Selene Posted July 26, 2014 Share Posted July 26, 2014 There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil. The man who is wrong still retains some respect for truth, if only by accepting the responsibility of choice. But the man in the middle is the knave who blanks out the truth in order to pretend that no choice or values exist, who is willing to sit out the course of any battle, willing to cash in on the blood of the innocent or to crawl on his belly to the guilty, who dispenses justice by condemning both the robber and the robbed to jail, who solves conflicts by ordering the thinker and the fool to meet each other halfway. In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win.In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit. In that transfusion of blood which drains the good to feed the evil, the compromiser is the transmitting rubber tube . . .When men reduce their virtues to the approximate, then evil acquires the force of an absolute, when loyalty to an unyielding purpose is dropped by the virtuous, it’s picked up by scoundrels—and you get the indecent spectacle of a cringing, bargaining, traitorous good and a self-righteously uncompromising evil.This concept has always stood me in good stead. Any time, I disobeyed it, did not work out well for me...lol.http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/compromise.htmlI believe it a central question in big "O" bjectivism.All thoughts are welcome...A... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jts Posted July 26, 2014 Share Posted July 26, 2014 Compromise between food and poison, I don't believe it. It is seldom or never that there is such a thing as food, even natural food, that has no poison in it. The most nutritious foods tend to have the most poison. I don't mean just insecticides and herbicides and additives. I mean what is naturally in good fresh veggies. If you were hell bent determined to avoid all poisons, you probaby would starve. (In other words avoiding the compromise would result in death winning.) Usually the amount of poison in veggies is trivial and not enough to be concerned about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted July 26, 2014 Author Share Posted July 26, 2014 Compromise between food and poison, I don't believe it. It is seldom or never that there is such a thing as food, even natural food, that has no poison in it. The most nutritious foods tend to have the most poison. I don't mean just insecticides and herbicides and additives. I mean what is naturally in good fresh veggies. If you were hell bent determined to avoid all poisons, you probaby would starve. (In other words avoiding the compromise would result in death winning.) Usually the amount of poison in veggies is trivial and not enough to be concerned about.OK, so you do not wish to address the issue...that is fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted July 26, 2014 Share Posted July 26, 2014 What is a poison? Virtually anything humans consume is capable of harming life and health if taken in quantities too large or too small. Even pure drinkable bacteria free water if taken in too large a quantity can cause dysfunction of the nervous system or even death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syrakusos Posted July 26, 2014 Share Posted July 26, 2014 It is seldom or never that ... The most nutritious foods tend to have the most poison. ... [This] is trivial and not enough to be concerned about.1. Which is it: seldom or never? 2. He who is not being born is dying.3. I agree that your comments are trivial.What is a poison? ... Even pure ... water...Or pure oxygen... Sunlight... You walk outside at sunrise, and hear the rich, joyous avian symphony, and relish the air, not mindful that you are breathing in bird farts. But the man in the middle is the knave who ... solves conflicts by ordering the thinker and the fool to meet each other halfway.... or just allowing them both a forum in which the fool can meet the thinker, claim his half, and expect to be treated like an equal. Both jts and Ba'al missed this:The man who is wrong still retains some respect for truth, if only by accepting the responsibility of choice. But the man in the middle is the knave who ...Ayn Rand, who knew four languages, began a sentence with a conjunction. Is that not enough to reject the entire argument?Here we are like the Three Stooges, poking each other in the syntactic eye, and you have to wonder what Ellen, Stephen, and Robert are doing instead. Just to answer the question: I agree, Selene. I do not compromise on principles. I agree, also, that being fallible, I have made that same mistake you did, and with similar results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted July 26, 2014 Share Posted July 26, 2014 It is seldom or never that ... The most nutritious foods tend to have the most poison. ... [This] is trivial and not enough to be concerned about.1. Which is it: seldom or never? 2. He who is not being born is dying.3. I agree that your comments are trivial.What is a poison? ... Even pure ... water...Or pure oxygen... Sunlight... You walk outside at sunrise, and hear the rich, joyous avian symphony, and relish the air, not mindful that you are breathing in bird farts. But the man in the middle is the knave who ... solves conflicts by ordering the thinker and the fool to meet each other halfway.... or just allowing them both a forum in which the fool can meet the thinker, claim his half, and expect to be treated like an equal. Both jts and Ba'al missed this:The man who is wrong still retains some respect for truth, if only by accepting the responsibility of choice. But the man in the middle is the knave who ...Ayn Rand, who knew four languages, began a sentence with a conjunction. Is that not enough to reject the entire argument?Here we are like the Three Stooges, poking each other in the syntactic eye, and you have to wonder what Ellen, Stephen, and Robert are doing instead. Just to answer the question: I agree, Selene. I do not compromise on principles. I agree, also, that being fallible, I have made that same mistake you did, and with similar results.Oxygen is plant farts and the effusion of trillions up trillions of cyano bacteria. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jts Posted July 26, 2014 Share Posted July 26, 2014 What is a poison? Virtually anything humans consume is capable of harming life and health if taken in quantities too large or too small. Even pure drinkable bacteria free water if taken in too large a quantity can cause dysfunction of the nervous system or even death.Your question is answered here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted July 26, 2014 Author Share Posted July 26, 2014 What is a poison? Virtually anything humans consume is capable of harming life and health if taken in quantities too large or too small. Even pure drinkable bacteria free water if taken in too large a quantity can cause dysfunction of the nervous system or even death.Your question is answered here.Geez can you two get a room...Can ether of you possible address what I asked?A... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jts Posted July 26, 2014 Share Posted July 26, 2014 Can ether of you possible address what I asked?A...Your question is in the title, is the principle applicable today?What is special about today?Let's reword the principle:In any compromise between capitalism and socialism, it is only death that can win.The main problem with a mixture of capitalism and socialism is that it is unstable. Problems caused by socialism are attributed to capitalism and then the slippery slope.Socialism is a cancer. How much of it do you want to get rid of?If you had a country with 90% capitalism and 10% socialism and if this mixture could be stable, you might have a wonderful country.If a mixed system is be be stable, it needs a principle governing what is to be under capitalism and what is to be under socialism and this principle needs to be understood by the general population. This principle would involve rights, when should rights be respected and when should rights be violated? That probably wouldn't work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted July 26, 2014 Author Share Posted July 26, 2014 Can ether of you possible address what I asked?A...Your question is in the title, is the principle applicable today?What is special about today?Let's reword the principle:In any compromise between capitalism and socialism, it is only death that can win.The main problem with a mixture of capitalism and socialism is that it is unstable. Problems caused by socialism are attributed to capitalism and then the slippery slope.Socialism is a cancer. How much of it do you want to get rid of?If you had a country with 90% capitalism and 10% socialism and if this mixture could be stable, you might have a wonderful country.If a mixed system is be be stable, it needs a principle governing what is to be under capitalism and what is to be under socialism and this principle needs to be understood by the general population. This principle would involve rights, when should rights be respected and when should rights be violated? That probably wouldn't work.Thanks for your meandering response.However, at least you addressed the question.How do you understand Ayn's declaration?We are not redefining here. Let's just stick to her text.A... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 Rand's statement on food and poison makes me think of two things: No Country for Old Men, and the modern Republican party.J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 As a metaphorical statement Rand's works. But of course, the dose makes the poison, not the substance per se. An exception might be a super-concentrate of mercury, one drop of which on your skin will kill you--in six months. You cannot be saved. There are also some super-venomous snakes, if you want to go sooner.--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dldelancey Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 The statement assumes a good vs evil situation, that there is a thinker and a fool and the knave in between working towards compromise. It does not address the multitude of situations that the average person faces every day, the ones where there are three thinkers in the room and the outcome is neither good nor evil, but necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 Evil might "win," but you might cut your loses. --Brant there can be a conflict between tactics and strategy for Rand and her thesis of the "impotence of evil" this food-poison analogy seems to illustrate the opposite; consider her Objectivism will destroy those who fool around with it or accept it halfway--is this Objectivism as good or Objectivism as evil? (Answer: it's Objectivism as nonsense.) 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