Doktor beye çok katılmasam da kötülük gibi bir konuyu psikolojik açıdan ele alabilme çabası okumaya değerdi.

Total guess on the finish date, but I remember reading this nonstop when I was about eleven. All I recall is being mesmerized and terrified about the demonic possessions.

It's been a while since a book has riled me up as much.

The author attempts to ascertain the differences between a scientific and a religious approach to the investigation of human illnesses. In so doing he makes the claim that science contents itself with "little mysteries" while religion embraces "bigger mysteries" and it is this aspect of religion that he believes lends it more competency in studying and dealing with human evil. I disagree with his evaluation of science, and more so find his statement itself proof that religion is too vague and accepting an approach to truly tackle whatever human evil he purports. It would seem that the author's own opinion of evil is itself muddled and such uncertainty would not be entertained by any scientific approach and hence the imprecise nature of a religious approach is his best resort in exploring his claims.

Despite my qualms with his statements on science and religion I trudged on in the belief that perhaps I could focus on the psychology aspect of the book and skip the religious tidbits. Following an interesting account of a teenage boy on the throes of depression, the author makes noteworthy observations on the psychology of children. He then attempts to prove that the boy's parents are 'evil'. He explains how he was repulsed by the parents and did not offer them psychiatric help. He further attempts to justify his behaviour by claiming that such evil people are truly lost and no help can be useful to them. They are beyond our help and can only be dealt with by evasion. The problem with these statements is that a mere dozen pages ago the author had impressed on the importance of the study of evil being a "healing" one, one that is compassionate and understanding, which is in stark contrast to his actions with the parents. Clearly the author plays hard and fast with his attitudes with evil. This level of hypocrisy cannot possibly be entertained.

Ultimately I find his whole theory of evil a highly subjective one. "Evil" is too archaic a concept to truly serve a meaningful purpose in human psychology, atleast in the manner that the author describes it. The parents of the child can hardly be called evil, I believe, not least because it is a highly reductionist attitude; they are definitely ignorant and foolish, misguided and aloof to their responsibilities, this however does not makes them 'evil'. Furthermore, the authors believes that the repulsion that a non-evil person feels at encountering an evil person is a God given ability to differentiate good from bad. All of these views are highly counterproductive in actually advancing human psychology.

With all the pretentiousness and hypocrisy that pervades the book I left it unfinished. It's unfortunate that the different psychological segments are undermined by religious preaching.

The emergency did not begin at the election.
It’s death at the bottom of the lake. Rejection and unmet needs.
We eat ourselves alive from the moment we learn to share.
It’s natural. And it’s okay.
We can’t live forever. Something has to kill us.
We take care of it ourselves.
Lentement. Slowly.

It’s not about being crazy, of course. It’s about a lack of conversation.
It’s about using language that people we care about don’t understand.
And when someone doesn’t treat you like a person, you die a little death.
Even a stranger. Especially a stranger.

Me? I express a need, and then I turn around and crush myself for having it.
This is a learned behavior.

To see in Spanish is Ver. I see you. Te veo.
Estás en la última fila de la foto.

more : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6_3E...

I re-read this periodically because it's a good reminder of what evil looks like in human beings. Peck is completely right about Satan being uncreative, incredibly petty, repetitive, and very powerful, hiding behind goodness and respectability at every opportunity. The 'group evil' aspect is fascinating. Everyone who's seen a clique at work can see the sense of what he says about how a particular attitude can be as pervasive and influential as a biochemical agent. Am sure his instinct is right about exorcisms - that the patient has to want to be healed, and the healers have to gather at personal sacrifice. Am also glad he doesn't deny or excuse his "Christian bias", making it clear that Christ has an essential role in his understanding and perspective.

It has many good quotes, but this is one of the best. “Evil is revolting because it is dangerous. It will contaminate or even destroy a person who remains too long in its presence. Unless you know very well what you are doing, the best thing you can do when faced with evil is to run the other way. The revulsion counter-transference is an instinctive, or, if you will, God-given and saving early-warning radar system."

“The evil are ‘the people of the lie’, deceiving others as they also build layer upon layer of self-deception.” (page 66) “Forever fleeing the light of self-exposure and the voice of their own conscience, they are the most frightened of human beings. They live their lives in sheer terror.”

One caveat - the author does not acknowledge God as the ultimate judge, and so from a theological perspective, there are some significant gaps (especially in the doctrine of hell as rather a personal space than a shared horror). If you don't read this as a theological book, and with the understanding that the author came to Christianity mid-life, there are some real gems in here.

Peck's evolution from standard, "we can fix it with therapy" psychologist to a believer in unapologetic evil is an honesty those working in social services should realize. Sociopaths and psychopaths are out there; there is often a perception these people are "soulless" , but perhaps, it is simply another species of soul, predatory to the good nature of the human race.

I never read "A Road Less Traveled" so I had no idea that M. Scott Peck was so FOS. He refers to himself at different points in the book as "open-minded" and a "hard headed scientist". Never mind the contradiction, he is neither of those things. In his attempt to label a certain form of malignant narcissism as "evil", he ends up comparing a patient who tries to seduce him to Hitler and Idi Amin. Her worst offences seem to be driving employers crazy with her own priorities and ruining his martini hour by "purposely" running out of gas. Because for him, ruining his martini makes him doubt the existence of a compassionate God the way Hitler's actions do? He also says "Autism is narcissism in its ultimate form." In the context this ignorant statement seems to imply autistic people are closer to evil than the rest of us.
All this arrogant ignorance before he even gets to his discussion of exorcisms. We are supposed to believe the two exorcisms he witnessed weren't merely demonic possessions, but Satanic possessions. The big baddy himself showed up. And Peck knows this for fact because...he read the bible?
I can't believe I finished this book, but I'm glad I did so I could read Peck's justification for rejecting the idea "Judge not, that ye be judged". He also ignores Aldous Huxley warning against being "more against the devil than you are for God" by explaining how he would "assault with love" the evil he is so focused on.
I actually started reading this book to explore evil characters in my writing. Great inspiration for a Christian villain. A psychiatrist so lost in his own narcissism that he labels a lonely autistic woman evil out of his own sexual frustrations.

Understanding human evil is the subject of this book. The author takes both a theological and a therapeutic approach. He claims that he often comes across evil people in his work as a psychotherapist. The evil people are not necessarily the ones who come in for treatment. Often it is a family member of the evil person who comes in for treatment. Clearly, living with an evil person would create psychological problems. Some of Peck's examples are of parents who pretend to love their children, but actually try to sabotage them. One pair of parents even gave their son as a Christmas present the gun that his brother used to kill himself.
His conclusion is that the central defect of evil people is a fear of seeing their own flaws. They never see themselves as to blame, and instead always blame others. They do not want to fix themselves.
Self-deception is at the center, but they also go to great lengths to deceive others. Because they refuse to acknowledge their evil to therapists, they are difficult to heal.
An exorcism is an attempt to persuade the evil person to display his evil face. Even if we deny the existence of the supernatural, we can value exorcism as a therapeutic investigation. Atheists may not care for the religious arguments in this book, but evil is a serious problem that is rarely acknowledged by atheists. Ayn Rand, of course, is a notable exception.
Peck argues that it is a mis-reading of Christianity to believe that we should not judge others. Instead, Peck says that Jesus taught that we should first judge ourselves, before we judge others, and that when we do judge others, we should do so carefully. Peck also says that we should heal evil people by loving them. This reviewer cannot follow the author that far; it seems to me that every hour spent loving an evil person is an hour that should have been spent loving a good person.

Quote from a 2012 article by M. Scott Peck:

"There can be a state of soul against which Love itself is powerless because it has hardened itself against Love.... There are analogies in human experience: the hate which is so blind, so dark, that Love only makes it the more violent; the pride which is so stony that humility only makes it more scornful; the inertia – last but not least the inertia – which has taken possession of the personality that no crisis, no appeal, no inducement whatsoever, can stir it into activity, but on the contrary makes it bury itself the more deeply in its immobility."

If you have believed the widely-held view that "everyone is basically good," and have been harmed by people who spend their entire lives responding to kindness with cruelty, reading this book may answer some central questions for you. If religious references bother you, I don't know what to suggest. I myself am not a great admirer of the world's religions, yet, with so much unexplained phenomena in the world, I feel I can't realistically dismiss spirituality. I don't think it's much of a stretch to say that there is psychosis, and then there is psychopathy, and then there is evil, and that they are distinct from each other. If something exists that can hurt you, better to understand it well.

Read this book to do research about a character I am creating for a novel. I certainly obtained much information about evil, lying, the devil, and exorcisim in a scientific manner--very intriguing, although a bit weird and frightening. Dr. Peck does write in an engaing manner and at times I felt like I was reading a novel when he described patient scenarios. "People of the Lie" did serve its purpose and will help me create a truly wicked individual.

Evil fascinates me. It operates throughout our society largely unnoticed by people who fail to identify it (not as easy as you may think it to be), or by optimistic people who would like to think it does not exist. While Peck doesn't get in detail about the two exorcism he partook in, he clearly identifies evil on three different levels. This book really opens your eyes to the psychology of evil, the shadows, and the real possibility of demons. I recommend this book to anyone, even though I picked it up more for research.

I took from this what I wanted and left the rest. (The exorcism bit seemed to wonder off on another tangent)
A must read for anyone who has ever been played or victimised by someone with NPD. The gas lighting, triangulation and deviousness of these pathologicals is illustrated by the victims reactions from having engaged with them. It is life changing for victims to read this book and realise - "It wasn't me"
The only thing that confounded me was Pecks hope for redemption for these people. But, on second thought I suppose he had to or it would make him and his entire profession redundant to a rather large group of patients.(less)