Is Evil Impotent or Virile?

[Xray]

Xray wrote:

It would be interesting to examine in what way the rise of individualism is also connected with the rise of empathy.

end quote

Rand was a champion of individualism but I don’t think she had any empathy. Yet she was not always mean spirited or begrudging. Her characters reflect that, and I seem to remember Eddie Willers putting coins in a bum’s can. They are aware that their productiveness will benefit others, and they are just fine with that.

I don't know if Im recalling this correctly - but haven' there been attempts (by David Kelley?) to add "benevolence" to the list of Objectivist virtues? If yes, imo this can seen as trying to fill a gap in the Objectivist ethics.

[Peter]

Xray wrote:

I don't know if I’m recalling this correctly - but haven' there been attempts (by David Kelley?) to add "benevolence" to the list of Objectivist virtues? If yes, imo this can seen as trying to fill a gap in the Objectivist ethics.

end quote

I just went to the Lexicon and the topic “Benevolence” has disappeared, though ”Benevolent Universe” is still there. Then the site shut down on me. I have the book but I do not feel like transcribing. I know it was in the Lexicon and I think David Kelley wrote it, which may be why it has been “shunned.”

Here is a nuanced quote I found.

Ayn Rand wrote, “To view the question in its proper perspective, one must begin by rejecting altruism’s terms and all of its ugly emotional aftertaste—then take a fresh look at human relationships. It is morally proper to accept help, when it is offered, not as a moral duty, but as an act of good will and generosity, when the giver can afford it (i.e., when it does not involve self-sacrifice on his part), and when it is offered in response to the receiver’s virtues, not in response to his flaws, weaknesses or moral failures, and not on the ground of his need as such.”

And here are two letters from BB and Jimmy Wales (Jimbo to Atlantis and OWL) the founder of Wikipedia.

From: "Barbara Branden" BBfromM@aol.com

To: aynrand@wetheliving.com

Subject: Re: AYN: Technicalities on charity

Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 19:52:56 EST

Matt Totten believes that there can be no selfish reason for giving to charity, that it is an act of altruism.

Matt, there are circumstances in which it is an act of altruism, and circumstances in which it is not. If I give to a charity because I believe it is my moral duty to do so, even though that charity is giving money to people I disapprove to -- say, to socialist organizations -- then that is altruism. More than that, it specifically goes against my rational self-interest. But say I give to an organization I believe in, whose cause also is my cause -- say, the Institute of Justice or The Objectivist Center -- then I am helping to serve my own interests; I very much want certain ideas to be spread, and they are spreading them.

But again, say I give to a medical research organization, or to one that gives toys to poor children at Christmas. I do this out of a motive of benevolence, not self-sacrifice, simply because medical research is important to me and to everyone else and I wish to help make it possible, and/or because it pains me to think of children going without toys at Christmas. The motive of benevolence toward other human beings -- assuming they are not people I cannot and do not feel benevolence toward -- is a perfectly reasonable motive. It means that, in the absence of reasons to the contrary, one wishes other people well, and that if one can assist them without self-sacrifice -- sacrifice of oneself or one's values -- one will do so. And this is wholly consistent with Objectivism.

Barbara

From: Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com

To: atlantis@wetheliving.com

Subject: ATL: David Kelley on civility

Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 08:33:13 -0800

Here's a fairly long quote from David Kelley that is directly applicable to questions about why a civility policy is a good idea on a mailing list which makes an effort to be creative, open, and intensely intellectual.

From _Unrugged Individualism: The Selfish Basis of Benevolence_,

p. 38:

The forms of civility, and the broader realm of manners, are therefore dismissed by some people as arbitrary. "Why should I confirm to arbitrary social standards? I am an individualist." But while the forms are conventional, what is conveyed through those forms is not. If my argument so far has been correct, then it _is_ objectively important to acknowledge each other's independence in some way or other, whether by saying 'please,' or 's`il vous plait," or by some gesture understood to have that meaning. It doesn't matter which forms we use to convey this, any more than it matters which sounds we use to express a given concept in language. But insofar as civility has a communicative function, it does matter that we use the same forms. Someone who does not practice these forms is rude. We can assume that his failure to comply reflects indifference to what the forms express (unless he is ignorant, as in the case of a foreigner).

A similar answer can be given to the complaint that the forms of civility are inauthentic. "What if I don't like the present Grandma gave me and I don't really feel any gratitude? Am I not falsifying my feeling if I say _thank-you_ nonetheless?" The purpose of that thank-you is not to convey one's specific feelings about the gift, or the person who gives it. Its purpose is to acknowledge that it was a gift, from an autonomous person, not something owed one by an underling. (If Grandma wants more than this, and makes it clear that she really wants to know whether one liked the gift, then one should tell her, as tactfully as possible.)

Civility, then, may be defined as _the expression -- chiefly through conventional forms -- of one's respect for the humanity and independence of others, and of one's intent to resolve conflicts peacefully_.

[Xray]

Back during the Roman empire, human life was only at a premium when those in power were involved. If a person was on the wrong side of a certain line (or passed over to that side), he was thought of as an animal. So you could kill him, enslave him, whatever. At least they didn't eat him like an animal!

There was a little progress there, yes.

The 'not regarding as fully human' certainly played a role in how human beings were being treated in the Roman circus arenas.

I think tribalism played a crucial role here, and the more I'm reading about the lack of empathy by a collective, the more tribalism is at the focus.

But before going into that in more detail, I think it is important to establish some empirical basis first. For discussion about ethics have the tendency to quickly get 'lofty', - which is understandable: after all, moral ideals are being discussed, and when it comes to that, each individual's personal ideals will always factor in too - but if, for instance, one states "Man is a heroic being" - this not yet a presented case; it is a mere opinion.

So in order not to put the ethical cart before the horse, what could one use as the empirical basis? The mirror neurons maybe?

They are certainly something very elementary, their original pupose most likely was to ensure man's survival as a being living in groups.

If, for example, several members of a stone-age tribe suddenly showed agitated behavior, the 'mirror neuron reaction' by the rest of the tribe (which put them in state of agitation as well) made sense: since danger probably lay ahead, the released adrenaline put them in a position to react quicky.

Even the oft-maligned concept of majority rule probalby has its biological bais in the assumption that, if most tribe members act in certain way, then this must be 'right', this provides security, etc.

Going against majority vote/opinion of a group one is deeply involved with always produce a stress reaction (the biological reason being that rejection by the majority of the group is a potential threat for an individual's survival).

This is compounded if not only the majority of the group but the whole group positions itself against one of its members.

So if e. g. John Doe's suggestions at a team meeting are ridiculed by the whole team including the boss, I suppose John's stress reaction won't be that different from his stone age ancestor's whose group members ridiculed him as being a 'bad hunter' ....

Back to the mirror neurons: they help us survive, and the more a human being is able to put him or herself into another person's shoes, (and mirror neurons help a lot to achieve just that), the more he/she grasps an essential part of reality.

On a serious note, we also have the predator within us. If we use evolution as a frame of reference, blood sport developed as a way for training for hunts and battles. It's just like any normal animal that plays using its survival skills.

The predator within us is another essential element. Again, the 'not putting the cart before the horse' approach works out the biological purpose first (as outlined in your above quote).

As Ba'al has pointed out, the "people as predators are not ot producers" premise does not stand up to scrutiny:

Some of the earliest building material were the bones of animals killed in the hunt. Some of the earliest "fabric" were the hides of animals killed in the hunt. Stuff was built from things destroyed. In fact almost all of our material requires taking apart (a kind of destruction) something in nature. We very rarely create useful material from primordial matter. More often than not, creation requires destruction.

This obviously overrides the mirror neurons when it kicks in. We have channeled this urge in modern times into sports. But notice that when a player gets seriously damaged, it kills all the fun.

Is the same with crimeTV series or crime fiction. They have a huge market, providing people with scenarios they would never want to experience in reality. But since violence and homicide have played such a huge role in our evolutionary past, this is not surprising.

[BaalChatzaf]

Hopefully, there will exist more overall global rationality in future times to make such horrific acts unnecessary.

Yoda says: Hold not your breath until peace to the world comes, else blue turn you will.

Ba'al Chatgzaf

[Xray]

There's a book somewhere I skimmed through, or maybe it was a TED talk, where the person discussed respect for human life as a very recent development in human history.

Maybe this was the TED talk by Steven Pinker you posted on another thread?

http://www.objectivi...pic=10909&st=40

Even in Medieval times, they thought nothing of killing off children and starving whole groups of people to death. That was normal for the rest of society, not an outrage, and that's just for starters.

So not only do we have inter-tribal homicide (with each tribe perceiving itself as superior to the other tribes), we also have intra-tribal homicide where those who, for a variety of reasons, were regarded as 'not useful' for the tribe were killed (filicide of unwanted children, homicide of the elderly who had become frail or disabled, etc).

Again, this is a form of tribalism. It looks like tribalism has the tendency to override feelings of empathy.

From this one can infer that in order for empathy to flourish, all tribalism (at least in its destructive forms), has to be overcome. And civilized humanity does move in this direction, despite all the difficulties encountered, and despite the clash with tribalistic structures some immigrants still are shackled to.

A particularly horrific example of tribalism (manifesting itself in the form of 'family clan-ism") are the so-called 'honor killings' where members of a family unblinkingly 'sentence' another family member (mostly it is females who are the victims) to being murdered at the hands of her own kin. The honor of the 'clan' overrides all feelings of empathy toward one of its own members.

Just because humans have mirror neurons doesn't mean they will automatically act with empathy.

Empathy is a tender, not a sturdy plant. It constantly has to be fertilized and can easily be be crushed.

[studiodekadent]

If I may make a comment inspired by an older comment...

MSK said in a comment a few pages back that the evil he saw was virile, strong etc.

He gave examples of real life people doing evil and facilitating evil (Kim Jong Il is an example of this, although I can't remember if MSK used this example).

I think that MSK is slightly overstating Rand's argument. She said evil itself is pathetic and powerless. Most real life people, however, are of mixed moral character. They have some good in them and some evil. Also, let's remember that Rand was principally a novelist and was speaking in highly artistic terms rather than realistic ones.

As I see it, Rand's argument is that the potence of evil is principally a result of how much goodness collaborates with it and fails to realize its evil nature. She isn't talking about TOTALLY good people enabling TOTALLY bad people... very few people in real life are totally bad or totally good.

In many respects, many people that do evil think they're doing the right thing. The 'evil' within a single person can be facilitated by the 'good' within the same person.

Fiction is a world of ideals. Reality shows most people are of mixed premises to varying degrees. In the real world there are few people so hideously evil they end up as dictators (and even a few of them may still have some reasonable premises somewhere). At least as I understand Rand's argument, she argued that the evil survived because of the sanction and ignorance of the good, and both good and evil can exist not just within the same society but the same person. Their skills and competencies (good things) can serve evil because of honest mistakes on high-level philosophical issues.

I don't think that most Objectivist IDEAS are problematic, but rather that quite a few objectivists (not ALL objectivists) apply them far too simplistically, rationalistically and hastily. We should all take a breath and be careful when looking and complex real-world context. And we should always leave room for tentativity (in the sense of "I may have misunderstood several factors, there may be other relevant considerations not taken into account, and matters of degree are complex issues that need to be discussed calmly").

I'm not preaching that we abstain from judgment. I'm arguing we should be very careful with judgment.

[Xray]

She [Rand] said evil itself is pathetic and powerless. Most real life people, however, are of mixed moral character

<...>

As I see it, Rand's argument is that the potence of evil is principally a result of how much goodness collaborates with it and fails to realize its evil nature. She isn't talking about TOTALLY good people enabling TOTALLY bad people... very few people in real life are totally bad or totally good.

In many respects, many people that do evil think they're doing the right thing. The 'evil' within a single person can be facilitated by the 'good' within the same person.

But does a "mixed moral character" really have a place in Rand's philosophy? I don't think so. Rand was not the type to cut anyone slack on moral laxness in any field.

Inevitably, probems will result from that. The mixed moral character is an objective fact, and thus pertains to reality. Reality and objectiviy play an elementary role in Objectivism; the whole philosophy rests on it. It also claims to be a philosophy based on man's nature.

Bu if man's nature is not to always be a paragon of virtue, one gets a contradiction in the philosophy. The Objectivist approach when facing a contradiction is:

"Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong". (D'Anconia in AS, p. 199).

So where's the wrong premise? An unrealistic assessment of man's nature?

[Peter]

Xray asked:

So where's the wrong premise? An unrealistic assessment of man's nature?

end quote

In the movie “Extreme Measures,” the actor Gene Hackman plays a medical researcher and medical doctor. When it is discovered he is experimenting on homeless people he tries to explain his actions by saying, “If by killing one person you could save ten thousand, wouldn’t you have to?” I have always loved that line because it illustrates how an “evil person” does not see themselves as evil. The persons experimented on and who died were mentally ill or on drugs or alcohol, and living on the edge because of their problems. They were expendable, but their bodies were still of value to the medial researcher.

I think I remember he had a sick granddaughter he was hoping to cure through his experimentation. So, if there are contradictions in a personality, we need to check our premises? But the only thing stopping the evil doctor is not him checking his premises but exposure to “objective law” that does stop him. The doctor sees an “emergency situation,” and to be moral he must act, by experimenting on “the least of us,” to save the best amongst us.

I think the Objectivist Ethics works but not the sketchy psychology, which begins with the most differentiating characteristic of the human species which is the ability to reason. It does not adequately explain us. Any study of Human Psychology needs to examine the totality of who we are.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Brant Gaede]

As I see it, Rand's argument is that the potence of evil is principally a result of how much goodness collaborates with it and fails to realize its evil nature. She isn't talking about TOTALLY good people enabling TOTALLY bad people... very few people in real life are totally bad or totally good.

In many respects, many people that do evil think they're doing the right thing. The 'evil' within a single person can be facilitated by the 'good' within the same person.

But does a mixed moral character really have a place in Rand's philosophy? I don't think so. Rand was not the type to cut anyone slack on moral laxness in any feild.

Inevitably, probems will result from that. The mixed moral character is an objective fact, and thus pertains to reality. Reality and objectiviy play an elementary role in Objectivism; the whole philosophy rests on it. It also claims to be a philosophy based on man's nature.

Bu if man's nature is not to always be a paragon of virtue, one gets a contradiction in the philosophy. The Objectivist approach when facing a contradiction:

"Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong". (D'Anconia in AS, p. 199).

So where's the wrong premise? An unrealistic assessment of man's nature?

Morality should be considered two-layered: In society and for oneself and family, to over-simplify.

In society is libertarian, rights' protecting. It is immoral to initiate physical force. Immoral, should be illegal, and wrong, for this is violation of human rights.

Objectivist ethics takes all this in plus right and wrong for oneself. It is based on rational self-interest and what Rand called "selfishness." We must strike "selfishness" because she used it as a polemical device rhetorically twisting its meaning all out of shape. It was a great way in the 1960s to break through the intellectual and cultural concrete, but impossible to build on as one has to keep explaining Rand's special use of the pejorative word. There are some people who are psychologically constructed in such a way as to be more amenable to this type of nomenclature than others. They tend to be libertarians with interests in economics, investing, math, science and engineering. They tend to think "greed is good" is good and so too "selfishness." Aside from what's from the politics, that's their ethics. Since Objectivism is 95% ethics they really don't grok it, which is understandable, for if any part of those ethics is true it's usually true right now for people generally and not very controversial at least to Westerners such as integrity and honesty and independence and rationality--etc.

By concentrating on the Objectivist philosophy--mostly the ethics--Rand and Branden in the 1960s seemingly were addressing the culture at large with an unassailable intellectual/moral position, but qua education it was done-over, somewhat refined and recast or repeated Atlas Shrugged. This was a huge strategic mistake; the ethics were not and are not ready for prime time. What was ready in the ethics was basic and simple or common with other ethical systems. By not concentrating on rights all natural allies amongst the conservatives and libertarians were blown off--as were many so-called, and then considered unacceptable, "Objectivists," leaving this tiny, sometimes ridiculously represented--especially by L.Peikoff--cult eschewing true individualism and critical thinking.

--Brant

[Peter]

Others have already covered the idea on this thread but I want give my take on it, after reading theirs. Snips from The Ayn Rand Lexicon:

Man’s distinctive characteristic is his type of consciousness—a consciousness able to abstract, to form concepts, to apprehend reality by a process of reason . . . [The] valid definition of man, within the context of his knowledge and of all of mankind’s knowledge to-date [is]: “A rational animal.” . . . (“Rational,” in this context, does not mean “acting invariably in accordance with reason”; it means “possessing the faculty of reason.” A full biological definition of man would include many subcategories of “animal,” but the general category and the ultimate definition remain the same.) . . . The key to what you so recklessly call “human nature,” the open secret you live with, yet dread to name, is the fact that man is a being of volitional consciousness . . . Man has no automatic code of survival. His particular distinction from all other living species is the necessity to act in the face of alternatives by means of volitional choice. He has no automatic knowledge of what is good for him or evil, what values his life depends on, what course of action it requires . . .

End of quotes

I reprinted the above snippets to illustrate a lack of thoroughness in Rand’s approach. She says humans are “rational ANIMALS,” and our distinction from all other species is the necessary ability to act volitionally. So to say “we are animals,” but no “we are not like animals” because we MUST act differently from all other animals is a contradiction. I am not claiming humans have instincts but examine human behavior in its totality and by Rand’s own definition we are also animalistic by our natures. Rand ignores the animal part of her definition as if it were irrelevant.

Irrational behavior is very common in our species. Animalist behavior is common. So, if we must use our reason to survive, how is our species surviving while ignorant in many cases, believing in unreal things like deities in others, and all of which makes people act against comfort and long term survivability?

IF a scientist examines our species with a childlike lack of preconceived notions, (in other words, like a scientist) he or she would see we are reasoning and not reasoning. Individuals prosper when they use their reason to perform rational actions but our species still survives when irrational actions are frequently performed.

If we skip the rational, though animalistic daily activities of sleeping, rising, eating, and interacting with family, has any scientist ever counted how many human actions are rational and how many human actions are irrational? How many RATIONAL acts are negligible as regards causation and how many IRRATIONAL acts are negligible as regards causation?

Rand’s Objectivist Psychology is in its infancy.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Brant Gaede]

Peter, we are animals. That is not disputable and belongs in the definition because we are not plants. It's basic differentia. Personally, I tend to prefer "conceptual" animals, but Rand seemingly wanted to include a moral element we find in "rational" for she equated irrational with immoral. We can also consider, "Man is the rational, conceptual animal" or "rational, conceptual, social animal," but the last is likely too much. Rand did not ignore "animal," that's silly--as silly as if to claim she ignored the "irrational" in human being.

--Brant

if there ever was an "Objectivist psychology" there isn't now nor will there ever be going forward unless there is also an "Objectivist physics" and an "Objectivist biology"--that sort of thing, and for sure we don't want to go there

[Peter]

I wrote, “Rand’s Objectivist Psychology is in its infancy.”

And Brant disagreed:

if there ever was an "Objectivist psychology" there isn't now nor will there ever be going forward unless there is also an "Objectivist physics" and an "Objectivist biology"--that sort of thing, and for sure we don't want to go there

end quote

OK. There was some of the “tongue in cheek” in my letter but Objectivists do inject philosophy into science as with its “officials” dismissing Quantum Mechanics. Rand’s definitions and descriptions of humans mix the philosophical with the biological sciences. There are some Objectivists who work in the sciences (or psychology which may not yet be a science) who look for the “reasonable, knowable universe” and reject experimental results as irrational, if it does not seem reasonable.

None the less, though I did not always explicitly differentiate between the terms animal, and animalistic, that is what I meant. There are parts to our animal beings that, while not instincts, are predispositions and innate. We are programmed to understand human speech. There are dozens of innate dispositions that I have listed before that are part of our “animal heritage. The hardwired and innate are there. The volition is there. The innate, upper “limit” to IQ is there.

Just as an aside, I used to play Nathaniel Branden’s “Basic Relaxation and Ego Strengthening Device” tape to put my children to sleep.

I just thought of something else. We smile. No other animal naturally does that, though the big yellow lab who comes out to greet me when I jog, tries to smile, mimicking a humans face. He is not growling. He is happy to see me and shows his teeth in a big grin.. I used to have a Rottweiler named Mindy (after the TV show with Robin Williams, “Mork and Mindy”) that did the same thing.

Hmmm? Should Objectivist anthropologist change their terminology to “Homo Rational Homo Volitional Sapiens Sapiens?”

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Brant Gaede]

An Objectivist anthropologist would be a cultural anthropologist who studies Objectivists (and their doings).

--Brant

I suggest a Mormon anthropologist instead; the Mormons tend to be more concentrated and come armageddon they'll have food

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

If I may make a comment inspired by an older comment...

MSK said in a comment a few pages back that the evil he saw was virile, strong etc.

Andrew,

This is semi-correct so long as we are dealing with a value judgment and the term, virility, is a forced metaphor--in other words, reproduction of entities is excluded from the metaphor's meaning.

But if we are dealing with evil turning into an anthropomorphic thing in someones mind--i.e., an honorary human being or even a metaphysical-like force of nature, the way you phrased my position is not my view.

My point is that verility is an attribute of living beings. Evil is not a living being. Neither is good. They are value judgments of how things relate to living beings.

In a romantic daydream, I can relate to Rand calling evil impotent and dependent on good to exist. That's the way it should be and it feels good to think like that. Once I look around me, though, and see the evil things predominantly evil people do as they prosper and enjoy good health and long lives, the daydream goes away.

I don't like it, but that's what I see (in some cases).

I need referents from reality for my concepts when I want to use them for my values and actions. In the lack of direct referents, it's OK to use theoretical projections. It's even OK to "enhance" reality-based referents with projections. But it's not OK to totally replace any reality that doesn't fit a theory with projections and then call that the way things are. At least not in the way I use my brain.

One other thought on virility as a metaphor. Let's put reproduction back in. Obviously, evil will not reproduce into something good. Nothing in life reproduces into something other than its kind. But within its kind, does evil create more evil? Hell yeah. Just look around. It's quite virile from a reproduction angle.

Michael

[Dennis Hardin]

Irrational behavior is very common in our species. Animalist behavior is common. So, if we must use our reason to survive, how is our species surviving while ignorant in many cases, believing in unreal things like deities in others, and all of which makes people act against comfort and long term survivability?

IF a scientist examines our species with a childlike lack of preconceived notions, (in other words, like a scientist) he or she would see we are reasoning and not reasoning. Individuals prosper when they use their reason to perform rational actions but our species still survives when irrational actions are frequently performed.

An interesting premise of Lee Harris in The Suicide of Reason is that the Western view of reason as inherent in all human beings is wrong—that our societal belief in the rule of reason has been bred into us through the cultural tradition inherited from the Renaissance and Enlightenment. In other words, rationality is as much nurture as it is nature, and, as a society, we make a huge mistake when we assume that backward nations are simply lagging behind in the inevitable progress toward a mythical modernity.

Before reason can become the dominant force in our lives, Harris says, years and years of gradual cultural evolution are required. He points out that Aristotle sanctioned slavery because it seemed clear that not all people were capable of rationality. Two thousand years later, Darwin discovered numerous cultures where this was still very much the case, and where there appeared to be no potential for reason to take hold.

Harris argues that calamity awaits us in our struggle against radical Islam due to our inability to understand the minimal role reason plays in the lives of those who burn with the passion to kill us.

[Brant Gaede]

Irrational behavior is very common in our species. Animalist behavior is common. So, if we must use our reason to survive, how is our species surviving while ignorant in many cases, believing in unreal things like deities in others, and all of which makes people act against comfort and long term survivability?

IF a scientist examines our species with a childlike lack of preconceived notions, (in other words, like a scientist) he or she would see we are reasoning and not reasoning. Individuals prosper when they use their reason to perform rational actions but our species still survives when irrational actions are frequently performed.

An interesting premise of Lee Harris in The Suicide of Reason is that the Western view of reason as inherent in all human beings is wrong—that our societal belief in the rule of reason has been bred into us through the cultural tradition inherited from the Renaissance and Enlightenment. In other words, rationality is as much nurture as it is nature, and, as a society, we make a huge mistake when we assume that backward nations are simply lagging behind in the inevitable progress toward a mythical modernity.

Before reason can become the dominant force in our lives, Harris says, years and years of gradual cultural evolution are required. He points out that Aristotle sanctioned slavery because it seemed clear that not all people were capable of rationality. Two thousand years later, Darwin discovered numerous cultures where this was still very much the case, and where there appeared to be no potential for reason to take hold.

Harris argues that calamity awaits us in our struggle against radical Islam due to our inability to understand the minimal role reason plays in the lives of those who burn with the passion to kill us.

The only calamity of any note respecting the United States would be the detonation of a nuclear EMP device at high altitude frying electrical transformers and electronics generally. The country would not survive in any recognizable form and 200 million or more could starve to death within a year with the destruction of digital wealth and transportation of food and medicine. Russia would be the likely short-term source of the disaster and Pakistan or Iran long-term.

--Brant

[Peter]

Dennis Hardin wrote:

Harris argues that calamity awaits us in our struggle against radical Islam due to our inability to understand the minimal role reason plays in the lives of those who burn with the passion to kill us.

end quote

The minimal role reason plays in their lives is disconcerting and places them in the same category as the Japanese in WWII who refused to surrender. Guam, Guadalcanal Okinawa. That “Victory at Sea” footage I have seen is gruesome because they would rather die than surrender. All was not lost if they could die for the Emperor. Or with the Muslims: if they could only die in Jihad and service to Allah. We ended up nuking the Japanese to save hundreds of thousands of American lives.

Wow, that is an un-PC angle I did not see, Dennis. I nominate you as the foreign affairs and mental health advisor to President Romney and Vice President Newt Gingrich. We offer: Moving allowance. House in suburban Burke, Virginia. Medical. Shop at the PX and commissaries at Langley, Andrews, or Fort Meade. Bunker at Camp David in case of nuclear attack or extinction level event. We can practically guarantee an eight year contract. $250, 000.00 to start – not much, by DC standards, but with the perks it is more than adequate.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Dennis Hardin]

Wow, that is an un-PC angle I did not see, Dennis. I nominate you as the foreign affairs and mental health advisor to President Romney and Vice President Newt Gingrich. We offer: Moving allowance. House in suburban Burke, Virginia. Medical. Shop at the PX and commissaries at Langley, Andrews, or Fort Meade. Bunker at Camp David in case of nuclear attack or extinction level event. We can practically guarantee an eight year contract. $250, 000.00 to start – not much, by DC standards, but with the perks it is more than adequate.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

Sorry, but given the stressful economic times we live in, there's no way I can afford to take that kind of paycut.

[caroljane]

A particularly horrific example of tribalism (manifesting itself in the form of 'family clan-ism") are the so-called 'honor killings' where members of a family unblinkingly 'sentence' another family member (mostly it is females who are the victims) to being murdered at the hands of her own kin. The honor of the 'clan' overrides all feelings of empathy toward one of its own members.

This hideous example of evil is very much on my mind as the trial of the unspeakable Shafias, father, mother and son, who murdered their three beautiful daughters, the youngest 13, for "honour", plus the unwanted first wife of the patriarch, is just concluding here.

It especially outrages me that they dared, they dared,to use my country , my province to commit this worst of crimes.

They violated my tribal ground.

[Xray]

An interesting premise of Lee Harris in The Suicide of Reason is that the Western view of reason as inherent in all human beings is wrong—that our societal belief in the rule of reason has been bred into us through the cultural tradition inherited from the Renaissance and Enlightenment. In other words, rationality is as much nurture as it is nature, and, as a society, we make a huge mistake when we assume that backward nations are simply lagging behind in the inevitable progress toward a mythical modernity.

Before reason can become the dominant force in our lives, Harris says, years and years of gradual cultural evolution are required.

I think it is exaclty these years and years of cultural (and scientific) evolution which are the inevitable progress. And that process is irreversible. Once a certain stage of knowledge has been reached, there is no going back to a more ignorant stage.

As for the cultural evolution being gradual, imo the process will be accelerated considerably in our times of rapid access to information via the internet.

[bolding mine]

He [Lee Harris] points out that Aristotle sanctioned slavery because it seemed clear that not all people were capable of rationality.

Does Harris provide evidence (via direct quotes) that Aristotle actually stated what it says in the bolded part, or is this Harris' personal interpretation of Aristotle's sanctioning of slavery?

[Xray]

A particularly horrific example of tribalism (manifesting itself in the form of 'family clan-ism") are the so-called 'honor killings' where members of a family unblinkingly 'sentence' another family member (mostly it is females who are the victims) to being murdered at the hands of her own kin. The honor of the 'clan' overrides all feelings of empathy toward one of its own members.

This hideous example of evil is very much on my mind as the trial of the unspeakable Shafias, father, mother and son, who murdered their three beautiful daughters, the youngest 13, for "honour", plus the unwanted first wife of the patriarch, is just concluding here.

It especially outrages me that they dared, they dared,to use my country , my province to commit this worst of crimes.

They violated my tribal ground.

It is also a shame that here in Germany 'honor killers' have not seldom gotten away away with second-degree murder (or even only manslaughter!) instead of a first degree murder verdict that such horrific acts deserve.

[anthony]

An interesting premise of Lee Harris in The Suicide of Reason is that the Western view of reason as inherent in all human beings is wrong—that our societal belief in the rule of reason has been bred into us through the cultural tradition inherited from the Renaissance and Enlightenment. In other words, rationality is as much nurture as it is nature, and, as a society, we make a huge mistake when we assume that backward nations are simply lagging behind in the inevitable progress toward a mythical modernity. Before reason can become the dominant force in our lives, Harris says, years and years of gradual cultural evolution are required.

I think it is exaclty these years and years of cultural (and scientific) evolution which are the inevitable progress. And that process is irreversible. Once certain stage of knowledge has been reached, there is no going back to a more ignorant stage. As for the cultural evolution being gradual, imo the process will be accelerated considerably in our times of rapid access to information via the internet.

An interesting premise of Lee Harris in The Suicide of Reason is that the Western view of reason as inherent in all human beings is wrong—that our societal belief in the rule of reason has been bred into us through the cultural tradition inherited from the Renaissance and Enlightenment. In other words, rationality is as much nurture as it is nature, and, as a society, we make a huge mistake when we assume that backward nations are simply lagging behind in the inevitable progress toward a mythical modernity. Before reason can become the dominant force in our lives, Harris says, years and years of gradual arcultural evolution e required.

I think it is exaclty these years and years of cultural (and scientific) evolution which are the inevitable progress. And that process is irreversible. Once certain stage of knowledge has been reached, there is no going back to a more ignorant stage. As for the cultural evolution being gradual, imo the process will be accelerated considerably in our times of rapid access to information via the internet.

I don't think anything is inevitable. Who holds that cultural and scientific knowledge, but human beings.

That knowledge is a not a disconnected abstraction locked in a room somewhere. Every generation has to start all over again.

"Rapid access to information via the internet" is a double-edged sword, to me. As much able to propagate harm,

as to spread 'good'.

I am rather floored by your hopeful idealism, almost Utopianism, Xray.

In reality, do you seriously believe another Dark Age is an impossibility?

Tony

[caroljane]

A particularly horrific example of tribalism (manifesting itself in the form of 'family clan-ism") are the so-called 'honor killings' where members of a family unblinkingly 'sentence' another family member (mostly it is females who are the victims) to being murdered at the hands of her own kin. The honor of the 'clan' overrides all feelings of empathy toward one of its own members.

This hideous example of evil is very much on my mind as the trial of the unspeakable Shafias, father, mother and son, who murdered their three beautiful daughters, the youngest 13, for "honour", plus the unwanted first wife of the patriarch, is just concluding here.

It especially outrages me that they dared, they dared,to use my country , my province to commit this worst of crimes.

They violated my tribal ground.

It is also a shame that here in Germany 'honor killers' have not seldom gotten away away with second-degree murder (or even only manslaughter!) instead of a first degree murder verdict that such horrific acts deserve.

A particularly horrific example of tribalism (manifesting itself in the form of 'family clan-ism") are the so-called 'honor killings' where members of a family unblinkingly 'sentence' another family member (mostly it is females who are the victims) to being murdered at the hands of her own kin. The honor of the 'clan' overrides all feelings of empathy toward one of its own members.

This hideous example of evil is very much on my mind as the trial of the unspeakable Shafias, father, mother and son, who murdered their three beautiful daughters, the youngest 13, for "honour", plus the unwanted first wife of the patriarch, is just concluding here.

It especially outrages me that they dared, they dared,to use my country , my province to commit this worst of crimes.

They violated my tribal ground.

It is also a shame that here in Germany 'honor killers' have not seldom gotten away away with second-degree murder (or even only manslaughter!) instead of a first degree murder verdict that such horrific acts deserve.

That is such a misuse of justice. It is not likely to happen here, although the Crown's evidence is not complete as to the murder details. But the Shafias, having nothing to lose by pleading not guilty, have nothing to gain by bargaining for confessions. They will surely get first degree murder convictions and life without parole - I can't bear to think otherwise.

This case should be a precedent towards "honour killing" carrying an automatic first degree murder charge, whatever the circumstances. It is essentially a crime against humanity.

[Selene]

Carol:

Are these newspaper accounts a reasonable portrayal of the case?

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/kingston-tragedy/index.html

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/01/17/christie-blatchford-mohammad-shafias-behaviour-explained-through-simple-afghan-wisdom/

Adam

[caroljane]

Carol:

Are these newspaper accounts a reasonable portrayal of the case?

http://www.montrealg...gedy/index.html

http://fullcomment.n...-afghan-wisdom/

Adam

Yes, I have followed the case in both the Post and the Star here (Christie Blatchford in the Post is a foremost columnist and crime writer here) and the Gazette is highly reliable.