Xray Posted March 15, 2013 Share Posted March 15, 2013 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. But Ayn Rand herself had an extramarital relationship. I'm convinced that Rand fully supported her own "selfishness" regarding her affair with NB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samson Corwell Posted March 15, 2013 Share Posted March 15, 2013 Because you make what I think is a metaphysical error - that a man can be inherently evil.(Or, inherently good.)Before he acts upon it. ["...evil people who want to do evil things."#47]Which is the fallacy of 'mystical intrinsicism'.I repeatedly have made the point that one may be irrational, and immoral, within oneself -BUT evil requires action. You don't agree, it seems.There's always choice. Doing evil or doing good is not a single choice, made in one day - it's many.Never mind... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonid Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 ""Can ideas be, in and of themselves, evil?"There is no such a thing as ideas of themselves. The positive answer to this question would represent an epitome of mind-body dichotomy. Ideas don't exist by themselves. They created by people and there is no way to separate evil ideas from evil people and vice versa. To claim that person is good , only his ideas are evil is to claim a contradiction in terms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 ""Can ideas be, in and of themselves, evil?"There is no such a thing as ideas of themselves. The positive answer to this question would represent an epitome of mind-body dichotomy. Ideas don't exist by themselves. They created by people and there is no way to separate evil ideas from evil people and vice versa. To claim that person is good , only his ideas are evil is to claim a contradiction in terms.If an idea is the initial part of an action and the action is not realized externally then the idea has no moral quality. If the action is realized then the idea has the same moral quality as the action it lead to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonid Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 ""Can ideas be, in and of themselves, evil?"There is no such a thing as ideas of themselves. The positive answer to this question would represent an epitome of mind-body dichotomy. Ideas don't exist by themselves. They created by people and there is no way to separate evil ideas from evil people and vice versa. To claim that person is good , only his ideas are evil is to claim a contradiction in terms.If an idea is the initial part of an action and the action is not realized externally then the idea has no moral quality. If the action is realized then the idea has the same moral quality as the action it lead to.If one keeps his ideas to himself and his mouth shut, then you cannot judge. But if he utters, spreads his ideas in private or in public he acts. He and his ideas could and should be judged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 The "evil" in evil ideas not expressed is merely a projection of what they will be when expressed. There is the implication of the future tense analogous to grammar. (You don't know what evil dwells in the hearts of men. The Shadow knows.) --Brant I keep my evil ideas to myself--then I pounce! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 How about this one from the New Thought people?"Thought are things."I believe this in a very limited manner (and not the mystical manner often promoted in New Thought).Everything humans produce starts out as a thought. Of course, most thoughts don't make to to outside reality, but that does not negate the fact that a product of humans starts as a thought, just as surely as a human being starts as a fertilized egg.To grow into something more than a thought, it has to be transmuted into external reality like a fetus has to be ejected into external reality and be born.In that sense, a thought actually is a thing.Can a thing be evil?Yup--it can be evil to the agent the thing is in contact with or related to. In other words, a thought can be very evil to the person thinking it, but much less so to everyone else, since it has to be transmuted into outer reality to affect them.I'm not 100% firm on this idea, but I'm strongly leaning in this direction.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 ""Can ideas be, in and of themselves, evil?"There is no such a thing as ideas of themselves. The positive answer to this question would represent an epitome of mind-body dichotomy. Ideas don't exist by themselves. They created by people and there is no way to separate evil ideas from evil people and vice versa. To claim that person is good , only his ideas are evil is to claim a contradiction in terms.Hi Leon: We, as philosophers, students or whatever, certainly judge ideas separate from the individual - as abstractions, relating to existence.All people hold, or have held, irrational (so, immoral) ideas to some degree.(i.e. irrational/immoral to themselves, primarily - inasmuch as they are denying reality - to themselves.)When such ideas are acted upon, to the detriment of other people, is the point they become evil, I think.For example, I won't ever assess a religious person as "evil" if he practices his religion privately as the majority do. The mind-body dichotomy is all his, not mine, but I see no reason for judging him ~ solely ~ byhis erroneous faith. Aside from intrinsicism, it implies I have prescience of his actions.Your last sentence, then, I'd rephrase - a person may have good character, despite owning ideas which are irrational.Evil always signifies immorality; but (Objectivist) immorality does not necessarily equate with evil, the wayI see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmj Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 Perhaps the answer is "Sure, why not?"Next question , can they be good Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now