Enemies and Evil-Doers

[zantonavitch]

Michael: I appreciate the length and thoughtfulness of your reply. But I would simply emphasize and amplify what I said before: This is a rich subject well worth thinking about. Current Objectivist theory in philosophy and psychology on the subject of enemies, hatred, revenge, etc. is, in my view, quite poor.

And while I don't pretend I know everything about these subjects, I'm not sure how focused and coherent your reply is. Like everyone else, you seem a bit all over the place. Your arguments certainly seem to have several Christian elements in them -- which you and I have absorbed by osmosis -- but which I am very suspicious of. Still, maybe I can hazard a few general responses...

Emotions like hatred and love aren't virtues or vices in themselves altho' they can indicate them if one hates and loves truly valueable and worthy things.

I don't know that I'm advocating "seeking" hatred or "taking delight" in discovering bad guys, except that life is all about pain in some important senses. Humans forever "seek" or "take delight" in work. This means new jobs and new obstacles to overcome. Proper people, in my view, continually look out for new problems to solve and new enemies to defeat. Of course, from a different perspective there's never a need to look -- since pain, work, problems, and enemies come looking for you. :devil:

And maybe -- brace yourself! -- you underestimate the value of defecation, urination, scratching, picking, sneezing, cleaning, combing, drinking, eating, medicating, massaging, etc. As the widest possible variety of intellectuals like to say: "Nothing human is alien to me." :devil:

Some of the argument here isn't particularly fair. It implies I'm advocating "wallowing in hatred" and "emphasizing" hatred, "over long periods," at "extreme levels" etc. That isn't an accurate rendering of my claims, as anyone who reads above can see.

Barbara Branden started down the right path with her speech on "Objectivist rage." But there's a long, long way to go here. Much more than people know, rage and hatred can be good. All those sloppy-idealism "Kumbaya" beliefs, and all those Jewish/Christian straw men arguments, and all that wildly inappropriate and misdirected Objectivist cultist rage and hatred doesn't change this.

As Aristotle noted, anyone can be angry. But to be so at the right time and for the right reasons is hard. What Aristole failed to note -- because the evil of religion and altruism hadn't been invented yet -- is that anyone can be "superior" and decline to be enraged and hate-filled at enemies and evil-doers.

Edited May 8, 2007 by Kyrel Zantonavitch

[Brant Gaede]

Earlier today on National Public Radio and the Leonard Lopate Show, Christofer Hitchens said: "I hate my enemies, and think the enemies of civilization should be killled."

Clear, correct, honest, healthy, rational words from a dynamic, heroic, "new liberal" thinker.

One problem is we don't know if his enemies are the enemies of civilization. If they are, then we don't know if by killing them we make the problem worse by getting the other guys going or by making ourselves like them.

Radical environmentalists are the enemies of civilization ...

Marxist profs are too.

Most Congressmen.

--Brant

Edited May 9, 2007 by Brant Gaede

[Greybird]

Another, and bigger, problem with Hitchens's blood-soaked assertion is the "should be". I'd borrow the riposte that came from the NBI days, because a neocon doesn't deserve persuasive subtleties: If you want to fight them, you will not be stopped.

Using what's extorted from others to do it, though, is not only barbaric but cowardly. Who ever saw the neocons risking having their own bodies blown apart, though, or those of their children?

Crusades are so much simpler when you can get someone else to go. That racket, to borrow here from Toohey, appears to be safe for many, many centuries.

[zantonavitch]

I forgot to add that this rather fascinating thinker was promoting his outstanding new book: God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearc...79803&itm=1

The basic reference was to today's jihadis -- truly evil folk who mean him ill.

P.S. I have no idea why I can't post proper links on OL any more. Nor why I misspelt "Christopher."

[Brant Gaede]

Another, and bigger, problem with Hitchens's blood-soaked assertion is the "should be". I'd borrow the riposte that came from the NBI days, because a neocon doesn't deserve persuasive subtleties: If you want to fight them, you will not be stopped.

Using what's extorted from others to do it, though, is not only barbaric but cowardly. Who ever saw the neocons risking having their own bodies blown apart, though, or those of their children?

Crusades are so much simpler when you can get someone else to go. That racket, to borrow here from Toohey, appears to be safe for many, many centuries.

Well, the quote was "help them," not "fight them." It was in regard to welfare and personal altruism and I believe it was Ayn Rand quoting Barbara Branden. I don't think that that has much to do with her style today. However, I'm not arguing your point.

--Brant

[Greybird]

Borrowing the form of the riposte, not the same words — I should have been more precise. I'm sure it's not Barbara's style today.

It's not an effective formulation for use with anyone who's genuinely open to persuasion or to reassessing the facts of folly. Which group does not include a irredeemable apologist for Empire like Christopher Hitchens.