The case of evil and human evil is a hard one. This book was filled with a lot of hard concepts, ways of thinking and things to consider on the topic of evil. Peck did such a good job of putting evil into perspective and getting to the many roots of it in our culture, in our world and in us as human beings. I hope this isn’t a spoiler but my biggest takeaway from this book was love being at the center of conquering evil. That’s incredibly encouraging!

This is a must read book if you have suffered through narcissistic abuse. This is one of the few sources that I have found that connects evil with narcissism. It is too bad that research into the topics has gone nowhere since the book was written, as the author hoped.

After hearing Dr. Howard speak about this book I ordered it and was in the process of tossing it on the pile of my anticipated reading list when I decided to read the introduction. I never stopped reading and three days later I had finished this book, which for me proved to be a spell binding page-turner, in which Dr. Peck relates certain of his experiences as a psychiatrist, particularly in psychotherapy with evil people.

Perhaps the most mesmerizing thing about the book is Dr. Peck’s detailed characterizations of evil people, which occurs throughout. As I read these characterizations, at least half dozen different people that I know came to mind, including myself on more than one occasion.

Dr. Peck describes evil people as:
•tforemost lazy and narcissistic
•tas deceptive, greedy, self-absorbed, and slothful
•tas people who refuse to acknowledge their own failures
•tas those who project their evil onto others
•tas those who thrive on confusion, lies, and twisted motives
•tas those who desire control and dominion over others
•tas those who are bored with divine things
•tas scapegoating narcissists, who lash out at anyone offering reproach
•tas those who would sacrifice anything or anybody to preserve self-image
•tas those who cause suffering
•tas those who are terrified their false pretense will break down
•tas those who devote enormous energy into maintenance of pretense
•tas those who inspire us to destroy instead of heal and to hate instead of pity
•tetc.

Peck also speaks a good bit about Satan in the book. Peck confesses that he doesn’t know much about the devil, whether it’s a he, she, or it, whether its corporeal, a force or just a concept, just that it is; and that for those who align themselves with it, it becomes very real indeed. Peck believes that one can call the devil into existence or out of existence. Peck insists that Satan emerges in narcissism and has no power except in a human body. Peck says that Satan must use human beings to do its deviltry. Satan cannot murder except with human hands. The only power Satan has is through human belief in its lies and its principal weapon is establishing fear.

And Peck speaks of Hell in the book. Peck believes that those in hell are there by their own choice and that they could walk right out of hell if they would relinquish their pride and ask for forgiveness, but they are so caught up in hate that they actually despise goodness. Peck believes Hell dwellers are not in heaven because they personally despise heaven, as they openly despise all altruism and philanthropy. They relish in taking from others and giving little or nothing. For Peck, Hell is a state of being that people fashion for themselves, a state of separateness from God. Peck says that Hell is not the result of God’s repudiation of man, but of man’s repudiation of God.

Peck asserts there are only two states of being: submission to God’s goodness or refusal to submit to anything but ones own will, which refusal automatically enslaves one to the forces of evil. For Peck, there is no in-between. We must ultimately belong either to God or the devil. We must choose one enslavement or the other. And we can only combat evil with the presence of God. Peck points out that those who crusade not for “God in themselves” but against “the devil in others” never succeed. To be more “against the devil” than “for God” is exceedingly dangerous. Peck insists that if we believe that God created us in his own image then we should take that seriously and accept the responsibility involved in sustaining a Godly presence.

Peck reviews three theological explanations for evil: (1) Hinduism/Buddhism beliefs that evil is just the other side of the coin: for life there must be death, for growth decay, for creation destruction, etc., such that the distinction between good and evil is nothing but an illusion. (2) That evil is God’s creation because he endowed us with free will and free will requires that we have the ability to make the wrong choice. In this manner, evil may be envisioned as a sort of fertilizer, necessary to promote spiritual growth. (3) Classic dualism where evil is regarded not of God’s creation but a ghastly cancer deteriorating the world which God is combating.

The book is stock full of other fascinating concepts and thought provoking issues. Peck suggests in the book that it is time for science to begin to study evil more closely. Peck sees great advances happening when science and religion merge to address evil, instead of being mutually exclusive. Peck rightly says that science without religion gives us the “lunacy of the arms race” and religion without science gives us the “lunacy of a Jonestown”. For Peck, the total separation of religion and science just doesn’t work.

Perhaps Pecks most radical message is reserved for the end of the book when he begins to castigate the tendency of humanity toward war. The truth is that war is nothing short of a living hell. A hell that spreads all about us. Peck reveals how unbridled evil leads us into war after war.

There are many more fascinating concepts awaiting you in this book. I can’t wait to read Peck again!

I may be one of the few people who lived through the 1980s without ever reading anything by M. Scott Peck. His books were all over the place. His The Road Less Traveled became a bestseller and his brand of psychotherapy was well known. I read People of the Lie because it contributed, as I’ve noted elsewhere (Sects and Violence in the Ancient World), to the interest in demons that suddenly appeared in the years after The Exorcist. This book, however, was complex in a different way. Books about psychology often dredge up things from your past, but I was continually bothered by how freely Peck labeled people as “evil.”

I think I get what he was trying to do in the book—he wanted scientists and others to take evil seriously. In describing patients, mostly his own, he would point out where he thought they were evil (narcissistic or liars). Most of the people seemed like they were fairly normal folks, just trying to get along in the world. Of course, I wasn’t in the room at the time, but still, I tend to think most people are good and evil is a very strong word to use on others. I don’t think Peck was trying to be unkind, but still, evil?

The section on demons was understated, after all that. The material on My Lai was difficult to read. Nobody likes to be reminded how easily groups of people can be made to do what is truly called evil. This was one of those books that was fascinating and frustrating in turns. Peck’s overt advocacy of Christianity doesn’t prevent him from treating other religions with respect. It does, however, lead to some strangely contradictory outlooks. Because of Peck’s following his view on personified evil played into the spirit of the times, and, arguably continues to do so. Many years later he wrote a follow-up book on the exorcism cases he witnessed. I suspect I’ll read that one some day too.

Read this years ago it has always stayed with me.

Cartea asta e definiția termenului “mixed feelings” pentru mine. Poate că mi-ar fi plăcut mai mult dacă nu pretindea a fi “psihologia” minciunii.
Dacă vreți vreodată să citiți cartea, e important să știți că ea a fost publicată în 1983. Într-un fel sau altul, explicațiile și abordările folosite nu mai sunt valabile astăzi. Ăsta e motivul pentru care nu aș recomanda-o dacă nu sunteți deja familiari cu modul în care înțelegem astăzi diferite tulburări mentale (câteva din cele menționate de el fiind OCD, autismul și narcisismul).
În sine, e o lectură plăcută. Mai degrabă un eseu coerent și lung despre viziunea sa filosofică decât o carte de psihologie propriu-zisă. Include foarte multe din perspectivele sale psihanalitice și religioase. Personal nu m-au deranjat, dar e ceva inedit să urmărești cât de uimit și confuz e că terapia psihanalitică nu a dat nici un rezultat timp de 3 ani fără să se gândească măcar o dată că poate ar trebui să schimbe abordarea (de fapt, aici mint- ia în considerare ideea și ajunge la concluzia că răspunsul era …exorcismul)
Pe de altă parte, există câteva probleme majore. Ideea de la care pornește Peck este aceea că e singurul vizionar din domeniu care s-a gândit să abordeze problema moralității. Mi-e greu să cred asta când putem argumenta că psihologia chiar devenise obsedată de problema răului și a moralității la un moment dat (vezi Milgram, Zimbardo, Piaget și Kohlberg printre alții). Tot el ridică întrebarea: “De ce psihologia nu s-a concentrat pe studierea răului?”, la care își răspunde singur spre final fără să își dea seama- pentru că implică judecăți generale și subiective după evenimentul respectiv. Concluziile în știință trebuie să fie testabile, verificabile. Altfel, ne reîntoarcem în perioada în care psihologia funcționa strict pe principiul “sună plauzibil deci probabil așa și este”. Deci nu, nu putem generaliza și trage concluzii de tipul “era un om rău” la zeci de ani după eveniment (cum face autorul, de altfel) , și în același timp să pretindem că facem o evaluare obiectivă în numele științei.

Pe scurt, o puteți citi pentru meritul său filosofic și ideile pe care le expune (într-un mod clar și cu exemple utile), dar cam atât.

Keista knyga ir šiai dienai nežinau, kaip ją reiktų vertint. Ar blogis yra psichinė liga? Tai ir yra pagrindinis klausimas, į kurį autorius bando atsakyti. Jo apibrėžiamas blogis primena neurozių kamuojamo žmogaus apibūdinimą. Bet viskas pasikeičia, jei mes imame į tai žiūrėti iš krikščioniškosios pozicijos (reiktų paminėt, kad autorius yra uolus katalikas). Blogio apibūdinimas pasidaro kaip ir labai tinkamas. Tuomet man kyla klausimas - prie ko čia mokslas, psichinės ligos, religija ir moralinės vertybes? Akivaizdu, kad jis savo evil pacientus renkasi vertinti moraliniu aspektu.
Šiaip knyga skaitosi lengvai ir greitai. Ir su autorium galima sutikt arba nesutikt, priklausomai nuo to, kokį požiūrį įjungi - mokslinį ar tą bendražmogiškąjį. Savo aplinkoj pažįstu vieną žmogų, kuris būtų puikus evil egzempliorius, bet giliau paanalizavus po tuo evil slepiasi neurozė.
O vat skyrius apie egzorcizmą nu tikrai buvo WTF.

There are things I don't like about this book, but I started reading it again because I own it and have no other convenient/available book in mind to address an issue of concern to me right now: why people are so shamelessly FUCKED UP, remorseless, and seemingly devoid of empathy with apparently no desire to be better or recognition that anything is wrong with them, even a little bit.

Once again I just couldn't continue when he starts in with the exorcism bullshit. Which in my placebo & ritual embracing mindset I supposedly can go along with a little ways, but in reality when it comes to reading this book I just can't keep reading it. I keep thinking I'm curious about it, but then I'm just NOT. He's just really smoothly full of shit in so many ways.

Christian fundamentalist propaganda interspersed with Bible verses and prayer-like mentally confused pseudo-psycho babble that has no place in actual psychology and science. "Evil" is not a valid diagnosis and people with personality disorders are not demonically possessed or out to "do the devil's work."
There may not be treatment as of yet for certain diagnoses but that does not mean we should lazily cast compassion and motivation for continuous studying and trying to find a solution overboard.
This book is not "dangerous" as the author initially suggests in it because "evil people" may learn from it and use it against "good" (aka his God's) people but because it is basically a low key call to violence. Where do you send evil people? Right back to hell where they belong with their demon overlord Satan, right? I must consider the author to be very mentally ill due to his hateful propaganda and would class this book with others of its kind such as Adolf Hitler's "Mein Kampf" for example. And no, I am not kidding. It is THAT bigoted - and more.
I'm not a fan of burning books but this one certainly qualifies. If you want to make any use of this book use it as toilet paper or trash can lining.

An incredible eye-opener for anyone who has a family member who sucks the life out of everyone around them, who makes all who oppose them feel guilty for their actions, who seems to need to control everyone who gets near them, and who seems to personify evil. They are evil, this book explains it. Some cases he describes are horrifying, you will not believe how such people destroy other family members without feeling a bit of remorse or understanding they are themselves at fault. Having read this book, you will no longer feel you are to blame for the havoc they wreak, you will know how to fight them. I did not give this a full 5 stars because near the end of the book Dr. Peck explores exorcism as a possible means of fixing such people ..... that's a bit much, but in the face of evil, and with his strong religious beliefs, I guess Dr. Peck really can't be faulted.... ok 5 stars.

Having had my fair share of dealing with a wide range of difficult people from a wide range of social circles, my encounter with one of the most covert manipulative types, lead me to this book, as I sought to resolve the confusion left behind. Peck's take on how the science of psychiatry need not be completely separate from religion, that there is also a spiritual deficiency at play among some disordered individuals, was completely fascinating yet utterly disturbing. Many of the real life case studies of patients and incidents with no medical explanation which he described, sent chills down my spine. I agree with Peck's insights... it is a battlefield of souls out there.

This book was pivotal in my understanding of the part that I played in my past demise. Mr. Peck has excellent focus on childhood and how parents are far more important within the development of their children then some realize. It was in this book that Mr. Peck stated, “In The Road Less Traveled I defined mental health as “an ongoing process of dedication to reality at all costs.” Reality, something that exist and that neither positive nor negative, is essential to understand whether we are religious or not. From this book, I walked away with this understanding,

"As individuals, being aware of our own personal failures and owing up to them, keeps us from allowing the negative aspects of us get out of hand. They rarely manifest, and we do not make excuses for them. Those who are prideful and refuse to accept that they have personal failures, harm people all the time. Even when on the surface their intentions appear good. Intentions don’t excuse outcome. You could have good intentions toward someone and still end up doing a great amount of harm to them. The reasoning behind why you are doing what you are doing in no way justifies your actions anymore than someone who set out to actually do harm to someone. The outcome can be the same regardless of the intentional outset."

Anyone who has had a rough upbringing or past, understand, this book will show you that you play a vital part in your own victimhood. It doesn't seem like it at first, but when you realize that people will deal with you based on how you present yourself and what you allow, then it will become clear to you.