Doesn't Objectivism regard thinking as an action?

[Soulsurfer]

I am a little bit confused about an philosophical issue which, I assume, would have to be very relevant to Objectivism. In Atlas Shrugged, Francisco d'Anconia says (paraphrasing from memory here) that there are no evil thoughts except one: the refusal to think. Could anyone -- please -- explain this a little bit further? Are there no evil thoughts? What about Kant's philosophy? Is that the result of non-thinking or what? Doesn't Objectivism regard thinking as an action?

Just to let you in on my own thoughts on the matter:

Suppose a man is making love to his wife and, during the act, fantasizes of another woman (say, her sister or a colleague). And more: suppose he always does this when they are in bed together. Would you then suggest that this man is actually making love to his wife, or that he merely is using the wife's body as a tool for an extended masturbation?

I am serious about this one; this is not some kind of modern philosophy "life-boat emergency" dilemma to me. I really want to understand the principles involved in such a context (and other, similar contexts with different concretes).

Consider another example, just to catch the principles involved here: During the day, when her husband is away, a housewife spends her time on the Internet -- interacting with another man. They talk about everything; sex, kids, life and so forth. They really like each other and start to exchange erotic fantasies. Then they have "virtual sex", first by ICQ and then by phone. Her husband doesn't know about this (and she knows he would disapprove of this if she told him).

Would you consider this an act of cheating on her husband? Is this woman unfaithful? She has never met the man in real life and doesn't plan to. She loves her husband and doesn't want a bigger better deal. If her husband found out and reproached her over it, she would actually be very defensive and say that this was her right to privacy -- if she is not fucking the guy in real life, the husband shouldn't bother. It was all for personal fun, just like masturbating with an advanced tool. Thus, she doesn't regard herself as unfaithful.

[tommyedison]

Suppose a man is making love to his wife and, during the act, fantasizes of another woman (say, her sister or a colleague). And more: suppose he always does this when they are in bed together. Would you then suggest that this man is actually making love to his wife, or that he merely is using the wife's body as a tool for an extended masturbation?

Why does he fantasize?

If through degrees of evasion, the man mentally replaces the image of his wife with the image of another woman, he is attracted to that woman even though physically he may making love with another.

To quote Midas Mulligan from Atlas Shrugged "Love is ultimate form of recognition given to superlative values". To a man in love with his wife, his wife is his superlative value. Replacing the image of his wife with the image of someone else simply implies that the man is not in love with his wife. He would prefer someone else.

He is just using his wife's body to mentally act on something he would like to do.

Consider another example, just to catch the principles involved here: During the day, when her husband is away, a housewife spends her time on the Internet -- interacting with another man. They talk about everything; sex, kids, life and so forth. They really like each other and start to exchange erotic fantasies. Then they have "virtual sex", first by ICQ and then by phone. Her husband doesn't know about this (and she knows he would disapprove of this if she told him).

Would you consider this an act of cheating on her husband? Is this woman unfaithful? She has never met the man in real life and doesn't plan to. She loves her husband and doesn't want a bigger better deal. If her husband found out and reproached her over it, she would actually be very defensive and say that this was her right to privacy -- if she is not fucking the guy in real life, the husband shouldn't bother. It was all for personal fun, just like masturbating with an advanced tool. Thus, she doesn't regard herself as unfaithful.

Again, fantasizing about something implies a desire to want it. Here, It implies that she is not completely satisfied with her current husband. If the wife is mentally even sometimes replacing another man for her husband as a lover, she is unfaithful. Cheating does not only mean sex.

[Megan Robinson]

I think what Rand meant when she said the greatest evil came from not thinking is evasion. To evade an aspect of reality means that you have chosen to glide over it. Mystics do this, and subjectivists (Kant) do it as well. Though you may be thinking a little, an act of evasion can do a lot of harm to that act. Evil cannot exist on its own, it needs good to stand on. So evasion based on a little thought is worse than no thought at all (basically a vegetative state).

And about the cheating... The first is an act of evasion. Sex is not moral without love (Rand calls sex without love 'a wriggling of meat') If he is fantasizing about someone else he either does not love his wife or does not view sex as a proper metaphysical expression of an abstraction. Either case is immoral.

And the second case...Same story. if the wife hides her actions from her husband she is perpetuating an unreality. Aside from this, if she is attracted to a man sexually who does not embody her values, she has a problem.

Both people are evasive.

Edited October 11, 2004 by GreedyCapitalist

[GoodOrigamiMan]

I am a little bit confused about an philosophical issue which, I assume, would have to be very relevant to Objectivism. In Atlas Shrugged, Francisco d'Anconia says (paraphrasing from memory here) that there are no evil thoughts except one: the refusal to think. Could anyone -- please -- explain this a little bit further? Are there no evil thoughts? What about Kant's philosophy? Is that the result of non-thinking or what? Doesn't Objectivism regard thinking as an action?

Kant’s philosophy is a result of too much thinking on premises based on no thinking at all. Three basic axiomatic concepts existence exists, you exist possessing consciousness, A is A are self evident in everything and everything that you have perceived and are perceiving. Kant, Religions, and the like deny them passionately though. How can you deny realty and consciousness? How can you disprove reality without reality? How can you disprove consciousness without consciousness? You can’t. Kant and his lot can think, but they can’t think enough to grasp the self evident, consequently they are wasting their time; just like if you were designing a bridge with the premise that wood could be stronger than steel. That is what they are attempting, to design philosophies by denying the materials. As for what you paraphrased I don’t see anything wrong with it, “refusing to think” is along the lines of “primacy of consciousness” aka the premise that “If I don’t think it, then it isn’t there.” This sort of evasion is evil in the sense that it has led to Hitler, Communism, Religions and etcetera. The “primacy of existence” would be the alternative and self-evident.

[Soulsurfer]

Thanks for your answers. I think, however, that they somehow miss the point I was trying to make here. But that's all my own fault, because I was probably expressing my thoughts poorly in the first place.

What I am specifically after here is Objectivism's conclusions regarding the correlation between mind and body. My first question would be in what sense that is the same as a correlation of thought and action. I.e., would an individual's thinking -- according to Objectivism -- never be considered evil, but merely the "implementation" (for lack of a better word) as a form of physical action (e.g. Kant's publications of his thoughts).

Just to give you something to chew on here: Would Kant be considered a benevolent and a good philosopher if just one day historians would dig up a new private note of his which stated that "the entire philosophy I concluded was just a joke on stupidity and meant as such; in real life you would act in the opposite direction and I really think that my successors in the field of philosophy will do the job well"?

Personally, I don't think you could evaluate anything out of context. Since Kant did not write such a Post Scriptum, his thinking -- or rather his thinking put in words and publicized on the premise to actually influence other minds to think and ACT ON that thinking -- would have to be an anti-value in the broader context. (Could you say that, in a more narrow context, his philosophy IS of real value because it explicitly contrasts and exposes the opposite of a good philosophy?)

If the wife is mentally even sometimes replacing another man for her husband as a lover, she is unfaithful. Cheating does not only mean sex.

Then would you also suggest that the reverse applies: that if the man was to hire a prostitute for acting as his wife (or having a sexual affair with a female friend), and he actually thought of his wife during the act -- that he would still be making love to his wife?

Yesterday, my wife showed me these"realistic" dolls for adult sexplay. She even joked about ordering a few of them just for fun. Now, let's assume that in the future those dolls will be even more advanced (perhaps in a hundred years there is a market for real Jude Law-ish robot-gigolos such as in the Spielberg movie A.I.). Combined with telepresence technologies they would then enable individuals to express their sexual thoughts ("to make love") through an extended medium of their bodies.

This would be a substitute and not real sex, some people wouldn't hesitate to say. Now I'm not so sure about that. If two (physically) crippled individuals make love -- not by having actual direct physical contact with each other, but instead transmitting and recieving the signals of the nervous system, causing the equivalent of "real sensations" -- are their lovemaking (as equally caused by thinking) not "real" unless their meat actually wrestle in physical reality?

In reality, progress in technology enables the mind to translate thought into action (or an objectively demonstrable product); thereby saving time. And the distance (in terms of time and energy spent on actions) between technological facilities and thought is getting just shorter and shorter in some contexts. (In fact, if there was a way for Richard Halley to compose his music via a neural transmitter substituting the need for a piano, paper or any present computer software, I don't think he would miss the opportunity.)

[tommyedison]

Then would you also suggest that the reverse applies: that if the man was to hire a prostitute for acting as his wife (or having a sexual affair with a female friend), and he actually thought of his wife during the act -- that he would still be making love to his wife?

I apologize if I implied that the person who tried to mentally replace the person he/she is sleeping with would actually be making love to the person he/she wants to sleep with.

As I said before, love does not only mean sex. Trying to replace the image of the person you are sleeping with is an evasion of hard reality -- that you are infact sleeping with another person.

Love does not only mean sex but sex is the most intimate expression of love to be shared with the one you actually love in real life, not just anyone. Sex is not evil. It is good. That is why sleeping around with someone you do not love and then trying to mentally replace the person you are sleeping with is only evasion of reality and desecration of sex and love.

[Bowzer]

What I am specifically after here is Objectivism's conclusions regarding the correlation between mind and body. My first question would be in what sense that is the same as a correlation of thought and action. I.e., would an individual's thinking -- according to Objectivism -- never be considered evil, but merely the "implementation" (for lack of a better word) as a form of physical action (e.g. Kant's publications of his thoughts).

Dr. Leonard Peikoff's essay, "Fact and Value", should answer your questions.