Brant Gaede Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 Greg, you started by quoting Michael without attribution causing some unnecessary confusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 I like the down to earth practicality of not being a sucker. Since an honest man can't be cheated, I aspire to the ideal of becoming that man, because then my financial progress doesn't suffer any backtracking to repair damage. The debt bubble collapse of 2008 and its aftermath was just entertainment because I had no exposure to it and so took no damage.Greg,I like the practicality, too, but as a guideline--not as a reason to live.You say you believe in God. Is your desire to not be a sucker on the same level as your belief in God? To Taleb, based on the way he talks about it, it is--and even more. It is more important to him than any other value ever could be.He doesn't live to savor life. He lives--he worships, so to speak--to avoid harm. He's scared.Just because he postures like he is more intelligent and cunning than everyone else, that doesn't negate the fear and revulsion he admits to as the driver of his soul. In fact, I believe vanity and conceit are the only positive emotions that keep him getting up in the morning.Isn't it better to look at the sky when you wake up and just feel it is marvelous to be part of that?It's true that we're all going to die some day. It's also true there is nothing wrong with avoiding harm. We have to if we want to keep living. However, to me, setting fear above love of life is a crappy way to spend what time I do have.btw - This does not negate a lot of great practical advice one can get from that book. Taleb's ideas are even great for opening perspective. He makes you think and that part is wonderful. It's just, once you see his pettiness and negativity, and how often this keeps cropping up, you have to hold your nose to sort through it to get to the good stuff.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 I also find the world to be revolting... but there are TWO worlds. So I choose to live in the one where the decent people are and simply let the other one alone to feed on itself.Greg,You are talking about society. Taleb is talking about existence itself.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 Thanks for the heads up, Brant. I labeled it.Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 Thanks for the heads up, Brant. I labeled it.GregAnd I prettied it up a bit.What a mess!Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 Thanks for the heads up, Brant. I labeled it.GregAnd I prettied it up a bit.What a mess! MichaelWe were determined to fix it; we could not have done otherwise in the face of compelling inner compulsions.--Brantis determinism related to the autonomic nervous system? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 Michael wrote: I like the practicality, too, but as a guideline--not as a reason to live. Exactly. I don't swallow it whole, but spit out anything I don't like the taste. Michael: You say you believe in God. Is your desire to not be a sucker on the same level as your belief in God? I don't believe in God. I know God exists by my own personal experience. And to the extent that I follow the moral indications of my God given Conscience, I won't be a sucker. So not being a sucker is just a symptom of which following my Conscience is a cause. Michael: To Taleb, based on the way he talks about it, it is--and even more. It is more important to him than any other value ever could be. He doesn't live to savor life. He lives--he worships, so to speak--to avoid harm. He's scared. Yeah, he's a dark genius to be sure... but that's his own free choice how he responds to what he sees. Just because I agree with many of his ideas does not mean that my responses to them need to be the same as his. Michael: Just because he postures like he is more intelligent and cunning than everyone else, that doesn't negate the fear and revulsion he admits to as the driver of his soul. In fact, I believe vanity and conceit are the only positive emotions that keep him getting up in the morning. I respect his honesty in admitting that, and the fact that he's not hiding anything about where he is in his process. I believe that because he is so honest about where he is, he'll eventually experience an epiphany if he loves what's right enough to do it. Michael: Isn't it better to look at the sky when you wake up and just feel it is marvelous to be part of that? Yes. God created us to witness beauty. Michael: It's true that we're all going to die some day. It's also true there is nothing wrong with avoiding harm. We have to if we want to keep living. However, to me, setting fear above love of life is a crappy way to spend what time I do have. I totally agree. There's no need to go where he goes. Michael: btw - This does not negate a lot of great practical advice one can get from that book. Taleb's ideas are even great for opening perspective. He makes you think and that part is wonderful. It's just, once you see his pettiness and negativity, and how often this keeps cropping up, you have to hold your nose to sort through it to get to the good stuff. Michael Well, that's where our free will comes in. I always order "al a carte" from the menu of life. Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 You are talking about society. Taleb is talking about existence itself. So am I. My existence depends upon which world I choose to live in. Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 You are talking about society. Taleb is talking about existence itself.So am I.My existence depends upon which world I choose to live in. GregThe world of Objectivist Living.--Brantgroan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 You are talking about society. Taleb is talking about existence itself.So am I.My existence depends upon which world I choose to live in. GregAh... Got it.So you grant Lucifer his own world.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 The world of Objectivist Living. --Brant groan I don't live here... I only visit here more than you'd like. Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 The world of Objectivist Living.--BrantgroanI don't live here... I only visit here more than you'd like. Greg13% more than I like and only .00001% of what you need.--Brantthere's no there for you from here; it can't travel, but feel free to dance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 Brant writes:13% more than I like and only .00001% of what you need....as Brant speaks with 17,000+ posts. It's more a matter of preference rather than need. I appreciate OL as an entertaining interactive alternative to passive television.Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 Michael writes: So you grant Lucifer his own world. Oh, not at all, Michael. I don't have the power to do that. I just make damn sure I'm not in it by being neither predator nor prey. Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 Michael writes:So you grant Lucifer his own world.Oh, not at all, Michael.I don't have the power to do that.I just make damn sure I'm not in itby being neither predator nor prey.GregDrat! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darrell Hougen Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 If there are "arrays and arrays" of possible outcomes, why is there in fact only one outcome?Maybe because there is a fundamental difference between "possible outcome" and "outcome"?The first is in the future and the second is in the past.This is the determinism time travel fallacy I see all the time. Determinists imagine the characteristics of the future must be identical to those of the the past. Why? Just because.Simply untrue. I challenge you to cite one determinist who says "the characteristics of the future must be identical to those of the the past." To take such a position one would have to suppose that the world is is perfect stasis: that milk in the jug never reaches the glass, that trains never leave the station, that the moon is never less that full.Your straw men are invariably original, whimsical and entertaining.FF,Your insults are invariably original, whimsical and entertaining.You clearly didn't understand what Michael was saying. Go back and read it again.Darrell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darrell Hougen Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 Not true. Mao Tse-tung killed millions and lived comfortably into his eighties.Again, you're trying to use a specific example and not looking at the expected payoff. For every Mao, there were 100 would-be Mao's that failed.Politicians do it all the time, and there is no evidence that they live abbreviated lives or suffer mental anguish.Same problem. For every person that succeeds as a sleazy politician, there are 100 that don't. And, even politicians have their limits. A lot of them end up going to jail. Look at the recent history of governors of Illinois.If the principle is that one self-interest must be subordinated to another's property rights, then stealing is unprincipled. If the principle is that one's self-interest is always primary, then there is nothing necessarily unprincipled about stealing a necklace.The whole argument is over whether violating other people's rights is in a person's self interest, so you can't use that as a point of argument. I disagree that stealing a necklace is in a person's self interest.This is twaddle. If she were handed the necklace as a gift, would it make any sense for her to refuse it on the grounds that, "Sorry, this bangle is only worth 12.5% of my lifetime earnings"? Of course not. Thus, there is no good reason from the standpoint of pure self-interest for her not to steal it given the near 0% likelihood of the crime being traced to her.$100,000 or $10,000, the effort needed to take the item was no greater than to bend down and pick up a quarter from the sidewalk. Should we advise one not to pick up coins because they represent only a fraction of one's lifetime income?"Twaddle" being defined as any argument that you disagree with.Again, the issue is expected payoff, not the payoff in one instance. Hindsight is 20/20. (I guess, as a determinist, you know the outcome before there is one.)Actually, it might be instructive to look at the stock market. There are plenty of money managers out there trying to predict whether the market will go up or down. Some of them do quite well, but on average, they under perform the market averages. So, a better strategy is to buy and hold an index fund.The thief is like the money manager, trying to guess what will happen but under performing the average honest person. So, a better strategy is to be honest.Of course, there are exceptions to every rule, but personal gain is not a good reason to be dishonest. People who are dishonest or violate people's rights in other ways tend, on average, to do less well in the long run.Darrell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 If there is only one possible outcome it's because there's no room for two or more. The outcome is the seeming "stasis," but stasis doesn't exist, anywhere. Stasis is only an ongoing state that hasn't the appearance, as opposed to the actuality, of movement. So the human acting agent has three choices each to a different result. He chooses. The result is the result--the outcome. To argue only one outcome is to argue against choice or free will or for determinism without demonstrating the impossibility of choice except by looking back in time and assuming no choice was actually involved. That takes an act of faith, albeit an act of free will in itself. As soon as you try to prove your proposition you are strangled by the contradiction.--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francisco Ferrer Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Not true. Mao Tse-tung killed millions and lived comfortably into his eighties.Again, you're trying to use a specific example and not looking at the expected payoff. For every Mao, there were 100 would-be Mao's that failed.You wrote, "I will simply assert, without proof at this point, that cheating, lying, stealing, murdering, etc., are never in a person's self interest."I cited Mao as a disproof.You responded with irrelevant statements about expected payoffs and failed would-be Maos.Yet Mao's life shows, among many other things, that at least one person in history did advance his career and build wealth and power through cheating, lying, stealing, murdering. It upends your bald assertion about crime never paying. And as for payoffs, for every successful actress in Hollywood there are a thousand would-be stars. But the existence of overwhelming numbers of failed hopefuls does nothing to prove the claim that being a successful actress is never in one's interest..Francisco Ferrer, on 07 Mar 2015 - 11:29 AM, said:Politicians do it all the time, and there is no evidence that they live abbreviated lives or suffer mental anguish.Same problem. For every person that succeeds as a sleazy politician, there are 100 that don't. And, even politicians have their limits. A lot of them end up going to jail. Look at the recent history of governors of Illinois.Me: Bill Clinton cheated, lied and stole, and now lives a comfortable life.You: There's a problem with your example because the governor of Illinois went to jail.Me: ???Francisco Ferrer, on 07 Mar 2015 - 11:29 AM, said:If the principle is that one self-interest must be subordinated to another's property rights, then stealing is unprincipled. If the principle is that one's self-interest is always primary, then there is nothing necessarily unprincipled about stealing a necklace.The whole argument is over whether violating other people's rights is in a person's self interest, so you can't use that as a point of argument. I disagree that stealing a necklace is in a person's self interest.You described the prudent predator's behavior as unprincipled. I merely pointed out that the principles she adhered to happen not to be your particular principles.Francisco Ferrer, on 07 Mar 2015 - 11:29 AM, said:This is twaddle. If she were handed the necklace as a gift, would it make any sense for her to refuse it on the grounds that, "Sorry, this bangle is only worth 12.5% of my lifetime earnings"? Of course not. Thus, there is no good reason from the standpoint of pure self-interest for her not to steal it given the near 0% likelihood of the crime being traced to her.$100,000 or $10,000, the effort needed to take the item was no greater than to bend down and pick up a quarter from the sidewalk. Should we advise one not to pick up coins because they represent only a fraction of one's lifetime income?"Twaddle" being defined as any argument that you disagree with.Again, the issue is expected payoff, not the payoff in one instance. Hindsight is 20/20. (I guess, as a determinist, you know the outcome before there is one.)You wrote, "I will simply assert, without proof at this point, that cheating, lying, stealing, murdering, etc., are never in a person's self interest."If a person manages to increase her wealth and advance her self-interest through stealing, the expected payoff is irrelevant. It is the actual payoff that matters in my example of a successful thief. That example directly contradicts the claim that stealing is never in one's self-interest.Furthermore, it wasn't hindsight that told the thief that the owner of the necklace was demented, that there were no other witnesses in the house, that no one regularly checked on the contents of the jewelry box, or that other caregivers visited on other days of the week and thus obscured any particular leads for detectives.Your post is an example of a person clinging to a failed theory by claiming that reality must be in error.Actually, it might be instructive to look at the stock market. There are plenty of money managers out there trying to predict whether the market will go up or down. Some of them do quite well, but on average, they under perform the market averages. So, a better strategy is to buy and hold an index fund.The thief is like the money manager, trying to guess what will happen but under performing the average honest person. So, a better strategy is to be honest.Of course, there are exceptions to every rule, but personal gain is not a good reason to be dishonest. People who are dishonest or violate people's rights in other ways tend, on average, to do less well in the long run.I know several investors who have done extremely well by picking winners and not blindly following the choices of a major fund. In any case it is the exceptions I'm talking about, and your claim did not admit exceptions: "I will simply assert, without proof at this point, that cheating, lying, stealing, murdering, etc., are never in a person's self interest." [my emphasis] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 It all depends on how "self interest" is defined. But no matter how, I strongly suspect exceptions. If I were a Jew in Germany in the 1930s I hope I would have had the gumption to cheat, lie, steal and even murder myself and my family out of there.--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Darrell writes: I will simply assert, without proof at this point, that cheating, lying, stealing, murdering, etc., are never in a person's self interest. Frank writes: I cited Mao as a disproof. Mao Tse-tung killed millions and lived comfortably into his eighties. This is where you creep me out, Frank. The basis of your disproof is your extrapolation of how you believe Mao lived based upon your own personal experience of living comfortably with doing evil. Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francisco Ferrer Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 The basis of your disproof is your extrapolation of how you believe Mao lived based upon your own personal experience of living comfortably with doing evil.GregWhat I know of Mao is based primarily on Philip Short's definitive biography. If you have a better source kindly submit it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Hey, Francisco--when did you say you were comfortable with living with evil?--Brantthe world wants to knowwho advocates for freedom is comfortable with evil?does not compute, does not compute, does not compute Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francisco Ferrer Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 One does not himself have to be the exception to show there is an exception to a claim. To illustrate, if someone claims that pole vaulting above 6 mi is impossible, I do not personally have to pole vault 6.16 m to establish that such an action can be performed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 What I know of Mao is based primarily on Philip Short's definitive biography....which is your interpretation of someone else's writings filtered through your own values. Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now