Posts Archive - Part Two.
Evil ... reason ... good one.
aelfscine sez: Evil never, never happens without a reason, and sometimes it's even a good one.
For the record, allow me to express my disagreement.
If something happens for a good reason, it cannot properly be considered evil.
From your examples:
... Colonial Americans did not want war, and did not initiate the violence. Britain could have avoided war had it changed it's policy with regard to colonial sovereignty. Once war begins, it is proper, and certainly not evil, to win by any means necessary.
... a wife killing her abusive husband isn't evil, if he's physically threatening her life - otherwise, she is.
... despair does not justify theft (but note that theft is rarely evil, the term is too extreme to apply to most forms of theft, which may be only bad, or immoral, maybe even vicious, but only rarely evil).
... the impropriety of antidrug laws does not justify choosing peddling narcotics as a career, nor is the evil of gang battles lessened by referring to someone's frustration at not being offered legal protection for illegal activity.
Different contexts can, and often do, make any of these cases much more complex, and sorting out the good and the evil (and lesser degrees of virtuous nad vicious) is not always easy - but it can, and should, always be done.
Otherwise, the concept of justice (and ultimately morality) is useless.
_______________________________________
Re: Evil ... reason ... good one.
There are some really good responses, and insights, in this thread! And, usually, I meet so few people who explicitly agree with me in understanding that things keep getting better and better - what fun to read Rinku's comments!
NE, hope you can make it to Saturday's EGO meeting, the first at our place in a couple years. Would be interested to discuss/consider the idea that most things you call evil really aren't - they might be bad, could sometimes be immoral, rarely but occasionally vicious, but very, very rarely do we personally encounter evil in our lives.
... Most news stories don't count - not metaphysically, not in sense of life terms, because, by and large, only bad news is regarded as news - the zillion-kazillion good things that happen, that people do, all day, every day, are not regarded as news - they're just the norm, to be expected. People wake up, have a nice stretch, enjoy a good breakfast or a quick slice of toast, wash their faces and brush their teeth, dress, drive their cars, go to work, make good things happen, sometimes new things, sometimes great things, sometimes just keeping the wheels, the steady stream of values, rolling, receive a complement or just a friendly "hello!", buy things others have made, get served a meal or a haircut by folks who've chosen those careers, come home, kiss their loved ones, telephone a friend, play games, listen to music, enjoy a film, write a letter, pet their bunny (or cat, or dog...), luxuriate in a long bath or a quick shower, indulge in soaps and fragrances and lotions and fine fabrics, send or receive a greeting card or flowers, watch the sun set, slip between linens and enjoy a good night's sleep ... and wake up again to a new day full of opportunity ...
That is reality.
Re: Evil ... reason ... good one.
robertnasir 2006-08-17 03:31 pm UTC ... and since the issue is the negative appraisal of other people in relation to your values, take a moment to realize that very little of the unlimited values available to you would be so, if other people didn't exist, producing a world full of wonderful things and opportunities. If the negative held sway, if it was, on balance, the more common or more powerful, none of this would have been possible.
It's an easy and understandable mistake, and common among young Objectivists, or folk in general who've not yet entered their career life and surrounded thmselves with what really matters: if you're judging every moment, not by how wonderful life is, and how good other people are, and how much they're producing, and what values are open to your attainment and achievement - but by how it might have been if everyone was consistently rational all of the time - you're not fully focused on reality, you're not giving people whatever great or small credit they DO deserve, and you're setting yourself up for metaphysical alienation and constant disappointment, both consciously, and on a sense-of-life level.
Jane ...
... get me off this crazy thing! (hee hee) ____________________________
It's Amy!
(Anonymous) 2006-08-17 10:37 pm UTC (link)
"come home, kiss their loved ones, telephone a friend, play games, listen to music, enjoy a film, write a letter, pet their bunny (or cat, or dog...), luxuriate in a long bath or a quick shower, indulge in soaps and fragrances and lotions and fine fabrics, send or receive a greeting card or flowers, watch the sun set, slip between linens and enjoy a good night's sleep ... and wake up again to a new day full of opportunity ..."
I agree with my husband Robert. [Darling! You are so sexy!]
Amyway, I understand your frustration. But I don’t think your definition of evil is complete. It might be helpful for you to go back to the beginning with this definition: evil is the refusal to think. It is evasion, turning away from thought. Every form of violence and injustice rests on evasion.
Today, and throughout history, a young person can find he can get away with evading, because no thinking person questions him, and he starts to truly believe reality will bend to his whims – that if he doesn’t think about it, it doesn’t exist. Try applying this formula to every evil person – tax collectors, politicians, Islamofascists, catholic priests, etc. – and you'll find the same non-thought process. You can also find this process in all those many mixed people, including myself occasionally, who sometimes try to avoid difficult problems.
Evil is willful impotence of the mind and the refusal to use it to understand reality - and it only gets real ugly when a person develops their evasion into a habit. Further, the power of evil lies in the refusal of good people to speak up. And this is its only power, besides the fist or gun. Those who don’t speak – in public or in their personal lives – give every incentive for an evil person to keep evading, and acting on that evasion. Evil ends when a rational person disagrees, speaks and acts on principle (also when the offender is locked-up or killed).
I implore you to borrow our copy of Andy Bernstein’s “Villainy and the Nature of Evil” on cassette. I promise, this will be your silver bullet for your confusion.
And about metaphysical value judgements and changing your sense of life, I’ve found that the best way is to make rational decisions (even when pressured not to), act on your own judgement (even when you’re not entirely certain of the outcome), keep self-monitoring and introspecting, and then find that rationality works – with career and with people. When you will find it does work, I reckon you will be very happy with yourself and the world. I can give you MANY examples from my own personal life and the very happy outcomes that rationality produces.
Also you really need to get over to our house to play your oboe with me – I just bought a new Yamaha mouthpiece, and it sounds BEAUTIFUL!
_________________________________________
I haved only two pieces of advice for you, young lady...
![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif)
First:
Visit </font></a>http://www.okgo.net/video.asp and watch the videos
(especially “Here It Goes Again” and “A Million Ways”
Dance, though “Get Over It” might also be helpful here).
A train could roll over my favorite toe and these video's
would still make me happy.
Second:
EGO is on for tonight at Eric's place! Be there! (Or be, well,
elsewhere. But that's no fun.)
____________________________________________
Re: ...clarify my questions ... arrive at the answers.
</font>robertnasir
2006-09-12 04:05 pm UTC Always happy to be of service.
(And just in case it's not obvious, if you ever find yourself
in the hospital, please let me know - I, and certainly Amy,
will gladly smuggle in dis-allowed sweets, hover, and
commiserate ... as will probably most of the rest of the gang.
Just 'cause we'd want to.)
</a></span>___________________________________
Oh no! (And hooray!)
robertnasir 2006-09-14 06:38 pm UTC
Oh no! I can see why you're in such a state - and many of the
issues you're wrestling with, I've had to work my way through!
Among the better young thinkers out there, you are far from alone.
But hooray, there are answers to all of the issues you've raised!
I only have time to indicate the direction in which you might
want to go with these many issues, so if you'd like me to help
you work them out in full, I (and I'm sure the rest of the group)
would be happy to work on them at the next EGO meeting ... or
if you'd like, feel free to e-mail me, or give me a call.
As you might have noticed, I always remind folks that many
(most) issues can be resolved just by knowing what you really
mean when you ask the question - and particularly by defining
your terms. No surprise here: recall from ITOE, "The truth or
falsehood of all of man's conclusions, inferences, thought and
knowledge rests on the truth or falsehood of his definitions."
Seems self-evident, but in practice, easy to forget.
Regarding your first point, the important word to define is
"instinct". If one equivocates between instinct and emotion
and sensation, then surely, man has an instinct to eat, drink,
sleep, seek love, nurture babies, etc.
But take sensation and emotion out of the picture, and one
wonders what's left of "instinct".
The answer? "An 'instinct' is an unerring and automatic form
of knowledge."
Well, heck, by Rand's strict, limited definition, who has instincts?
No one, of course. But then, is the concept defined out of
usefulness? No, because in reality, the basis for the concept
is the complex behaviors of animals, which go beyond range
of the moment emotions or sensations. Totally cause and effect,
but too complex to be understood in terms of simple emotion or
sensation.
This is what we, as people, ain't got.
Instinct's not even the right concept for simple drives,
emotions, sensations, human or animal. Newborn babies,
for example, don't even know how to eat. They have a
hunger sensation, and learn quickly the pleasure that
comes from the feel of skin, the mouth, the tongue, the
flavor of milk or food, but they don't even know until
they learn by trial and error how to suckle or chew
(swallowing appears to be automatic, and primarily
physical/neurological).
Animals also learn by similar methods - but the
difference is not in the children, but in the parents,
and is clear when you watch a dog suckle it's pups,
while human mothers often feel no desire to breastfeed,
and may bottle-feed instead, and ween their children
as their judgement dictates.
You describe human sensations as "biological drives,"
and this is accurate, but such sensations are not instinct,
not by Rand's meaningful definition. Compare to animal
behaviors such as care for their young, complex migration
patterns, courtship rituals, and cleaning behaviors.
Even self-preservation, in the case of humans, isn't
instinct. It may appear so, but it is in fact a complex
psychological manifestation of the sum of pleasure
& pain responses, perceptual and conceptual.
If it was instinct, it would be more unerring! But it's not,
as we see in many cases ... not just suicide bombers or
depressed folks, but even terminally ill people in pain
with no chance of improvement who rationally choose
when to end their own lives.
Bottom line: I don't want to seek pleasure, joy, and
ultimately happiness, because of an instinct (or even
a desire) for self-preservation. Self-preservation,
via evolution, determines the means, but happiness
is the actual motivation, and the end.
Wow - spent longer on instinct than expected, and
hardly scratched the surface - lunch hour's over!
Will try to touch on freewill, perhaps after work.
</span>____________________
For the record...
</font></font></span></a>
ARBookstore ... NE, you're welcome to borrow this
one on tape from me if you like).
The universe ain't out to help us - or hurt us. But
given our nature, and the nature of what's "out there",
life is possible - and more, knowledge and happiness
are possible - and more, if we act properly, certainly
and happiness are the norm, to be expected.
And our genes don't "care" about anything.
But if "caring" is a way of saying the natural selection
reinforces genes which code for certain characteristics
over others, then genes certainly do "care" about
survival - at a minimum, survival to the age of
reproduction (though, fortunately, natural selection
doesn't work that way, and consequently, we live
quite a bit longer than it takes to squeeze out a few
pups ... just one of a zillion benevolent facts).
_______________
robertnasir</span></span> |
ecstatic
silly
rejected
rushed