3 ms·

This is an interesting aspect I haven't seen really resolved well in modern life. People are not good/bad. They are agents of change and some things they do wi

This is an interesting aspect I haven't seen really resolved well in modern life. People are not good/bad. They are agents of change and some things they do will be perceived differently than other things they do. Example, Picasso was not very nice to women in his life. And yet people celebrate his art. Admire a person's actions without admiring the person as a whole. I would not disavow a person - but actions I disagree with. For an employer, it has to be weighed up whether an employees actions are worthwhile on the whole.

Damogran6 4y ago
This has always been a thing I've struggled with. Not getting into the politics of cancelling famous people that behave badly...I hate that something like JK Rowling's body of work, which I really liked, has taken such a turn, and within certain circles, admitting you like the original series...is a risky thing to do. I like Dave Chapelle, seen him live twice, and consider him a fantastically intelligent person. I think an underlying fault of our current situation is a lack of nuance, an inability to compromise, and a desire to weaponize differences of opinion.
- perrygeo 4y ago
  I'd say Dave Chapelle and JK Rowling have pissed people off based on their controversial public statements. Which is very different from actual physical harm; for example the actions of Kevin Spacey, Harvey Weinstein, Donald Trump, and Bill Cosby. What is "controversial" vs "harmful"? Obviously there is a thin line here. But most of these people are being lumped into the same "cancelled" bucket. It depends on which online community you ask. Has an actual crime been committed? That's a good starting point for nuance.
mellavora 4y ago
> haven't seen really resolved well in modern life. I'm agreeing with your sentiment. It is something we used to do much better, before we got politicized into tribes which are always trying to prove that the other tribe is evil.
- timerol 4y ago
  I disagree that this is a modern thing. I think the usage of "tribe" in your comment is telling that this kind of thinking has long predated modern political interactions.
TomSwirly 4y ago
> Picasso was not very nice to women in his life. "Not very nice". No, Picasso was wildly sadistic and cruel to women in his life and talked about it endlessly as he did it and even painted it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Weeping_Woman#Relationship_with_Dora_Maar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Weeping_Woman#Relationship... https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2017/11/09/how-picasso-bled-the-women-in-his-life-for-art/ https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2017/11/09/how-picasso-b... > Marie-Thérèse Walter, Picasso’s young lover between his first wife, Olga Khokhlova, and his next mistress, Dora Maar, later hanged herself; even Roque [his second wife] eventually fatally shot herself. “Women are machines for suffering,” Picasso told Françoise Gilot, his mistress after Maar.
- _carbyau_ 4y ago
  I wanted a clear example without going into details that might distract from the point. But you are correct that "not very nice" is a significant understatement. He was horrible to them and I honestly don't think his art balances out his behaviour. If life was justified, he would have been in gaol quick smart and his art career never would have happened. But after the fact, we can take what we can from his art - which others seem to do more than I - while acknowledging his deplorable behaviour and sanctifying the respect and dignity of his victims.
amelius 4y ago
Picasso is a wrong example because his art was not a result of him being not nice to women. But a person with a bad character can sometimes get things done that others can't. Admiring that person is like saying that you hate fossil fuels but still enjoy a trip to some distant location a few times per year. It's hypocritical in a way.
- _carbyau_ 4y ago
  Most any article on Picasso and the women in his life term them as "muses". I think that ties them in to his art pretty closely. I agree that a "bad person" can get positive things done. This is pretty much exactly what I am saying. But I am also saying to separate the action from the person when it comes to admiration or disavowal. In the context of multiple actions of varying perceived moral quality then understandably this will lead to mixed feelings. But still hold a person responsible for their actions, especially when it comes to judging to how to interact with them in future. IE you CAN hate fossil fuels and enjoy plane trips. But the hate should reduce the enjoyment. If you claim to hate burning fossil fuels with every fibre of your being AND claim enjoyment from a long plane trip then one claim or the other is not a true statement. I don't care much for art. So to me, Picasso's wrongs weigh much more than his societal contribution. He is a despicable person of history. But I can understand that others may not see him as a despicable person of history if they really think his art was a cosmically great contribution - maybe they seem him as a terribly flawed genius. But if they deny his wrongdoings altogether, we're in for an argument of facts.
arisAlexis 4y ago
Yes some people are good/bad. Its very trendy now "not to think in absolute terms". A Russian general ordering bombs at a school is bad. Very bad. Not gray, not politically incorrect. Plain bad.
- _carbyau_ 4y ago
  I would argue that I am thinking in absolute terms. Your very example is of a bad action. I am not arguing that a person not be responsible for their actions. But that one action does not a person make. Objects - including people - are NOT inherently good or bad. A tree propping up a book is not good or bad. A person reading a book is not good or bad. When that person puts down their book and starts "ordering bombs at a school" then badness is perceived. After a day of ordering bombs that same person may then go volunteer at a soup kitchen for the homeless in the evening. Or more likely go home, be kind to their children and tuck them in at night. The person themselves are not inherently bad. Some of their actions are. When time comes to judge the person you may well indeed say they should be removed from society because on the whole their actions balance for the worse (responsibility for their actions) AND/OR they are likely to continue to do so (rehabilitation for their behaviour). And that is fair. But they are not inherently bad simply for existing. This viewpoint means that you are perfectly allowed to distance yourself from others with the viewpoint they are not worth interacting with. Alternately, you are also allowed to keep interacting with them knowing well the cost of the bad vs the benefit of the good. Example, you may well never wish to interact with the general ever again. But a fellow prison inmate may decide it is worth playing chess with him rather than not. And I would judge that prison inmates actions as being ok. This is thinking in absolute terms. But at a level of detail most people prefer not to engage, either through lack of capability, capacity or desire.
  - arisAlexis 4y ago
    I think you are confusing a non-thinking tree with a human with will and planned actions. I understand where your stoic ideas come from but I just disagree. They imply just observing randomness instead of actively trying to make society better. But if you will, I consider a person with a negative society balance through their actions bad. I guess the definition strikes a nerve. I don't get why people get triggered though. A green tree is a green tree, a bad person is a bad person (through the definition.

Damogran6 4y ago

This has always been a thing I've struggled with. Not getting into the politics of cancelling famous people that behave badly...I hate that something like JK Rowling's body of work, which I really liked, has taken such a turn, and within certain circles, admitting you like the original series...is a risky thing to do. I like Dave Chapelle, seen him live twice, and consider him a fantastically intelligent person. I think an underlying fault of our current situation is a lack of nuance, an inability to compromise, and a desire to weaponize differences of opinion.

perrygeo 4y ago
I'd say Dave Chapelle and JK Rowling have pissed people off based on their controversial public statements. Which is very different from actual physical harm; for example the actions of Kevin Spacey, Harvey Weinstein, Donald Trump, and Bill Cosby. What is "controversial" vs "harmful"? Obviously there is a thin line here. But most of these people are being lumped into the same "cancelled" bucket. It depends on which online community you ask. Has an actual crime been committed? That's a good starting point for nuance.

mellavora 4y ago

> haven't seen really resolved well in modern life. I'm agreeing with your sentiment. It is something we used to do much better, before we got politicized into tribes which are always trying to prove that the other tribe is evil.

timerol 4y ago
I disagree that this is a modern thing. I think the usage of "tribe" in your comment is telling that this kind of thinking has long predated modern political interactions.

TomSwirly 4y ago

> Picasso was not very nice to women in his life. "Not very nice". No, Picasso was wildly sadistic and cruel to women in his life and talked about it endlessly as he did it and even painted it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Weeping_Woman#Relationship_with_Dora_Maar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Weeping_Woman#Relationship... https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2017/11/09/how-picasso-bled-the-women-in-his-life-for-art/ https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2017/11/09/how-picasso-b... > Marie-Thérèse Walter, Picasso’s young lover between his first wife, Olga Khokhlova, and his next mistress, Dora Maar, later hanged herself; even Roque [his second wife] eventually fatally shot herself. “Women are machines for suffering,” Picasso told Françoise Gilot, his mistress after Maar.

_carbyau_ 4y ago
I wanted a clear example without going into details that might distract from the point. But you are correct that "not very nice" is a significant understatement. He was horrible to them and I honestly don't think his art balances out his behaviour. If life was justified, he would have been in gaol quick smart and his art career never would have happened. But after the fact, we can take what we can from his art - which others seem to do more than I - while acknowledging his deplorable behaviour and sanctifying the respect and dignity of his victims.

amelius 4y ago

Picasso is a wrong example because his art was not a result of him being not nice to women. But a person with a bad character can sometimes get things done that others can't. Admiring that person is like saying that you hate fossil fuels but still enjoy a trip to some distant location a few times per year. It's hypocritical in a way.

_carbyau_ 4y ago
Most any article on Picasso and the women in his life term them as "muses". I think that ties them in to his art pretty closely. I agree that a "bad person" can get positive things done. This is pretty much exactly what I am saying. But I am also saying to separate the action from the person when it comes to admiration or disavowal. In the context of multiple actions of varying perceived moral quality then understandably this will lead to mixed feelings. But still hold a person responsible for their actions, especially when it comes to judging to how to interact with them in future. IE you CAN hate fossil fuels and enjoy plane trips. But the hate should reduce the enjoyment. If you claim to hate burning fossil fuels with every fibre of your being AND claim enjoyment from a long plane trip then one claim or the other is not a true statement. I don't care much for art. So to me, Picasso's wrongs weigh much more than his societal contribution. He is a despicable person of history. But I can understand that others may not see him as a despicable person of history if they really think his art was a cosmically great contribution - maybe they seem him as a terribly flawed genius. But if they deny his wrongdoings altogether, we're in for an argument of facts.

arisAlexis 4y ago

Yes some people are good/bad. Its very trendy now "not to think in absolute terms". A Russian general ordering bombs at a school is bad. Very bad. Not gray, not politically incorrect. Plain bad.

_carbyau_ 4y ago
I would argue that I am thinking in absolute terms. Your very example is of a bad action. I am not arguing that a person not be responsible for their actions. But that one action does not a person make. Objects - including people - are NOT inherently good or bad. A tree propping up a book is not good or bad. A person reading a book is not good or bad. When that person puts down their book and starts "ordering bombs at a school" then badness is perceived. After a day of ordering bombs that same person may then go volunteer at a soup kitchen for the homeless in the evening. Or more likely go home, be kind to their children and tuck them in at night. The person themselves are not inherently bad. Some of their actions are. When time comes to judge the person you may well indeed say they should be removed from society because on the whole their actions balance for the worse (responsibility for their actions) AND/OR they are likely to continue to do so (rehabilitation for their behaviour). And that is fair. But they are not inherently bad simply for existing. This viewpoint means that you are perfectly allowed to distance yourself from others with the viewpoint they are not worth interacting with. Alternately, you are also allowed to keep interacting with them knowing well the cost of the bad vs the benefit of the good. Example, you may well never wish to interact with the general ever again. But a fellow prison inmate may decide it is worth playing chess with him rather than not. And I would judge that prison inmates actions as being ok. This is thinking in absolute terms. But at a level of detail most people prefer not to engage, either through lack of capability, capacity or desire.
- arisAlexis 4y ago
  I think you are confusing a non-thinking tree with a human with will and planned actions. I understand where your stoic ideas come from but I just disagree. They imply just observing randomness instead of actively trying to make society better. But if you will, I consider a person with a negative society balance through their actions bad. I guess the definition strikes a nerve. I don't get why people get triggered though. A green tree is a green tree, a bad person is a bad person (through the definition.