Re: Whacko Russian Declines Field Medal

Pete Dashwood wrote:

Seriously, though, the absence of greed is symptomatic of significant
pathological disease or defect.

Really? If we're being serious (and I doubt we are :-)), and having
spent a goodly portion of my life acquainting myself with tomes on
psychology and human behaviour, having observed said behaviours at
first hand in various cultures and countries over many years, and not
being averse to thinking, or incapable of drawing conclusions from
observations made, I have not found the statement above to be true.

Perhaps you could help me remedy this possible omission in my
education by giving a cite for it? :-)

Sure. Be glad to do so. Or at least attempt to do so.

--- begin quote
And, behold, it was very good ... And, behold, it was good [in the Book of
Genesis] alludes to the creation of man and the Good Inclination, and "very"
alludes to the Evil Inclination. Is, then, the Evil Inclination "very good"?
It is, in truth, to teach you that were it not for the Evil Inclination, no
one would build a house, marry and beget children.
--- end quote

This is from the Midrash (Kohelet Rabba) exposition on the Talmud. The "evil
inclination" means "greed." The presence of greed is, as God said, "very
good." But the fiat of God is not a compelling argument. I understand.


While greed, like most traits, CAN have beneficial effects, the
absence of it does not imply any kind of defect. In fact, for some of
us, being driven by greed is simply stressful and counter productive.
Despite what Michael Douglas said in "Wall Street", greed is,
overall, NOT good.
You are suggesting treating cancer with herpes simplex 2. The virus
may attack certain kinds of cancer, but, given the choice, most
people would probably prefer not to have it...

Greed, on balance, is best avoided.

I never said anything about cancer; let's not get off on a straw-man
argument.

Greed exists, or should exist, in everyone, much like red blood cells. I
suggested the absence of greed is abnormal, and potentially fatal and, inter
alia, the suppression of a normal emotion is dangerous.

You'll agree, I hope, that it is possible to do great harm with those
motivations generally characterized as beneficial: love, altruism, charity,
pity, and so on. Likewise, it is possible to perform acts of great worth
motivated by those emotions generally despised: greed, hate, jealousy,
distrust, lust, etc.

Consider Jonas Salk, pouring over his microscope. He was, no doubt,
motivated by very many laudatory and altruistic urges. But I'll bet,
somewhere in his psyche, he thought "I HATE the notion of crippled children.
I'm in a race with that Sabin fellow. If I can solve this, I'll get big
grants and can do the kind of research I want without having to suck up the
frikkin bureaucrats." So, then, due (maybe only in small ways) to hate,
envy, greed, and other "evil inclinations," polio has been virtually
eradicated in your lifetime and mine. A universally-accepted good result
attributable to what many consider "evil."

Point is, God created us with greed, envy, lust, hate, and an panalopy of
other "nasty" emotions and God didn't make junk. These emotions are normal
and natural. It's what we DO with these inclinations that counts, not their
mere existence. The difference between greed and love is similar to the
difference between a bucket of paint and a stick of dynamite. It is easier
to do good or harm with one or the other, but good or harm is not ruled out
for either (if you force someone to drink the paint, they die).

At least that's what my tradition teaches, it makes sense to me, and I'm
sticking to it.



No, if he liked doing what he was doing anyway, his thought
processes are seriously flawed if he did not realize he could do
more of it, or do it better, with $1 million in his pocket.

How exactly does the amount of money I have, improve my programming
ability? Or improve my ability to think generally?

Heh! Maimonides was once asked: "You say that the Great One, blessed be His
Name, created man so that man may form profound intellectual concepts with
his mind. Yet we see that the scholar is only one among many, perhaps only
one in a generation. Why is it, then, did the Great One, blessed be His
Name, create so many that do not have the capacity to form great
intellectual concepts with their minds?"

Maimonides gave a long answer, but to avoid boring you, I'll condense it.
There are two reasons, said the Rambam, for having a world with many, many
non-scholars:

1) The scholar, if he had it to do by himself, would be overwhelmed by just
his daily bread. He'd have to learn to sow, cultivate, plant, reap, thresh,
grind, and bake the wheat, plus make the tools necessary for these
activities. All this would take an inordinate amount of time, time the
scholar would NOT have available for study. Many non-scholars were created,
concluded Maimonides, so the person capable of great intellectual thoughts,
the scholar, could eat.

2) Inasmuch as man does not live by bread alone, others not capable of great
intellectual thoughts were created so the scholar would not be lonely.

In these two endeavors, money helps.

Dr. Perelman has an environment that affords him the necessities (for
him) and it is enough for him. His absence of greed is not a defect;
it is something he simply has no place for.

Absence of greed may not, in Dr Perelman's case, be a defect, but it
certainly is not a blessing. I trust you'd agree, for example, that the
practice of charity is meritorious? Basic rule: one can't practice charity
if one has no resources. To the degree one has ample funds, beyond basic
needs, one can improve the lot of the less fortunate. In this regard, greed
helps and helps tremendously. There is a French word for one who has the
ability to help his fellow man and refuses... but I don't know what it is.


.

Relevant Pages