Re: Whacko Russian Declines Field Medal


"HeyBub" <heybubNOSPAM@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:12eq6os8op36q19@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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.

I appreciate the attempt ... :-)

--- 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."

And by what authority does the phrase "Evil Inclination" become "Greed"...?

It could just as easily be lust, anger, or any other "evil inclination"....
For a divine being you'd think God could spell it out a bit more clearly...
but then, maybe He did; maybe all He meant by "Evil Inclination" was the
inclination to do bad things, the Dark Side of the Force...exactly what He
said. I think if God had MEANT "greed", He would have SAID "greed".


The presence of greed is, as God said, "very
good." But the fiat of God is not a compelling argument. I understand.


It is about as compelling an argument (for me) as: "I'll huff and I'll puff
and I'll BLOW your house down!"

My experience has been that pigs don't build houses (from straw, sticks, or
bricks), wolves don't blow them down and get boiled alive for their trouble,
and, although fairy stories often have worthwhile morals and are definitely
entertaining in the telling, it is probably not good practice to model human
behaviour on them...

(I accept that that others will feel strongly about this and I respect their
right to do so; my comments are purely from a personal point of view and I
am not trying to offend. (Sometimes, I do it without trying, and for this I
unreservedly apologise))



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.

I'm not trying to change the subject; I am simply using an analogy that
because something intrinsically bad may have some worthwhile attributes,
that doesn't make it desirable. It's the same argument as saying that the
end justifies the means. In my book it doesn't, but I see from your post
below, that you may have a differing view on this.


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.

If it is not in one's nature to feel a certain emotion, then it is not being
suppressed, and there is therefore no danger whatsoever. Your argument
predicates on all men being greedy.(Only then would it's absence be
abnormal). This is demonstrably not true. In the same way as any other
emotion...some people ever know fear, others never know love, or hatred, or
jealousy... it is an individual thing and certainly not abnormal for a given
individual. Whether it is DESIRABLE or not is arguable and I believe that is
what we're arguing.I don't think it is necessary (or desirable) for people
to be greedy and, in Dr. Perelman's case, his entire upbringing has
predisposed him not to need more than is required for health and life. The
question was whether it is fair to label such behaviour "wacko" or crazy,
and this is the nub of my objection.

I believe it is out of order for the press (and certain residents of
Texas... :-)) to so label a man when they have no idea or insight into his
life or work. I'm not suggesting he is a Saint :-); rather, I'm saying he
doesn't deserve to be called "crazy" simply because he doesn't embrace
certain fashionable value sets.

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.

Yes. Any powerful emotion when misused can be harmful.


Likewise, it is possible to perform acts of great worth motivated by those
emotions generally despised: greed, hate, jealousy, distrust, lust, etc.

Maybe. Here you are on shakier ground... :-)

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."

As neither of us can have any inkling into Dr. Salk's motivations or
temperament, the above is pure speculation. As such, it is simply irrelevant
to the argument.


Point is, God created us with greed, envy, lust, hate, and an panalopy of
other "nasty" emotions and God didn't make junk.

Oh no? Do you really want to pursue this... :-) Just for openers:

1. Wasps
2. Mosquitoes
3. Snakes
3. Earthquakes
4. Hurricanes
5. Tsunamis.
6. Tornados
....
all pretty pointless... and that's before we get to the Apocalyptic stuff...

5. War
6. Pestilence
7. Famine
8. Death
8. Hopelessness and despair
9. Depression
10. Religion
....
& etc.

The problem here is that if you make God responsible for everything then you
have a single valued logic system (Fatalism) and there is no point in us
(you and I) engaging in reasoned debate. There is no right or wrong, only
the will (and rightness) of God.

(I believe this is one of the fundamental tenets of Islam, and it is
impossible to reason with. The only possible defence to it would be to have
an alternative deity who is more powerful than Allah, and argue that it is
HIS will that must be obeyed. People who have tried this one (Christian
missionaries to Muslim countries) tended to find themselves headless very
quickly (if they were lucky), so it is probably not going to be a persuasive
argument here.)

I guess the best a believer can do is to accept that God DID make junk and
maybe did so to test our perception of what is junk...or for some other
divinely mysterious reason that we cannot fathom at this stage of our
development.

As an atheist I have no problem with there being junk in the Universe, as I
don't expect it to behave morally or fairly, or with deference to the needs
of Men.

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).

But you are sayng that anyone without a bucket of paint and a stick of
dynamite is abnormal. I say they are simply someone without a bucket of
paint or a stick of dynamite.

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

Fair enough. A refreshing exposition even if no minds were changed. :-) I
hope you'll reconsider "wacko" in the context of Perelman, but if not, I
have done my best... :-)


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:

NOW who's digressing... :-)

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.


Uh huh... so the academics can leech of the rest of us, huh? Parasites...:-)


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.

And so the parasites would have someone to look down on and feel superior
to, right? :-)


In these two endeavors, money helps.

Sure, but once you have enough, it is enough.


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.

"While it is no great sin to be poor, it is no great blessing either..."
Tevye, Fiddler on the Roof.

It doesn't mean he is crazy or, given his life's work and the sharing of it,
that he should be described thus...


I trust you'd agree, for example, that the practice of charity is
meritorious?

Depends how you practice it.

I know a number of quite famous charities that are actually just profitable
businesses (even though they are stated non-profit) with less than 50% of
the donations reaching the people intended. Fund raising is also a
specialist "consultancy" business with the consultants charging up to 40% of
what is raised. Personally, I only donate to charities that can publish
their accounts and show that less than 20% is overhead. (Oxfam have 15%, and
are on my list; the rest are local...I also believe that charity starts at
home)

Basic rule: one can't practice charity if one has no resources.

Tell that to VSA. It isn't always about money...

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.

That would be "Patriot"...

Pete.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Whacko Russian Declines Field Medal
    ... Seriously, though, the absence of greed is symptomatic of significant ... Is, then, the Evil Inclination "very good"? ... absence of it does not imply any kind of defect. ... The scholar, if he had it to do by himself, would be overwhelmed by just ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: GLBT Dr.Who Fans ?
    ... Faith is about the complete absence of facts. ... The atheist has a faith in the absence of God. ... That would be the kind of mental breakdown that had no effect other than ...
    (rec.arts.drwho)
  • Re: GOD=G_uv GOD FOR DUMMYS
    ... is that missing growth? ... growth you are not really talking to that person but the absence of growth ... that is in fact god? ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: If there was a God, wouldnt it make itself known to everyone?
    ... Can the values of good and evil somehow create themselves in the absence ... those values not only do exist but exist somehow beyond God, ... Schroedinger's cat is either alive or dead, ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: GLBT Dr.Who Fans ?
    ... The atheist has a faith in the absence of God. ... If there's no get-out clause and you moulder in the earth like the rest of organic life on earth, then why believe in this "God" crap anyway? ...
    (rec.arts.drwho)