Certainly 'The Enemy Within' is ONE of the most thought provoking TOS eps. Robert Louis Stevenson was the first fiction writer to speculate upon the ramifications of physically splitting our 'good' and 'evil' sides into two independent beings, in the form of 'Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde', back in the mid 1800's. One of the things about THAT story which always took my attention was the stress placed upon the fact that Hyde was quite small in stature and physically weak, while Jekyll was a fairly robust man...inferring that the 'evil' side of him was, perhaps, intrinsically less influential within the framework of the combined whole. Yeah, we wish!
'Enemy', however, divies things up differently, analyzing the nature of each set of attributes in the process. Good Kirk gets the morals, the reasoning ability and the positive emotions--most notably compassion. Bad Kirk gets the pure fire-in-the-belly strength of will, the daring to do anything, the ability to make the tough choices, but thoroughly lacks any trace of intellect and hence direction. The all-too-evident moral of this story is that we humans need both the good and the evil aspects of ourselves in order to function, but that the good must keep the evil under strict regulation to obtain the best results.
My question is, If evil has the strength, is good going to be able to consistently reign in his antithesis with only the use of morality and intellect? Looking at the history of our race and the current state of affairs in our corner of the universe, my answer would have to be a resounding, "NO!" Spock readily points out that, "Being split in two is no mystery to him...", giving us a chance to see that the Vulcans have simply taken the human condition a step further. He then concludes that, "His intellect wins out over BOTH, making them live together!" Kirk's more visible version of the ordeal merely makes the concept a bit more accessible to us.
'Enemy' very stylishly distills that daily struggle we each must face into a clearly writ tableau of our decision making process--social stereotypes included. What is the subtle difference between being a 'wimp', and being a 'jerk' in any given situation? At what point should our instinct for simple self preservation give way to the realization that addressing the greater good may well be the path to an improvement in our own situation? Just exactly how much bad in us is actually good for us?
Jekyll never figured it out. Kirk, with Spock's help, seemed to. Once again, Star Trek serves us as a blueprint for living in the 'real world'.
Retired clinical psychologist and university professor, happily married, untimate Spock fan
'Enemy', however, divies things up differently, analyzing the nature of each set of attributes in the process. Good Kirk gets the morals, the reasoning ability and the positive emotions--most notably compassion. Bad Kirk gets the pure fire-in-the-belly strength of will, the daring to do anything, the ability to make the tough choices, but thoroughly lacks any trace of intellect and hence direction. The all-too-evident moral of this story is that we humans need both the good and the evil aspects of ourselves in order to function, but that the good must keep the evil under strict regulation to obtain the best results.
My question is, If evil has the strength, is good going to be able to consistently reign in his antithesis with only the use of morality and intellect? Looking at the history of our race and the current state of affairs in our corner of the universe, my answer would have to be a resounding, "NO!" Spock readily points out that, "Being split in two is no mystery to him...", giving us a chance to see that the Vulcans have simply taken the human condition a step further. He then concludes that, "His intellect wins out over BOTH, making them live together!" Kirk's more visible version of the ordeal merely makes the concept a bit more accessible to us.
'Enemy' very stylishly distills that daily struggle we each must face into a clearly writ tableau of our decision making process--social stereotypes included. What is the subtle difference between being a 'wimp', and being a 'jerk' in any given situation? At what point should our instinct for simple self preservation give way to the realization that addressing the greater good may well be the path to an improvement in our own situation? Just exactly how much bad in us is actually good for us?
Jekyll never figured it out. Kirk, with Spock's help, seemed to. Once again, Star Trek serves us as a blueprint for living in the 'real world'.
Retired clinical psychologist and university professor, happily married, untimate Spock fan
