About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Sanction: 17, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 17, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 17, No Sanction: 0
Post 0

Tuesday, May 4, 2010 - 4:12pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Envy/Hatred of the Good for Being the Good

"Today, we live in the Age of Envy.

“Envy” is not the emotion I have in mind, but it is the clearest manifestation of an emotion that has remained nameless; it is the only element of a complex emotional sum that men have permitted themselves to identify.

Envy is regarded by most people as a petty, superficial emotion and, therefore, it serves as a semihuman cover for so inhuman an emotion that those who feel it seldom dare admit it even to themselves . . . . That emotion is: hatred of the good for being the good.

This hatred is not resentment against some prescribed view of the good with which one does not agree . . . . Hatred of the good for being the good means hatred of that which one regards as good by one’s own (conscious or subconscious) judgment. It means hatred of a person for possessing a value or virtue one regards as desirable.

If a child wants to get good grades in school, but is unable or unwilling to achieve them and begins to hate the children who do, that is hatred of the good. If a man regards intelligence as a value, but is troubled by self-doubt and begins to hate the men he judges to be intelligent, that is hatred of the good.

The nature of the particular values a man chooses to hold is not the primary factor in this issue (although irrational values may contribute a great deal to the formation of that emotion). The primary factor and distinguishing characteristic is an emotional mechanism set in reverse: a response of hatred, not toward human vices, but toward human virtues.

To be exact, the emotional mechanism is not set in reverse, but is set one way: its exponents do not experience love for evil men; their emotional range is limited to hatred or indifference. It is impossible to experience love, which is a response to values, when one’s automatized response to values is hatred."

(Mine)


Post 1

Tuesday, May 4, 2010 - 5:30pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
What a beautiful article. Thanks, Peter.

Ed


Post 2

Wednesday, May 5, 2010 - 8:54amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
An excellent article indeed.  And incredibly sad.

Post 3

Sunday, May 9, 2010 - 2:06pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Not much of a fan one way or the other, but Thomas Sowell always seemed to me to have a deeper grasp of the philosophical issues than do many conservatives touted here, such as Glenn Beck.  I never read a Sowell column that I put down halfway because he was being shallow or easy. 


Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 4

Monday, May 10, 2010 - 4:42amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I've been very much of a fan since reading "A Conflict of Visions" several years ago. This guy is always knocking one out of the park with his insights.

Politicians court the process he describes by pandering to the worst within us, as a path to power. And, those with what Sowell called 'the utopian/unconstrained vision' encourage that as their justified means to their ends. We're on the path to Social Justice, you see, and apparently we get there by encouraging complete dumbasses to beat up Asian-Americans or anyone striving to climb up the hill out of the gutter of ignorance and perpetual dependency on the annointed, down there on the dependency plantation, where political power is harvested by shepherding dumbasses into herds of dumbassdom.

When those incidents of violence occur, the utopians point to that as evidence of rage at Social Injustice, and the flames of their self-fed fires are fanned brighter.

Poor, misunderstood ... dumbasses.


Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 5

Monday, May 10, 2010 - 6:14amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Here is a simple, but sobering, observation of his from a recent article:


Barack Obama had no experience running even the most modest business, and personally paying the consequences of his mistakes, before becoming President of the United States.

http://www.theatlasphere.com/columns/100420-sowell-limits-power.php


We can probably dig out lots of examples of former presidents with a similar lack of experience.

What is sobering is not the fact that he has no experience at all running even the most modest business. In my view of the proper role of the POTUS, that is hardly necessary.

What is sobering is, that in spite of that, this particular inexperienced president believes it is the function of any POTUS to 'run The Economy,' despite that glaring and monumental lack of experience.

It's not just the horror of plumbers attempting brain surgery. It's the incredulous act of asserting that it is even proper to try. They guy is a state plumber, Plumber in Chief even. An honorable job.

Not American Emperor. But, that is our fault, collectively, because we all but insist. Well, not exactly right: we collectively tolerate a process that all but insists on electing American Emperors.

Let's be honest: this is a confluence of interests. Business interests/the media benefit from selling the horse-race as a never ending national crises, the anointing of the next American Emperor. We no longer have biannual national elections, the national elections run constantly, 24/7/365, a constant treadmill of fodder for the folks selling soap and beer on cable. We tolerate, as part of our neglect of our own freedom, the sloppy marketing of national politics as a continuous crisis of 'leadership,' -- as if we were a nation of crippled dependents, unable to get out of bed unless the right Maximus Americus was getting up that morning in the White House to keep the state plumbing clean and well functioning. (Acknowledgment to Ayn Rand, We The Living, 'We need the plumbing, but we don't live for it.')

The activist/constructivists, Sowell's unconstrained Utopians, are only too glad to line up with that wish to fill dead airspace and sell the next American Emperor to constructively Run The Economy.

Many of us line up to do this exactly to ourselves, or at least, tolerate it.

regards,
Fred

Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.