Was Cain the first Objectivist?

Originally posted by divegeester
Is this not about spirituality then?

Yes. But your definition of spirituality is quite a bit more constricted than Bosse's.

Originally posted by rwingett
Yes. But your definition of spirituality is quite a bit more constricted than Bosse's.

Is it. Perhaps you could help us both with our definitions please. I was wondering what all my recent thoughts meant as I hadn't heard from you for a while.

Originally posted by David C
lol.

I've recently muddled through Jaynes' "Bicameral Mind" opus. He suggests Iliad demonstrates the evolving analog "I" space...i.e. objectivity...several centuries ahead of the OT. vistesd could probably say more.

Of course, now I see you're tying the question to the Atlas thread, and Objectivist means nothing like Objectivity, so lol x2. Carry on!

Originally posted by David C
Of course, now I see you're tying the question to the Atlas thread, and Objectivist means nothing like Objectivity, so lol x2. Carry on!

After murdering his brother, Cain went on to become the first capitalist -- and a very successful one too. I imagine him with a Donald Trump rug ... made from the scalp of his latest victim. It seems pretty cut and dried to me. I just wonder whether murder might also occasionally not fall under 'rational self-interest'. It's a long shot, but why not?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
After murdering his brother, Cain went on to become the first capitalist -- and a very successful one too. I imagine him with a Donald Trump rug ... made from the scalp of his latest victim. It seems pretty cut and dried to me. I just wonder whether murder might also occasionally not fall under 'rational self-interest'. It's a long shot, but why not?

how about this interpretation: cain was mankind's brutal demand for civilization. cain, as the farming, settled aspect of humanity brutally murders the nomadic shepherding aspect.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
how about this interpretation: cain was mankind's brutal demand for civilization. cain, as the farming, settled aspect of humanity brutally murders the nomadic shepherding aspect.

The mark of Cain: the Number of the Beast. God's invisible ink.

Your interpretation is a classic. Was Abel's murder a necessary evil in the Divine Scheme? After all Abel was something of a communist.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
The mark of Cain: the Number of the Beast. God's invisible ink.

Your interpretation is a classic. Was Abel's murder a necessary evil in the Divine Scheme? After all Abel was something of a communist.

i don't agree that the mark of cain was the number of the beast. that was not invented until much later. he cannot have been branded with the ultimate mark of evil because what cain did was not that evil.

we are talking about the first murder, something that cain probably didn't even know how to commit or what the consequences are. some muslim texts even suggest that as cain was fighting abel, he couldn't bring himself to kill him and the big Satan instructed him to hit able in the head with a rock. we can suggest that Cain was simply in a fit of rage and contemplated the idea of making abel disappear from god's eyes and take his place as god's favorite. it can be argued that he didn't know for sure just how evil his act is.

i would say that cain's mark is at most a 127 not a 666.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
i don't agree that the mark of cain was the number of the beast. that was not invented until much later. he cannot have been branded with the ultimate mark of evil because what cain did was not that evil.

Interesting. I would have thought that murder (direct or indirect) was about as evil an act as could be. Sounds like you're saying it wasn't really his fault -- in which case the murder was largely irrelevant and we should rather focus on Cain's achievements in architecture and technology. Wonderful revisionism! And quite Randian too.

Was Cain a sociopath devoid of certain emotional vitamins? That would also fit in with the Objectivist hypothesis.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Interesting. I would have thought that murder (direct or indirect) was about as evil an act as could be. Sounds like you're saying it wasn't really his fault -- in which case the murder was largely irrelevant and we should rather focus on Cain's achievements in architecture and technology. Wonderful revisionism! And quite Randian too.

Was Cain a soc ...[text shortened]... devoid of certain emotional vitamins? That would also fit in with the Objectivist hypothesis.

is a child(let's say 6) responsible of murder if he whacks his friend with a rock? surely he is but definitely not in the same degree as an adult or a 16 year old. is an animal that kills for food a murderer? that kills a competitor to a certain female?

cain is in a similar situation. he is the first person to commit murder. nobody thought him that it is wrong. all he had was the fact his parents ate from the tree of knowledge that might have given him a fuzzy notion that what he is doing is wrong. he is little more than a savage with very blurry notions of right and wrong. so we cannot judge him for murder as we judge in present days or even in ancient times.

he kills and he is punished by god. and the blurry notion of murder being right or wrong is clarified. from then on, people would know that murdering is wrong.

i never read rand. the little i know about her makes me say that her philosophy is flawed.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
we can suggest that Cain was simply in a fit of rage and contemplated the idea of making abel disappear from god's eyes and take his place as god's favorite.

Did God explain to anyone at this early date:
1. The consequences of death.
2. The options of heaven and hell.
3. The fact that God is all knowing and hiding things from him is a little silly.
4. The fact that his all loving nature means that he cannot have favorites.
5. The fact that he doesn't approve of murder.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Did God explain to anyone at this early date:
1. The consequences of death.
2. The options of heaven and hell.
3. The fact that God is all knowing and hiding things from him is a little silly.
4. The fact that his all loving nature means that he cannot have favorites.
5. The fact that he doesn't approve of murder.

I assume that the 'truth drug' the first couple swallowed covered all these bases. Whether that knowledge was transmissible is key to assessing Cain's putative guilt ...

Point 4: Unclear whether Abel was God's 'favourite'. Perhaps revise to 'The fact that God prefers animal sacrifices to vegetable ones'.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Did God explain to anyone at this early date:
1. The consequences of death.
2. The options of heaven and hell.
3. The fact that God is all knowing and hiding things from him is a little silly.
4. The fact that his all loving nature means that he cannot have favorites.
5. The fact that he doesn't approve of murder.

when adam and eve had a picnic under the tree of knowledge they are supposed to have discovered the knowledge of good and evil, knowledge passed on to their offspring of course. how to discern between good and bad.

now is this knowledge enough? if we only know the evilness of an action but not its consequences, is it enough to only be instructed this is good that is bad? if an individual doesn't see murder around him, doesn't fully understand the consequences and there isn't a punishment established yet, will he refrain from murder when the benefits are greater than a fuzzy notion that "i am not supposed to be doing this"?

god acts as if cain was not "definitely supposed" to be murdering abel. it seems as if god is disappointed that cain succumbed to his darker side and perhaps realizes that the knowledge of good and bad isn't enough, that humanity needs a set of rules and punishments for choosing the evil instead of good. it seems a oversight on god's part that he didn't set in place more strict rules that might imply he is not all knowing or he wishes to allow humanity a greater freedom and allow it to choose its path. whenever that path strays further and further away from the Light side of the force he intervenes and tries to adjusts its course.

on 4 i would claim that one cannot be without favorites. if a sentient being is presented with two individuals, one that is doing deeds closer to god's liking, it is fair to assume god will love that individual a little more, just as a parent will like more the one that resembles him more.
god loving abel more might also suggest he would like humanity to remain innocent(like in the garden of eden before the eating of the apples) instead of growing more inquisitive, more independent. Farming represents a more complicated way of life, a more "civilized" way of existance than a simple life of shepherding.