Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Mike82ARP

Can ideas be, in and of themselves, evil?

59 posts in this topic

In reading about the Kelley-Peikoff debate the question, "can an idea be evil?? seemed to be an issue.

Your thoughts on this topic would be appreciated.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re this "debate" between Peikoff and Kelley about "can an idea be evil," to what text are you referring to? Possibly, Kelley's The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand ?

Yes, Peter Schwartz and Peikoff did condemn Kelley for speaking in front of "evil" groups. Somewhat puzzling, since the ARI catalog of tapes had at least two debates between Peikoff and another Objectivist on one side, and Canadian and British socialists (I think one was Christopher Hitchens, in his earlier phase as a firebrand Trotskyite socialist).

Paradoxically, Yaron Brook has been doing precisely that, debating various figures on the Left (I.e., precisely what David Kelley was so severely criticized for)..

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can one really separate ideas from the people, unless he's a Platonist and believes in Forms?

Isn't that the gist of Kelley's argument?

That a Platonist or rationalist will indeed often hold an idea detached from reality

and his consciousness?

Which he might never act upon.

(not that one would necessarily want to befriend him.)

I think an idea can be inherently irrational, but not objectively evil until it's carried out.

Which may include explicitly teaching it... I'm not sure.

The big split simply imo, was around that point. Kelley wrote in Truth and Toleration:

"Peikoff is giving voice to intrinsicism - a belief that the truth is revealed and that error reflects a willful refusal to see."

(Or - everybody recognises evil ideas, automatically - somehow.)

So Kelley advocates making the effort to distinguish the idea from the person (until one knows better) instead of rejecting both as 'evil'- and to top it, the idea might be innocently held by someone who genuinely doesn't see its evil consequences. (My 'take'.)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In reading about the Kelley-Peikoff debate the question, "can an idea be evil?? seemed to be an issue.

Your thoughts on this topic would be appreciated.

The term "Idea" is purely descriptive, whereas the term "evil" refers to a moral value judgement.

The combination "evil idea" therefore only makes sense against the backdrop of a moral standard of value. Moral standards of value are man-made though.

So there exist ideas which were regarded as "evil" in past times, but not in our time. And vice versa.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ideas are not evil. Guns are not evil. Horses are not evil. Storms are not evil. Only a volitional entity can be evil.

Strictly speaking, the idea of human sacrifice is not evil, but the people who practiced it were.

That said, though, how could you instantiate the idea, except to purpetrate an evil act? The idea is inherently evil because it cannot be put to moral purpose.

Or... it might be possible ... In The Fountainhead, Gail Wynand and Howard Roark take a vacation about the I Do. Reminiscing, Wyand marvels that no power on Earth could have made him start the engines and leave Roark swimming the ocean -- but he says parenthetically, "Oh, you could sacrifice one man to save a continent." So, maybe the idea of human sacrifice is not inherently evil, but only its actual practice must be evaluated.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see where an idea must inevitably lead to act. So there is no idea that would absolutely produce an evil act such that the action could not be avoided one the idea was formed. Conclusion: there are no absolutely evil ideas because only actions can be evil.

Ba'al Chatzaf

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is an interesting phraseology: "... fit into this question." It evidences experience based on mechanical assembly. How does this part fit into this mechanism? Ah! It is held on this pin by this pawl between these two idlers. No other experience could have given us the idiom. Cattle do not fit into a pen. Patterns do not fit into fabrics. You can not fit into your clothes if you outgrow them, I suppose. It is just curious that we are offered a piece of rhetoric or discourse on "intent" and asked to place it usefully within a lexical or argumentative machinery about good and evil.

Samson's question may rest on two diffferent motives: either he has an answer, or he does not. The latter is easy to accept because the problem is difficult. Volumes have been written over the centuries. I think that Ba'al Chatzaf would agree that both Jewish and Catholic moral teaching allow us to be free of guilt if a good intention leads to a bad outcome.On the other hand...

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions." is attributed (Wikipedia here) to St. Bernard of Clairvaux who lived 1090-1153. The interesting tidbit is that he lived in Troyez, in Champagne, the place of the great fairs and one of the centers of Jewish learning founded by Rabbi Solomon ben Isaac (1040-1105) known by his acronym, Rashi.

Objectively, you can only know what you know. You cannot be responsible for what you "should" have known, though we all understand that feeling. At best, I know of no general law or rule to settle it. Objectivism is not absolutism; Objectivism considers context.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ideas are not evil. Guns are not evil. Horses are not evil. Storms are not evil. Only a volitional entity can be evil.

Strictly speaking, the idea of human sacrifice is not evil, but the people who practiced it were.

That said, though, how could you instantiate the idea, except to purpetrate an evil act? The idea is inherently evil because it cannot be put to moral purpose.

Or... it might be possible ... In The Fountainhead, Gail Wynand and Howard Roark take a vacation about the I Do. Reminiscing, Wyand marvels that no power on Earth could have made him start the engines and leave Roark swimming the ocean -- but he says parenthetically, "Oh, you could sacrifice one man to save a continent." So, maybe the idea of human sacrifice is not inherently evil, but only its actual practice must be evaluated.

Ayn Rand used an artistic trick which allows the reader to "read" person's mind. In reality any idea has to be expressed in some way . So long as person shut up about his ideas we cannot know them and judge, However when he expresses his ideas in public or in private he acts on them. In your approach anybody who openly supports terrorism is evil, but the idea of terrorism is not. What then makes such a supporter an evil person?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ideas are not evil. Guns are not evil. Horses are not evil. Storms are not evil. Only a volitional entity can be evil.

Strictly speaking, the idea of human sacrifice is not evil, but the people who practiced it were.

That said, though, how could you instantiate the idea, except to purpetrate an evil act? The idea is inherently evil because it cannot be put to moral purpose.

Or... it might be possible ... In The Fountainhead, Gail Wynand and Howard Roark take a vacation about the I Do. Reminiscing, Wyand marvels that no power on Earth could have made him start the engines and leave Roark swimming the ocean -- but he says parenthetically, "Oh, you could sacrifice one man to save a continent." So, maybe the idea of human sacrifice is not inherently evil, but only its actual practice must be evaluated.

Ayn Rand used an artistic trick which allows the reader to "read" person's mind. In reality any idea has to be expressed in some way . So long as person shut up about his ideas we cannot know them and judge, However when he expresses his ideas in public or in private he acts on them. In your approach anybody who openly supports terrorism is evil, but the idea of terrorism is not. What then makes such a supporter an evil person?

I don’t think terrorism is an appropriate example in reference to my question. I was thinking more of an error in thinking, a misinterpretation of an observation of flaw in reasoning.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ideas are not evil. Guns are not evil. Horses are not evil. Storms are not evil. Only a volitional entity can be evil.

Strictly speaking, the idea of human sacrifice is not evil, but the people who practiced it were.

That said, though, how could you instantiate the idea, except to purpetrate an evil act? The idea is inherently evil because it cannot be put to moral purpose.

Or... it might be possible ... In The Fountainhead, Gail Wynand and Howard Roark take a vacation about the I Do. Reminiscing, Wyand marvels that no power on Earth could have made him start the engines and leave Roark swimming the ocean -- but he says parenthetically, "Oh, you could sacrifice one man to save a continent." So, maybe the idea of human sacrifice is not inherently evil, but only its actual practice must be evaluated.

Ayn Rand used an artistic trick which allows the reader to "read" person's mind. In reality any idea has to be expressed in some way . So long as person shut up about his ideas we cannot know them and judge, However when he expresses his ideas in public or in private he acts on them. In your approach anybody who openly supports terrorism is evil, but the idea of terrorism is not. What then makes such a supporter an evil person?

I don’t think terrorism is an appropriate example in reference to my question. I was thinking more of an error in thinking, a misinterpretation of an observation of flaw in reasoning.

Mike, I'd say all evil starts out as "an error in thinking..."etc. - but not all errors in thinking, etc.

are inherently evil. Could that help?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike, I'd say all evil starts out as "an error in thinking..."etc. - but not all errors in thinking, etc.

are inherently evil. Could that help?

That makes sense, but will that explanation pass the Objectivist test? I makes me wonder why the Piekoff/Kelly schism occurred when Brook is currently doing essentially the same thing for which Kelley was ostracized (e.g., Brook debating Callahan from Demos).

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike, I'd say all evil starts out as "an error in thinking..."etc. - but not all errors in thinking, etc. are inherently evil. Could that help?

That makes sense, but will that explanation pass the Objectivist test? I makes me wonder why the Piekoff/Kelly schism occurred when Brook is currently doing essentially the same thing for which Kelley was ostracized (e.g., Brook debating Callahan from Demos).
82arp, WhyNot is Objectivistically correct. His explanation does pass the Objectivist Test. He was not merely philosophizing as Daunce and Ba'al do. They are not Objectivists. WhyNot is. As for Peikoff/Kelley/Brook, you would have to ask Peikoff himself. Over in Rome, they are picking a new Pope. Objectivism works differently than that. Even Ayn Rand could not speak ex cathedra. She claimed that she did. Way back when, as college study groups popped up all over, they sought names such as The Objectivist Club. Rand did not want kids who were only learning philosophy in college to be speaking in her name. So, "Students of Objectivism" became the accepted label. Only Rand's published books - not her journals or diaries, by the way - and the published articles in The Objectivist Newsletter and The Objectivist were official doctrine. After The Split, that was no longer true, and could no longer be true.

Rand said that Objectivism is self-correcting becasue the final arbiter is reality. While some people centered on Leonard Peikoff tried loyalty tests, it just never held up. Moreover, the editing by ARI demonstrated glaring errors in the reconstruction of Ayn Rand's unpublished ideas. (In fact a true first edition of We the Living reveals a younger woman whose ideas were not completely consonant with those expressed in and after Atlas Shrugged. (Or so it is said. I have not read WTL 1st ed.))

The point is that today some consensus would be necessary to define an "Objectivist" position on any new event or idea, whether 9/11 or the discovery of a SETI signal. Even with old issues, that remains. Knowledgeable and intelligent Objectivists here have said, "Ayn Rand was wrong about that..."

However, that fundamental baseline of accepted knowledge published between 1947 and 1969 still remains. And WhyNot's statement was accurately and precisely within that foundation.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To say an idea is evil is to say an idea is evil per se and spike thinking, discussion and debate. By their acts and consequences shall you know them--the people who act. There are ideas that can be expressed to an adult and that is not evil; expressed to a child, yes. The expression is the act, the context is important. "Thou shall not kill" sounds like a good idea, but it's not necessarily so good when various contexts are applied. Good ideas, bad ideas, evil idea--all imply various acting scenarios.

--Brant

lousy software

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike, I'd say all evil starts out as "an error in thinking..."etc. - but not all errors in thinking, etc.

are inherently evil. Could that help?

That makes sense, but will that explanation pass the Objectivist test? I makes me wonder why the Piekoff/Kelly schism occurred when Brook is currently doing essentially the same thing for which Kelley was ostracized (e.g., Brook debating Callahan from Demos).

(I don't really know if it passes the test - although I appreciate MEM's supportive comments. Who's test anyhow? I should add that without disrespecting what Peikoff has said and written (he has been a bit of a learning source to me) I find myself to be in line mostly with Kelley's reasoning. At bottom, I can only be in line with what I have been thinking until this time - but may find and decide I'm not quite right in months to come.)

Following your questions, and the others' insights, I've been considering 'evil' from the point of

view of oneself.

Mostly, imo, Objectivists invoke the obvious, though incomprehensible, extremes of evil, of Stalin, Hitler, et al - usually judging the normative morality of evil that men perpetrate on other men.

The consequences on others, iow., while only fleetingly considering the prerequisite harm that such a person first inflicted on himself.

Who cares what harm Hitler did to himself, you may ask?

If the one follows from the other as it must have done, it affects us all.

Active evil starts with an irrationality in someone's mind, we all seem to agree. Even if we come up from those depths of evil to the more mundane, surely there is still irrationality and immorality

existing in one's consciousness, in ideas which are never acted upon - only known to oneself?

Let's say I have that legendary, interfering, crazy mother-in-law, and I have the odd, fleeting

fantasy of murdering her! So far, nothing wrong. But at some point, I may cross the line into obsessively considering it, harboring vicious thoughts about her - while knowing full-well I won't do anything physically to her.

By standards of rational selfishness, I am behaving irrationally and immorally within my mind -

not confronting the reality of my m-i-l, (avoiding how to decisively resolve her negative influence) filling my consciousness with impotent resentment, and losing my objectivity.

Actually, this stems from the same place as lying to others, I think: I am immorally "faking reality" in and by my own mind, well in advance of, or absence of, the wrongful, immoral or possibly evil effect on another individual.

Same would apply - eg - to a person's privately held racist - therefore, collectivist - thoughts, or any other irrationality: the harm is to one's observance of reality, primarily, not to some other person..

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To say an idea is evil is to say an idea is evil per se and spike thinking, discussion and debate. By their acts and consequences shall you know them--the people who act. There are ideas that can be expressed to an adult and that is not evil; expressed to a child, yes. The expression is the act, the context is important. "Thou shall not kill" sounds like a good idea, but it's not necessarily so good when various contexts are applied. Good ideas, bad ideas, evil idea--all imply various acting scenarios.

--Brant

lousy software

I'm not sure your example applies. You wrote, "There are ideas that can be expressed to an adult and that is not evil; expressed to a child, yes."

I understand your example, "Thou shall not kill", but that quote is anachronistic, i.e., Elizabethan English. Modern translations of the Bible show this Hebrew word to actually be "murder", not "kill". Therefore, if your example would have been used correctly, then there would be no evil context to consider.

My question to you then is, how can an idea that is true be considered evil regardless of whom it is directed at? I can understand how untrue statements can potentially be evil.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike,

This is an issue that comes up in O-Land at times. It's odd, too. Back when Nathaniel Branden was still in the good graces of Ayn Rand, everybody, but everybody harped on admiringly about the way he took Jesus down on this very issue.

I might get the wording wrong since it's been a long time between now and the last time I looked at the Gospels (and at NB's thing, for that matter) but here is the way I remember it. Jesus said if you lust after a woman you are not married to, but do nothing, it's the same thing as having committed adultery with her.

In other words, that would be an evil thought. It's great for instilling guilt, too, and that was the tonic of NB's blasts.

But NB went the way of the philanderer and his influence on this matter waned...

Along comes the split between Peikoff and Kelley and lo and behold, Peikoff started preaching the very same method as Jesus, except he changed the topic. He didn't bother with lust and adultery His thing was social standing within the O-Land tribe (i.e, power).

He focused first on social ideas (with anti-libertarian blasts), then went off into epistemological evasion/intrincisism/emotionalism blasts (first stopping along the way to set the context with his analytic-synthetic dichotomy diatribe), then finally into the epistemological Twilight Zone with "the arbitrary" blasts.

In his (and his followers's) manner of treating this issue, in practice but not always in theory, people who hold and practice ideas tainted with these methods are evil because the resulting ideas themselves have become evil. The methods sort of pollute them if they started out as good. The Peikovians don't use these words and often nitpick minor points to say, "It ain't so, Joe," but that is the gist of it. If you think these thoughts, it's the same thing morality-wise as having committed them--i.e., evil.

And, as way too many people have discovered since then, this is a great way to instill guilt.

I do have some ideas on whether thoughts can be evil and to what extent, but it steps outside of the realm of typical Objectivist thought. I use the triune brain concept as a loose virtual model of the mind and I wed it to my own particular understanding of the New Thought claim (especially through Napoleon Hill) that "thoughts are things." This is a much longer discussion, but that idea intrigued me and I have delved into it with gusto.

The key in my view--and I admit it is not yet complete--is the crossover point called "transmutation." In a nut shell, everything man produces, both good and evil, starts out as a thought. There is a process whereby a thought becomes external reality. Some of it is volitional, some automatic, and some not well understood.

But one thing is clear to me. The initial cause of man-made things are thoughts, therefore thoughts are things at least in their incipient stage.

Anyway, I do believe that an idea can be evil, but the frame is wider than the limited Objectivist claims about how the mind works (which are not wrong in my view, but a long, long way from being complete).

Also, there is another part I am fleshing out. I hold that most of our ideas--at least the normative and causality-based ones--are in the form of story or narrative, not just concepts. Or maybe in "story concepts." Rand tried to express causality by an axiom--the law of identity, but the plain fact is the way we think about it is in stories, not static concepts.

If a story is proposing and promoting evil, then the idea is evil. If you transmute it to external reality according to the storyline, it will produce evil in external reality. But like I said, this is not orthodox Objectivist epistemology. There are some parallels, but I'm still working on it and I have a ways to go before I want to present a full-bodied exposition.

In my approach, it is entirely possible for a person to hold an evil thought for a moment, especially if it surges from the subconscious, recognize it as evil and dismiss it, and not feel a ping of guilt or shame. But then again, I'm not interested in controlling others and forming a tribe of followers.

Later, if I vest this aspiration, who knows? Maybe then I'll suddenly have an epiphany and "discover" something I missed where you SHOULD feel guilt. :smile:

Michael

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your thoughts, MSK. There are a lot of Mikes here!



Anyway, since you brought up the whole Branden comments on “lusting in your heart”, I find it comical that, Branden, a secular Jew thinks he has a sufficient understanding of a Christian text to critique it with any semblance of authority. I find the critiques against Christianity lame composition fallacy/straw men arguments and this is just another case. (FWIW, I got banned from the Objectivist Standard for pointing this out on YouTube. Biddle, Bernstein, et al, are some thin-skinned wimps who can’t defend their attacks.



In my opinion, Branden’s lack of personal integrity gives him no credibility with me in this area. If his critique is as you wrote, then I’d say he lacks even an Objectivist understanding on this topic (as I will propose further down) and was only seeking to rationalize his own behavior. The fact that there were many bobbing heads there tells me his audience was composed of minions rather than thinkers.



First, the passage you cited was from the Sermon on the Mount which is not intended to be prescriptive teaching on Jesus’ part. Much of that passage is a critique of the Pharisee’s hypocrisy and rationalization which was rampant at the time. This was not Jesus laying a guilt trip as you imply, but a corrective. Additionally, in Matthew 23 Jesus unleashes a blistering excoriation against the Jewish leaders and their practices. This supports the fact that Jesus had a contentious relationship with the religious leaders.



Second, I would say that thoughtful lusting after another woman violates Objectivist principles in that this behavior denigrates a man’s feelings toward his wife therefore threatening the peace of a marriage. This type of “selfishness” I don’t think Rand would have supported. So in this case, lusting (i.e., not a quick admiring glance) is an evil on the basis of its content and not simply an philosophical error. This would apply whether Jesus preached it or not.



There is so much that Rand got right, but her critiques against Christianity lacked scholarship. Although much of her critique might apply to some segments of Christianity, she painted with too broad a brush. Her criticisms of what she considered "Christianity" had already been addressed by Christian theologians who actually understood the kookiness she railed against (altruism, legalism, etc) and did a better job. Mind you, I belong to a segment often referred to as the “frozen chosen” in that we value reason and eschew emotionalism, spiritualism and subjectiveness in the practice of our faith.




0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Second, I would say that thoughtful lusting after another woman violates Objectivist principles in that this behavior denigrates a man’s feelings toward his wife therefore threatening the peace of a marriage.

Do you think Randian hero Rearden (who was married) violated Objectivist principles?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Second, I would say that thoughtful lusting after another woman violates Objectivist principles in that this behavior denigrates a man’s feelings toward his wife therefore threatening the peace of a marriage.

Do you think Randian hero Rearden (who was married) violated Objectivist principles?

I view Reardon as a weakling since he hated his wife and put up with she and her parasitic family. But he eventually sought a divorce, so there was no new threat to his marriage when he nailed Dagny at Wyatt’s place. So in that case, no, but he also later caved and signed over the rights to his metal even though it was ostensibly to protect Dagny’s reputation. Not the strongest character in the book. So I guess he violated Objectivist principles.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rearden was weak to illustrate the sanction of the victim. It was Dagny who was strong even though she implicitly sanctioned the system she struggled under. Once Readen took the oath his strength was revealed and sanctifed and once Dagny took the oath her strength became useless. Ironically, taken overall, AS depicted a strike against heroism: how to be a god above it all. The irony of the irony is Rand herself was never of that sort. She wanted to be (as her just reward?), floating on a cloud, but never got there. There is no AS sequel because Galt's Gulch is a retirement home with a built in rationalization for retirement. They weren't going back into the world nor could the villains have been swept away by her type of non-sanctioning. The way to non-sanction a bad guy is beat him up or even kill him--whatever it takes. Rand emasculated Objectivism for all her moralizing and animadverting upon evil. Rand sanctioned the power of evil by denying it.

--Brant

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rand sanctioned the power of evil by denying it.

Brant,

Now that's a mouthful.

It just hit me, but I am inclined to agree with you.

I'm not saying I fully agree with you only because that is what my gut is saying and I want to let the moment pass.

Michael

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, the passage you cited was from the Sermon on the Mount which is not intended to be prescriptive teaching on Jesus’ part. Much of that passage is a critique of the Pharisee’s hypocrisy and ...

That sent me to Bible Gateway (http://www.biblegateway.com/) which has versions and translations and originals, both early originals and later originals. (The oldest copies might seem more correct, but in truth, later copies may be truer to previous texts which have been lost.) It is clear to me that the Sermon on the Mount was prescriptive teaching, perhaps the most complete single statemet, of his views on how to live your life.

I agree that Rand and Branden did summarize Christianity as outsiders. Moreover, as I recall, Nathaniel Branden claimed to have rejected going to church when he learned about the doctrine of Original Sin. I believe that this was myth - or at least mythic, if he considered converting.

Over on Rebirth of Reason, Ted Keer was banned for pointing out an error in Ayn Rand's thumbnail sketch of Christianity. He was discharged for "defending Christianity," which he plainly did not do. (Ted was banned here for insulting MSK.) Ted only pointed out that Jesus was not "the ideal man." He was human. He had the same problems we all do, thus he was baptized by John. His crucifiction was not the sacrifice of the best to the worst. Personally, my interpretation of the sacrifice of the "Lamb of God" is different from that, but I understood Ted Keer's point and I agree (generally) with his assumption that the dual human/divine nature of Jesus is complicated in ways not perceived by Rand and Branden.

Second, I would say that thoughtful lusting after another woman violates Objectivist principles in that this behavior denigrates a man’s feelings toward his wife therefore threatening the peace of a marriage. This type of “selfishness” I don’t think Rand would have supported. So in this case, lusting (i.e., not a quick admiring glance) is an evil on the basis of its content and not simply an philosophical error.

You can say what you please, but it is not necessarily Objectivism. Rand's affair with Branden while being married to Frank O'Connor pretty much demonstrates that. Over the last 40 years, I have known (and do know) Objectivists who are "polyamorous" in their relationships. Love is not a commodity to be hoarded for its value. Like any living thing, it thrives when engaged with a supportive environment. No one needs to be threated or feel denigrated. In fact, such feelings are evidence of a lack of self esteem. We can discuss all of that in a different topic thread.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, the passage you cited was from the Sermon on the Mount which is not intended to be prescriptive teaching on Jesus’ part. Much of that passage is a critique of the Pharisee’s hypocrisy and ...

That sent me to Bible Gateway (http://www.biblegateway.com/) which has versions and translations and originals, both early originals and later originals. (The oldest copies might seem more correct, but in truth, later copies may be truer to previous texts which have been lost.) It is clear to me that the Sermon on the Mount was prescriptive teaching, perhaps the most complete single statemet, of his views on how to live your life.

I agree that Rand and Branden did summarize Christianity as outsiders. Moreover, as I recall, Nathaniel Branden claimed to have rejected going to church when he learned about the doctrine of Original Sin. I believe that this was myth - or at least mythic, if he considered converting.

Over on Rebirth of Reason, Ted Keer was banned for pointing out an error in Ayn Rand's thumbnail sketch of Christianity. He was discharged for "defending Christianity," which he plainly did not do. (Ted was banned here for insulting MSK.) Ted only pointed out that Jesus was not "the ideal man." He was human. He had the same problems we all do, thus he was baptized by John. His crucifiction was not the sacrifice of the best to the worst. Personally, my interpretation of the sacrifice of the "Lamb of God" is different from that, but I understood Ted Keer's point and I agree (generally) with his assumption that the dual human/divine nature of Jesus is complicated in ways not perceived by Rand and Branden.

>Second, I would say that thoughtful lusting after another woman violates Objectivist principles in that this behavior denigrates a man’s feelings toward his wife therefore threatening the peace of a marriage. This type of “selfishness” I don’t think Rand would have supported. So in this case, lusting (i.e., not a quick admiring glance) is an evil on the basis of its content and not simply an philosophical error.

You can say what you please, but it is not necessarily Objectivism. Rand's affair with Branden while being married to Frank O'Connor pretty much demonstrates that. Over the last 40 years, I have known (and do know) Objectivists who are "polyamorous" in their relationships. Love is not a commodity to be hoarded for its value. Like any living thing, it thrives when engaged with a supportive environment. No one needs to be threated or feel denigrated. In fact, such feelings are evidence of a lack of self esteem. We can discuss all of that in a different topic thread.

Hi:

Thanks for sharing. My comment about the Sermon on the Mount not being entirely prescriptive had to do with the “lust" topic. On six occasions, including the lust comment, Jesus prefaces his teaching saying, “You have heard it was said” as opposed to, “it is written”. Here is where he is correcting the Pharisees' teaching of the day. Recall there were no prophets for the 500 year period preceding Jesus arrival prompting a great expansion of Talmudic teaching where the intent of the commandments had been twisted. Of course there is some prescriptive teaching in the Beatitudes and elsewhere,

Regarding your second comment, never mind the Rand/Branden tryst. I’m referring to the Branden/Scott affair. Rand didn’t take kindly to that, did she? Your final comment, "Love is not a commodity to be hoarded for its value. Like any living thing, it thrives when engaged with a supportive environment. No one needs to be threated or feel denigrated. In fact, such feelings are evidence of a lack of self esteem.” seem to support my contention. Based on Rand’s reaction on learning of the affair, seems to me Rand “hoarded” Branden’s affection. So it seems that my assessment is based more on reality \ than Branden’s.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0