R' Micha Berger wrote:
> So it would seem to me that people consistently define YH as a
> yeitzer whose results tend to be evil: impulsivity, unbridled
> imagination (both in contrast to seichel), hedonism (in contrast
> to sanctity), etc... Not one whose actions are defined as a draw
> to evil itself.

Great! Now, we can attempt to fine-tune it a bit...

The way I put it was that the YH is a drive to do the things which 
one understands to be evil, regardless of whether or not they 
actually *are* evil.

I must confess to having reservations about that definition.

Can it really be that a person is driven to do things which he 
himself considers to be evil?

"Ayn adam mesim atzmo rosho." Not only is it rare for a person to 
confess that he committed a certain act, but it seems to me that a 
person will rarely (if ever) admit (even to himself) that the act he 
committed was evil. Rather, he will maintain that it was actually a 
noble act, or at least a justifiable one.

Furthermore, I believe that it is very rare (if ever) that a person 
will even be tempted to do a thing *because* he feels it to be wrong. 
If a person views a certain act as wrong (whether others see it as 
wrong or not) it will be repulsive to him (to some degree or another) 
simply by virtue of his seeing it as wrong.

What can happen, though, is that a certain act will appear attractive 
to him, even though he understands it to be a wrong act. This is a 
temptation of the yetzer hara. But he is attracted and tempted 
*despite* the evil, not *because* of it. There is some sort of profit 
or gain from the action, and *that* is what is tempting him. If this 
yetzer hara is strong enough, he will see - or invent - reasons to 
justify doing the act. He may well be mistaken, or may even be 
fooling himself, but that is very different than actually wanting to 
do evil.

I suspect that what I've written so far is merely an expanded version 
of what RMB wrote.

At this point, I'd like to mention a quote from Rav Noach Weinberg of 
Aish HaTorah. Unfortunately, I cannot quote directly, because I 
cannot find a copy of this thought which I remember so clearly. (It 
might have been from the Rolling Stone article. Anyway, he says a 
very similar idea in different words on pg 28 of What The Angel 
Taught You.) So I'll quote from memory:

"What is the opposite of pleasure? Pain? No, pain is not the 
*opposite* of pleasure; pain is a *prerequisite* for pleasure. 
Pleasure *involves* pain. Nothing worthwhile is painless. The 
opposite of pleasure is *boredom*."

I cite this not because I want to discuss pleasure and pain, but 
because I want to expand our concept of "opposite". Perhaps the 
opposite of "the drive to do good" is NOT "the drive to do evil".

Perhaps the yetzer hara is not a drive to be evil, but a drive to be 
*selfish*.

When I imagine a generic example of someone who is controlled by his 
yetzer hara, I do not see some who is hellbent on evil and 
destruction; that would describe a mindless monster, not a misguided 
ben adam.

Rather, someone who is controlled by his yetzer hara is someone who 
does what he wants, for reasons which appeal to him. It's not that he 
is *trying* to be evil, but that he doesn't *care* whether he is 
doing right or wrong. Or, more precisely, he defines "good" in his 
own way -- will this benefit his family, his friends, himself -- 
without caring whether or not G-d or society deem it to be good or 
evil.

Es chato'ai ani mazkir hayom -- How often have I said, or thought, "I 
really ought to be doing ABC, and not XYZ, but I just don't care."

If the opposite of pleasure is boredom, then then the opposite of 
altruism is indifference.

Akiva Miller