RoR: Forum

Rebirth of Reason

Forum : Article Discussions : Understanding Is and Ought - A Personal View

Friday
November 4, 2005

Understanding Is and Ought - A Personal View by Michael Stuart Kelly

Shorthand "mental tags" are extremely useful for moral principles. But the danger in their constant use is that they make the mind turn off on a cognitive level. They provide an immediate emotional reaction—usually moral denunciation, but sometimes, moral praise. The "What is it?" has become so integrated into the "What should I do?" that it is no longer asked or even thought about. (Read more...)
Discuss this Article (114 messages)

Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 5:33pm

Casey,

Thank you.

BTW, on the other thread, I want to compliment on the astute point about altruism, as you are right that where values are "built-in", one cannot renounce them. (But I did bonk you for it.)

Also, thanks for you contribution to PARC. Actually, I was probably more partisan to NB at one time. However, seeing AR's journals and her thoughts and how she handled the issues, I realized I was judging too much without adequate evidence. The net effect was a greater shadow was cast on NB's character, but, most importantly, much of the damage done to AR's character by various people was restored. I know that was Mr. Valliant's intent, and he succeeded!! (With me at least.)

Best Regards,
Michael

Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 6:31pm

Rick Pasotto,

Please excuse the delay in getting around to this. You questioned the cognitive definition I came up with for "turning the other cheek."

You wrote here: http://solohq.com/Forum/ArticleDiscussions/1504_1.shtml#38

I would also like to say that my understanding of the Christian notion of turning the other cheek is not retaliating in any way, shape, or form. Your "in kind" bit is not anything I've heard before.

Well, I finally was able to do a bit of research. Here is what I came up with. Generally "turning the other cheek" is discussed in the context of how to respond to evil. Still, here are the quotes:

http://www.anthropoetics.ucla.edu/views/view31.htm

Eric Gans

These reflections on romantic love lead us to examine the role of love in Christianity, the central cultural system of what Hegel called the Romantic era. The love of each for each, which I have qualified as omnicentric--each becomes a center for every other--is proposed in the Gospels as an alternative to the symmetrical opposition of rivals. Turn the other cheek rather than retaliate in kind; go the extra mile rather than draw a line in the sand.

(My emphasis – bold and underline)

http://www.earlham.edu/~rel/dick-davis/davis-chas2.html

Richard Davis

In fact, the Greek text does not support these conclusions. Nor is it true that Jesus teaches submission. The phrase mê antistênai has a range of meanings. These include, "Do not respond in kind to evil, do not let evil dictate the terms of your action." One paraphrase, in the Good News Bible, reads, "Do not take revenge on someone who harms you." Indeed, this is a long way from the passivity of "resist not."

(My emphasis)

http://www.donaldsensing.com/2003/12/turning-other-cheek-part-2.html

Donald Sensing

The Greek word translated as "resist" (antistenai), is literally "to stand (stenai) against (anti)." The term is taken from warfare. When two armies collide, they were said to "stand against" each other. This translation is given in the new Scholars Bible: "Don’t react violently against the one who is evil." The meaning is clear: don’t react in kind, don’t mirror your enemy, don’t turn into the very thing you hate. Jesus is not telling us not to resist evil, but only not to resist it violently.

(My emphasis)

http://www.themoorings.org/expositions/sermon/2tab.html

Bible Studies at the Moorings

Jesus dismissed the rule of eye-for-eye as invalid. He was not contradicting Scripture, but rather its misapplication. He then gave a new rule. He said categorically, "Resist not evil." Notice that this is far more stringent than the rule often repeated in Scripture that we should not avenge ourselves (Rom. 12:19; 1 Pet. 3:9). Not avenging ourselves means that we do not retaliate in kind.

(My emphasis)

http://www.thetyee.ca/Citizentoolkit/2004/11/22/JesusTrickster/print.html

Walter Wink

Jesus did not tell his oppressed hearers not to resist evil. His entire ministry is at odds with such a preposterous idea. He is, rather, warning against responding to evil in kind by letting the oppressor set the terms of our opposition.

(My emphasis)

http://www.jubilee-centre.org/online_documents/Themythofseculartolerance.htm

John Coffey

Yet we should resist the urge to retaliate in kind.

(My emphasis)

Just for the record, I came up with a "Bible needs to be interpreted" thing on turn the other cheek.

http://www.cresourcei.org/plainsense.html

Dennis Bratcher

I am suggesting that a plain sense approach to Scripture, without some other deliberate and carefully thought out methods of interpreting the text, will most often cause us to see in Scripture what we already think about issues. That’s why it seems so "plain sense" to us! That "plain sense" tells us that Jesus did not really mean for us to turn the other cheek and to love our enemies and persecutors in all situations, because that is impractical in our cultural context.

To be fair to you, here is the meaning from Allwords:

http://www.allwords.com/word-cheek.html

To refuse to retaliate.

I can’t resist one little gem from Kitten’s neighborhood near Chicago, also to be fair to your understanding:

http://www.lakestreet.org/sermons-cheeky-nonviolence.php

Lake Street Church of Evanston

It is commonly believed that there are two ways to respond to violence. One is to turn the other cheek, which is usually interpreted to mean doing nothing.

Now here is a typical way the strict physical act, literally turning the other cheek, has been described by the religious for getting around the altruistic normative "load":

http://www.forlovingkindness.org/excerptcheek.html

Suzette Haden Elgin

We have been dealing with "turn the other cheek" in exactly the same way [note: paying lip service]. We've been assuming that turning the other cheek is another such example because somewhere in our distant past we decided that it delivers this message:

"OW! That hurt! But it's safe to hit me again, because I'm a coward and I'm so scared of you! Here, I'll even turn my other cheek toward you so it's more convenient for you to hit me!"

I suggest to you that that was a mistake and that turning the other cheek is intended to deliver this very different message:

"Please notice -- I am not afraid of you at all."

This is no cowardly message! On the contrary, it's strong and serene and confident and unafraid. We have been misunderstanding, all along, in spite of the fact that we trust God not to be perverse, and in spite of the fact that nowhere is there any evidence that Jesus was a coward. The misunderstanding has become so embedded in our culture and our minds, by habit and repetition, that it has hidden the true meaning from us all along.

My cognitive definition has a basis out there in the real world. There's oodles more. This is not a mere arbitrary construction.

Now if you will excuse me, I have done what I said I would do and I am really tired of reading religious literature and getting the message of the glories of self-sacrifice, or rationalizations that things don’t really mean what they say.

Think I’ll go take a bath…

Michael

Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 6:44pm

Hey Michael, can you refine your "turn the other cheek" claim to a single aphorism?

I've been following the different threads and it's not clear what the essential point is.

I'm genuinely interested.

Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 7:04pm

Lance,

That is easy. In my discussion and articles, turning the other cheek generally means:

Not retaliating in kind against aggression.

However that is only the cognitive meaning. There are basically THREE normative meanings (and if you read the quotes above, even more).

Christian - Loving your enemy more than yourself (altruism), even to the point of passively letting him harm you by not retaliating in kind against aggression .

Strategy - Not retaliating in kind against aggression in order to preserve another value.

Nonviolent resistance - Not retaliating in kind against aggression in order to shame and disorient an aggressor. (This is basically a strategy, but I mention it separately because it is widely used this way).

Notice that you can have the cognitive without the normative, but you cannot have the normative without the cognitive.

This fact, and these differences of meaning, are constantly blanked-out in the arguments of those who are hostile in this discussion, so thanks for asking.

Michael

Edit - On giving Rick Pasotto's question some thought, the words, "in kind" should be understood as being both literally in kind and something similar. So in my understanding, if a man hits you on the cheek and you trash his car, that is a type of retaliating "in kind." I know that stretches it a bit, but I am trying to be as general as possible. Maybe a new choice of phrase for future discussion on this...

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 11/12, 7:12pm)

Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 7:16pm

Thanks, Michael. That's a step in the right direction. But it's still wordy. The only aphorism I'm seeing is (re-worded a bit):

Do not retaliate in kind against aggression.

Is this your claim?

Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 7:37pm

Lance,

That is the normative way of saying it. And there is a big OUGHT implicit in there.

Try to understand one thing. I am dissecting a concept, not making a moral rule. When you dissect something, you get parts, not a whole. Now that you see the parts above, choose which part is your context, then fit in the phrase.

What you said, "do not retaliate in kind against aggression," fits all three normative contexts, but it does not provide the context. So if your context is implicit, then you do not need to state it. I prefer to state it to avoid confusion. If you make it a general contextless statement, then it can mean many things.

As a matter of fact, just by the fact that the Biblical phrase is so contextless, this gives rise to all these different normative abstractions - and consequently the blank-outs and context shifting in the present discussion.

For the cognitive definition of the act only, the IS so to speak, you cannot put it as a command. It has to be as I said - a description of an act only, i.e., not retaliating in kind against aggression.

Notice that there is no "ought" in the cognitive description and that it is merely something people do. It is neither inherently good or evil. It only acquires a good/evil aspect when it is used for a purpose, i.e., a normative abstraction is added to the cognitive.

Michael

Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 7:41pm

MSK:

If you're talking about taking blows as part of a strategy of winning the battle, a better metaphor would be the rope-a-dope by Mohammed Ali than cheek-turning by Jesus Christ. Taken in the context of Christianity the altruistic motivations are too readily identified with "turning the other cheek." Jesus turned the other cheek right into crucifixion. Not a good strategy for defending earthly values. If you're talking about not responding in kind to shame your enemies into good behavior, I think that's giving too much attention to one's enemies. One should live up to one's own standards for one's own sake. For that matter, invalid attacks should not be given any credence and should not be considered blows in the first place for which someone would have to turn the other cheek and ask for more. If someone physically strikes you on the cheek, then turning the other cheek is out of the question -- that would be wrong (unless you're Mohammed Ali). And there is good reason to think that that biblical quotation means exactly that, considering Jesus's passive participation in his own crucifixion.

Besides, turning the other cheek is MORE than just not responding in kind. It's an active permission to take another shot. It's a demonstration of one's own selflessness -- you can't hurt me because I am beyond being a selfish person who cares for myself to the point of defending myself, selfish concerns don't worry me, my flesh is not important, my soul is transcendant and immortal, in fact, here, let me help, does that give you a better angle to strike my other cheek? What's that you say? Stick my chin out a bit more? How's that?

So much Christian, altruistic and mystical baggage comes along with that quote that I don't see the point in trying to disentangle it from all of these other meanings to repurpose it for a point that seems to be very different and specific. Using this quote practically begs for confusion rather than helping to make a clear and distinct point.

Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 8:10pm

MSK,

I share your distaste for reading biblical exegesis. I entered "turn the other cheek" into google and none of the first six links include the phrase "in kind". I decline to read more.

What is certainly clear is that Bible commentators are very creative in finding passages to support their views, whatever they might be. This fact speaks to the (lack of) usefulness of the source material.

Here are those six, followed either by quotes or my summary:

--------------

http://www.keyway.ca/htm2002/cheek.htm

A right-handed slap on the right cheek would be a back-handed slap, which is really more an insult than a physical act. Thus the admonision means to have patience with those who don't understand.

--------------

http://www.bartleby.com/59/1/turntheother.html

"To “turn the other cheek” is thus to accept injuries and not to seek revenge."

---------------

http://www.unification.net/ws/theme145.htm

By retaliating you sink to your adversary's level. Leave the vengeance to God.

---------------

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/6/story_671_1.html

The author states that "...people from Leo Tolstoy to Mahatma Gandhi interpreted Jesus' words to mean that one should be willing to die rather than fight back against a would-be killer." However, the author disagrees.

--------------

http://www.preachtheword.co.uk/transcripts/sotm10.html

[This is really scarry!]

"The Lord is saying the Christian is a person that never stands up for his rights."

"A Christian - now listen to this - a Christian is a man who has forgotten that he has any rights at all!"

"How can we sum up the Sermon on the Mount? Do you know what it all is? Listen: it is death to self. Death to self!"

---------------

http://www.gac.20m.com/self-def.htm

It's about insults, not self-defense.

Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 8:39pm

Casey,

You may not see the point of my discussion, but it is an extremely valid psycho-epistemological topic - and outside of that, there is always great value in dissecting concepts. (Rand did it all the time.) If you don't like the discussion (find it boring or pointless), you certainly aren't obligated to discuss it.

I am pretty convinced that irrational prejudices get formed because people get so used to the normative abstraction that they completely forget that their evaluations must be based on facts. There has to be an act before there is a suggestion (command, whatever) to do that act for some reason or another.

Nothing wrong in looking solely at the act for a minute and seeing if there are connections in other contexts. That is called creative analysis.

In short, my quest is to find two things, (1) any cognitive falsehoods like blank-outs that may have crept into my thinking (and that of others), and (2) what the roots of poor thinking habits are so that corrections can be devised. Not every bad idea is the result of consciously choosing evil. Sometimes there is a bad habit that has been acquired and is so automatic that one merely does not notice it until it is pointed out.

btw - Did you find any of those two ideas falsely attributed to me in my writing somewhere? I am very anxious to correct them if they exist, as they do not validly represent my thinking.

Michael

Edit - On rereading your post, one thing stands out. The OUGHT (a rather shifting ouht, too) runs throughout it, except for the comment about inviting another pot shot - which is true for the initial cognitive concept. But the popular meaning - not retaliating in kind against aggression - does not include the offer of another shot. That's just the way it evolved in usage, even religious usage. Not my idea. Please see the quotes in Post 61 above for some examples.

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 11/12, 8:54pm)

Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 9:19pm

Thank you, Rick - it is amusing to see so often how far folk will go to twist the original statements, thru one means or another, to suit themselves and their positions... even if it means funky translations, translations from translations [eg, from non-original language], or interpretations from translations of translations.....
(Edited by robert malcom on 11/12, 9:22pm)

Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 10:46pm

I just read the latest postings on this thread & got a lot of laughs. Here's the nub of it as I see it:

At some point after his marshmallow-mush "cheek-turning" article, which certainly gave normative approval to cheek-turning (now watered down to "not retaliating in kind") in certain instances, MSK had a light-bulb go off in his head re cognitive/normative. I don't believe he used those terms in his original article. Must have read some Rand as a break from Branden. He then did two things: treated the rest of us as though we'd never heard of Rand's treatment of is/ought, & used the distinction to rationalise his article after the event. Well, he's "cognitively" wrong in the first instance & "normatively" wrong in the second.

It worries me that newbies might be sucked in by MSK's portentous attention-seeking & end up mired in mush, but Messrs Moeller & Fahy have done a good debunking job. When the response is "yap yap yap yap yap" & gratuitous allegations of "hostile agenda," "idiocy" & "smarm" you know you're seeing a man on the ropes. You also see the truth of this: scratch a man who makes a big deal out of "niceness" & you'll find he is not that "nice" himself!

I repeat what I've said before: MSK does not speak for SOLO. He's even confirmed that himself, thankfully, though our adding "A Personal View" to his latest article sent him into spasms. He speaks for himself. At length. Bother with it if you care to. I don't, but I will take the trouble to answer questions from anyone who is mush-confused.

Linz

Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 11:15pm

Sorry, Linz,

You and I disagree big time on this issue. So we will just have to agree to disagree. My ideas are out there for whoever wants to use their own mind. Yours are too.

I wasn't cornered, though. Just tired of senseless yapping.

I'm very glad that Moeller's and Fahy's messages spoke to your anti-Branden soul, though.

btw - Can you help Casey maybe find those ideas in my writing that were falsely attributed to me after he gets through debunking me? To refresh your memory:

1. Where I said that the Christian virtue (altruism) is compatible with Objectivism. If that gets hard, try appeasement.

2. Where I said that state control should be for things like smoking for anywhere at all. (Any old place will do.)

I even believe you yourself attributed the first to me. So please help me find a quote in my own writings so that I can withdraw it.

Michael

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 11/12, 11:30pm)

Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 5:59am

Come on guys,

Just one little iddy biddy quote. Any old quote will do.

Now what would you call the arguments of people who have to (1) IGNORE what you say, and (2) FALSIFY what you say in order to have any argument at all?

(I gave normative approval to altruistic cheek turning? My ass I did.)

Well, mush-mouthers, MUSH is about the kindest thing I can think of for you guys.

Please find a quote .

Michael

Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 6:09am

Michael,

One cannot find that which does not exist. You just need to put down your Branden books and read something more appropriate to understand what's going on here. :-)

Ethan

Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 8:43am

Ethan,

LOLOLOLOLOL...

I'm biting my tongue...

Michael

Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 9:26am

Linz,

Thank you for the acknowledgement. You always seem to grasp the essentials of a situation.

Ethan,

I am curious: are you saying that I have an "anti-Branden" agenda? (Hint: be careful how you answer because you never know who you might be speaking to.) If you claim that I do, how can that be inferred from anything I have written on this forum? As a matter of fact, I quoted him multiple times on the "Argument from Intimidation" thread.

Michael

Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 11:43am

> scratch a man who makes a big deal out of "niceness" & you'll find he is not that "nice" himself! [Linz]

Would you -really- say that whoever makes a big deal out of X (honesty, logical precision, passion) does not possess that trait himself? Because I emphasize civility, I am not very civil? Because you emphasize passion, you are emotionally repressed?

What utter nonsense.

Phil

Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 9:45am

Michael, I'm sorry but your turning the other cheek article had next to nothing to do with cognitive/normative. It was an attempt to smuggle into Objectivism an absolutely abhorrent concept as a "tactic." This last article of yours on is and ought doesn't rescue the turning one. Howard Roark never turned the other cheek no matter how much you try to show he did "cognitively." The basic principle of parallel parking is if you screw it up you start over from scratch--a principle you should have applied--but you refuse to acknowledge your misrepresentation, deliberate or accidental, of Howard Roark, Ayn Rand and Objectivism. Let me be blunter: I can't stand that article, it makes me want to retch to even think about it after rereading it. It should never have been posted on SOLO even on Dissent. Now I'm faced with the task of dealing with your views on is and ought which are a rationalization, if not only a rationalization, for Turning. I have to tell you that I can't do it; that would be sanctioning Turning and I regret any implicit sanction I may have previously given it.

--Brant

(Edited by Brant Gaede on 11/13, 12:02pm)

(Edited by Brant Gaede on 11/13, 12:05pm)

Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 12:19pm

Phil,
You are correct. One can say one thing and do the opposite, but that does not necessarily one cannot be consistent. Ah, the virtue of integrity. (NB alert**---->one of his "Six Pillars".)
Michael

(Edited by Michael Moeller on 11/13, 12:20pm)

Oops, that comment might not serve my hidden anti-Branden agenda.

(Edited by Michael Moeller on 11/13, 12:21pm)

Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 12:31pm

Michael, I'm sorry but I still don't get the essence of what you are saying. Boil it down, please. Refine it. In one or two sentences tell me what your point is. The essence. The fundamental thought.