self-righteous disapproval)

[Johan]

This Idealist felt a little dimming in my soul; I felt a bit disheartened--discouraged--when I read your quote.

Out of the crooked timber of mankind, no straight thing will ever be made
-Immanuel Kant



Love throwing out that quote when people start talking about ''changing the world''

But I am curious about people, why they do what they do, believe what they believe, what their perspective and take on things are. What is it that makes you like to put that up there when people start talking about changing the world? (genuinely asked out of curiosity, not self-righteous disapproval)

Don't be discouraged!
A question I've asked people down through the years
''Can you build the perfect wall out of imperfect [dissimilar] bricks?''

People are irrational. Yes, even us rationals (but only sometimes ). We do silly things, even when we should know better. KTT tells us that different temperaments have very different motivations, attitudes and aspirations. Compromise in society is essential to achieve a ''best'', and consequently ''crooked'' (from one point of view), fit ....of course, a 'best fit' might actually not 'fit' anyone....

No society that mankind will ever create will be 'perfect', i.e 'straight'. For me, 'perfect' implies 'evidence-based', 'logical' etc, etc. This won't be achieved as men have strange notions, irrational drives and strong habits. So it is. And I wouldn't have it any other way, either. As per DWK, ''People are different....and the differences are probably good''

I just offer Kant's view that perhaps imperfection is the way of things, to get people to set their minds to more manageable tasks and be satisfied with their necessarily less-than perfect results. This is opposed to being continually dejected over their failure to realise some vague ideal of a 'perfect world', which is an impossible task.

I think it would make people happier if they would realise the truth (IMO) of Kant's words. Not that they would stop trying to improve their world, but more cognizant of the inherent flaws of humanity. Admittedly, 'improve' is relative..some people want to 'improve' education by teaching creationism alongside evolution.

What one person considers to be the way forward, would be anathema to another. It's all rather arbitrary. Some people are socialists, I lean more towards ''a man is entitled to the sweat of his brow''

An example of ''one person considers to be the way forward, would be anathema to another''
I went through a phase of wanting to change the world, notably though the reappealment of drug prohibition. ""WTF!?'' you say?

Well, one needs only look at alcohol prohibition in the USA to see that there are significant flaws in prohibition as a strategy and that the method may in fact create or aggravate some of the problems it claims to be ''solving''. An example is the ''Iron Law of Prohibition'' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Law_of_Prohibition, i.e prohibition results in more harmful drugs becoming available. Or, more generally, that the ''War on Drugs'' has always been, and will continue to be, an abject failure.

In my considered opinion, the origins of the war on drugs were initially based more on the racist tendencies of the American administration than rational consideration of the relative harm of certain drugs. Recall that when opium was prohibited in the USA, by the Opium Exclusion Act, it was at first applicable only to the smoking of opium, not the ingestion as a liquid medicine. Chinese immigrants smoked opium, whites drank it. It's easier to marginalize people if you criminalize their habits..

Of course, when I discussed this with people, they'd react with disbelief. ''But drugs are bad'', ''That'd never work!''. etc, etc.
My favourite was about heroin..
''Heroin makes people steal from their families!''
I replied, ''Don't you mean that it is the black market price of heroin that forces addicts to steal from their families to fund their habit?''. I just got a blank look.

Of course, I understand people's emotional reactions. (And I'm not advocating having crack pipes at your local Walmart either).
It's like someone suggesting to me that we should allow assault rifles for general sale (I live in Europe). ''There'd be chaos!'' I'd say, because there would be. People are flawed, have different interests and skill sets, we must accept that and not be beating our heads against a wall trying to get them to conform to our arbitrary expectations.

That's why I quote Kant.

Sorry about the long post, I got sidetracked, as you'd expect.