Saturday, June 30, 2007
Human Life
Human life revolves around a misty mythos of the "typical you" - the idea of you imposed upon yourself in the environment. This drives personal habits (often inherited from the local family), ultimate goals and self-image (culturally driven), values, and expected behavior in every day life. This can explain the wide and powerful difference between cultures. Of course, the overriding human urge is simply powerful self-interest - and most habits of human beings will be similar as they all exist in the same natural world with the same basic features. But some cultures will, by chance, learn to adapt and perhaps even
Friday, June 29, 2007
SS2BM Means Ebay Sucks
For some reason I began investigating eBay an hour or so ago after reading a comment . What I've found is a fascinating example of monopolistic business behavior (with its usual despotic psychological overtones). I've been hearing about the borderling illegal tactics of eBay through Paypal (eBay's subsidiary - www.paypalsucks.com) for years now - suspending people's accounts and refusing to let them transfer money. People who tried to resell PS3s or Xbox 360s ran into this problem. Why eBay cracks down on people like this is somewhat puzzling, but it will drive their sellers (and eventually their customers) away. When unhappy eBayers protest eBay fee increases and attempt to point people to better alternatives they are silenced. A community has grown up around eBay alternatives at the Pheebay forum.
The good news is that there are alternatives. eCrater is completely free, so avoid the fees and head on over there when you're looking to bid for something! Why should a customer avoid fees? Economists have been telling people forever that fees are ultimately passed on to the consumers, and there is no better example of this than online auction sites. eCrater will certainly be cheaper than eBay. Let's hope eBay doesn't buy their competitors just as they are starting to take off - though I'm sure eBay will try. The big new thing is for companies to buy competitors and shut them down, which is what eBay did with Paypal competitors.
eBay is currently facing a class action antitrust lawsuit. Paypal settled one class-action lawsuit in 2004 and lost another one more recently.
eBay has a network monopoly. In the days of the internet these monopolies are ubiquitous. Myspace/Facebook, Digg, Microsoft, and even these Wiki sites are protected by network monopolies.
As some economists forget, the goal is always social good - and when market failure happens, social good isn't maximized. That justifies intervention in the market. On the other hand, should the government legislate that eBay stop it's oppressive tactics? At this point, I think not. Instead, let them keep angering their customers - that gives people the incentive to seek a newer, better alternative - in this case, eCrater: a completely free auction site.
The good news is that there are alternatives. eCrater is completely free, so avoid the fees and head on over there when you're looking to bid for something! Why should a customer avoid fees? Economists have been telling people forever that fees are ultimately passed on to the consumers, and there is no better example of this than online auction sites. eCrater will certainly be cheaper than eBay. Let's hope eBay doesn't buy their competitors just as they are starting to take off - though I'm sure eBay will try. The big new thing is for companies to buy competitors and shut them down, which is what eBay did with Paypal competitors.
eBay is currently facing a class action antitrust lawsuit. Paypal settled one class-action lawsuit in 2004 and lost another one more recently.
eBay has a network monopoly. In the days of the internet these monopolies are ubiquitous. Myspace/Facebook, Digg, Microsoft, and even these Wiki sites are protected by network monopolies.
As some economists forget, the goal is always social good - and when market failure happens, social good isn't maximized. That justifies intervention in the market. On the other hand, should the government legislate that eBay stop it's oppressive tactics? At this point, I think not. Instead, let them keep angering their customers - that gives people the incentive to seek a newer, better alternative - in this case, eCrater: a completely free auction site.
Saturday, June 09, 2007
Economics student
A decent economics student (or philosopher of economics, at least, lacking deep mathematical tools) looks at objects around him and thinks, "I wonder what the supply and demand for that object is." And when he looks at people he thinks, "I wonder what desires for objects drives their actions." Yet does he ever look deeper than that? Is happiness or sadness; harm or benefit not an object? But people don't respond to happiness, you think, or sadness, or else they would always act smarter, more rational, more harm-avoidant. Or could pain cause benefit for people? Do they desire pain for a reason? One time, years ago, a pathetic female friend of mine said, "People desire pain. It makes them feel distinguished." Somehow I'd thought the same thing, and nodded without saying much. Why could we desire pain?
Broken Contract: A Memoir of Harvard Law School
I'm in the middle of this book right now, and it's really pretty good. The guy is more leftist than I have ever been (or ever will be), but at the same time he has some common sense stemming from consistent principles and an ability to understand economics; he recognizes the contradictions and ugliness of standard leftism. He is very similar to Sidney Rittenberg who's book The Man Who Stayed Behind I just finished. Sidney's story is a classic example of propoganda and idealism fooling an intelligent person (with a Bachelor's in Philosophy) to the point that he supports a despotic totalitarian Chinese government. He joins their inner Communist circle, then is imprisoned for six years. When he leaves prison he becomes a propogandist; a man who spends his every day deliberately twisting real information into complete falsehoods. Then, after speaking out in favor of democracy, he is imprisoned for another ten years. Even then he doesn't repudiate Communism until he's finally seen how much damage it caused to the Chinese economy.
Kahlenberg, the author the Broken Contract, comments on the Law & Economics group at Harvard Law School:
I don't know whether direct cash in this case is appropriate. It doesn't seem easily workable (cash transfers to all renters?), but he raises a decent objection. The problem is not necessarily that it lacks a constituency (renters are a fairly powerful constituency, as rent controls attest); it's more that a direct cash payment to renters (not "the poor" -- renters in general are what we are talking about, and some of them are definitely middle-class) seems like welfare while a requirement that landlords keep up their apartments seems like fairness. HSAs have the same problem - monthly HSA deposits to the poor seems like welfare, where universal healthcare at least seems "fair" in that everyone stands in line. Yet does that justify the latter policy over the former? Not at all, especially when the latter likely would cause more harm than good.
He first mentions his disagreement with the left on the area of civil rights; he believes in harsh punishments because crime disproportionately hurts the poor. So far he's mentioned two areas of left ridiculous. The first has to do with his female "Critial Legal Studies" professor who doesn't get tenure, Clare Dalton:
To make the story short, she didn't get tenure - but she did assign the following exam:
Looks like Harvard Law School (or Northeastern Law, where she now teaches) aren't always what they're cracked up to be - that test question is indeed astonishing. To me, adopting the legal positivism that I usually dislike, the case is clear: universities go through their process and grant tenture based on what their board decides. There's no reason to judge differently.
The second example is more interesting and far-reaching; in fact, it stretches back to Sidney Rittenberg and his work in propaganda. Words and information are strange things; they have the power to subvert, destroy order, spread untruth or, most significantly, cause moral dissolution. In some cases the line can be drawn between clear truth and untruth, but on philosophical or moral/ethical topics that line is not so clear (Social Darwinism is an easy example of a perspective that one could easily justify suppressing even if its scientifically correct). Here is what happened:
This idea is surprisingly common among the left (as well as, of course, the fascist right). It is not common among classical liberals, but perilously few of us are politicians. In this case the left was motivated by anger, but in many cases the left is motivated by fear. Their fear is that the right will justify its position with something that makes sense, and weaken the left's position. This was the basis of the massive propaganda in Communist China. Literally all information in China was propaganda. Only insider news executives such as Sidney Rittenberg were allowed access to anything resembling real news, and even Rittenberg was never told about the tens of millions of peasants starving to death during The Great Leap Forward. Liberal elitists (which all leftists ultimately are) believe that the masses are not responsible enough to handle information on their own, or that offering good information to the masses is not beneficial to society.
This sort of belief manifests itself, for example, in Adam Rawling's argument that scientific research (both social and physical) should be restricted only to those who "are willing to push past barriers to access it", despite the obvious benefits of free information which is easily referenced, discussed, and examined. Imagine a Wikipedia which referenced a list of all scientific articles covering a particular issue, free for anyone to examine and critique individually.
The Council on Foreign Relations is a foreboding example of liberal elitism, with its penchant for surreptitiously advancing elitist "liberalism" and internationalism through unconstitutional and illegal means, if necessary (see FDR, his National Recovery Administration, and his attempt to pack the Supreme Court. The CFR's strongest supporters were Democrats such as FDR, Dean Acheson, George Marshall, and David Rockefeller. Some of these people found their way into Sidney Rittenberg's story: at one point a Communist says that Mao Zedong appreciates "deeply respects Dean Acheson and George Marshall." Later, after Senator McCarthy finally started to figure things out, economist Frank Coe (Soviet spy) is banished to Communist China to smoke cigars and live the easy life. Coincidentally, he was a high-ranking official in the Department of the Treasury, the, United Nations and the International Monetary Fund. Sol Adler was another Marxist spy and Department of the Treasury official who ended up in China working for Mao Zedong. Coincidentally, he worked for the CFR and Rockefeller funded Institute of Pacific Relations, the CFR's sister agency.
For those of you who feel the knee-jerk reaction to demonize McCarthy (spare me the standard rhetoric and offer me some history) - think about why. Do you really know what happened then? McCarthy was elected in 1946, but he didn't begin his attack on Communism until 1950. Meanwhile, the House Un-American Activities Committee was founded in 1947 and blacklisted Hollywood employees. McCarthy, in the Senate, was uninvolved with that effort. McCarthy's focus was on the State Department, and his attacks were largely ineffective. Read those Wikipedia articles on them for a decent little summary. It may also be of note that Communists in general supported an ideology which supported totalitarian control over information and people.
If I had the Shadows of Power book handy I could into the CFR at incriminating length, but I'm forced to transcribe the information, which is time-consuming. Nevertheless, trust me - it is damning. Some might say "well, if these guys were Communists, then why is Communism dead?" Well, who knows if they actually believed in Communism - if they believed in it as an idealistic tool towards peace and prosperity, then perhaps they came to their senses. If they believed in it as a tool towards power, then obviously they found that their strategy must change - and it obviously has changed. There are still people seeking to consolidate their already significant power in the world, but today one might find them in the Bilderberg Club. Not that the CFR isn't powerful - today, they happen to have Peter Peterson (don't recognize the name? Do you recognize the name Blackstone Group?) as their Chairmain, and one of the members, Fouad Ajami, just so happens to be one of the few Middle Eastern scholars who believes strongly in the Iraq War. I ought to check the early editions of Foreign Affairs.
Now I need to finish this book. Incidentally, it seems that Richard D. Kahlenberg (the author of Broken Contract has written several ostensibly favorable books on school vouchers, and another arguing against Affirmative Action in favor an economically-based affirmative action program.
Kahlenberg, the author the Broken Contract, comments on the Law & Economics group at Harvard Law School:
steve Shavell, a bespectacled economist, gave an abstract, conservative, and, at times, nasty lecture. In the specific case we were studying, Shavell argued that a judge should not order a landlord to improve living conditions, because it would be more "efficient" for government to aid in the redistribution of wealth and let the tenants decide for themselves whether they wanted to use the money to move to better housing or for something else. The argument, of course, completely ignored the political reality that a direct cash payment to the poor lacks a powerful constituency; programs need corporate beneficiaries, farmers in the case of food stamps, developers in the case of housing.
I don't know whether direct cash in this case is appropriate. It doesn't seem easily workable (cash transfers to all renters?), but he raises a decent objection. The problem is not necessarily that it lacks a constituency (renters are a fairly powerful constituency, as rent controls attest); it's more that a direct cash payment to renters (not "the poor" -- renters in general are what we are talking about, and some of them are definitely middle-class) seems like welfare while a requirement that landlords keep up their apartments seems like fairness. HSAs have the same problem - monthly HSA deposits to the poor seems like welfare, where universal healthcare at least seems "fair" in that everyone stands in line. Yet does that justify the latter policy over the former? Not at all, especially when the latter likely would cause more harm than good.
He first mentions his disagreement with the left on the area of civil rights; he believes in harsh punishments because crime disproportionately hurts the poor. So far he's mentioned two areas of left ridiculous. The first has to do with his female "Critial Legal Studies" professor who doesn't get tenure, Clare Dalton:
In the late spring, my displeasure with the left at Harvard increased as I watched it react to Clare Dalton's tenure battle. Dalton my second-semester Contracts professor, a crit, and the worst teacher I ever had. In class, she would move from case to case, failing to tie them together or distill any broader meaning from them. She tried to employ deconstructionist analysis and critical legal theory, but her methods were never convincing. The level of noise in our classroom was embarrassing evidence of how little respect she commanded ... Even she could not have known how her case ... would become the cause celebre among the liberal community in Cambridge. Favorable pieces appeared in the media, petitions circulated, and rallies were held. At graduation, students wore yellow armbands, and one group of graduates raised letters spelling TENURE DALTON ...
To make the story short, she didn't get tenure - but she did assign the following exam:
Dalton's eight-hour take-home Contracts exam was an outrage. It contained two questions, one of which involved a hypothetical professor, Joe Levin, who was sueing the "Nameless School of Law" for denial of tenure. His case was based on "ideological discrimination" and "denial of academic freedom" ... the case was clearly not his but hers, which was disturbing and detracting for a few reasons. First, you felt that if your exam made powerful arguments on the university's behalf ... Dalton ... would have trouble grading objectively ... second, there was a sense ... that you were being used to as a source of theories and ideas upon which Dalton could base her own case ... she should have been sensitive to the perception that she was exploiting us just as surely as the worst capitalist exploits his workers. Illegitimate hierarchy, indeed.
Looks like Harvard Law School (or Northeastern Law, where she now teaches) aren't always what they're cracked up to be - that test question is indeed astonishing. To me, adopting the legal positivism that I usually dislike, the case is clear: universities go through their process and grant tenture based on what their board decides. There's no reason to judge differently.
The second example is more interesting and far-reaching; in fact, it stretches back to Sidney Rittenberg and his work in propaganda. Words and information are strange things; they have the power to subvert, destroy order, spread untruth or, most significantly, cause moral dissolution. In some cases the line can be drawn between clear truth and untruth, but on philosophical or moral/ethical topics that line is not so clear (Social Darwinism is an easy example of a perspective that one could easily justify suppressing even if its scientifically correct). Here is what happened:
I read a story in The New York Times headlined CONTRA LEADER"S HARVARD APPEARANCE DISRUPTED ... Adolf Calero ... had been prevented from delivering his speech at HLS when he was attacked by a Tufts University senior shouting, "Death to the contras" ... dozens of students in the audience clapped ... the left's negative response in this instance was as shortsighted and unprincipled as its positive response to Clare Dalton had been ... Didn't Kimball realize that his statements pushed liberals like me to the right? That he actually made a figure like Calero look victimized and sympathetic? Not only was the left's position tactically stupid, it was also intellectually arrogant. Who was Kimball to decide for the entire university that Calero was not fit to speak? Who gave him veto power?
This idea is surprisingly common among the left (as well as, of course, the fascist right). It is not common among classical liberals, but perilously few of us are politicians. In this case the left was motivated by anger, but in many cases the left is motivated by fear. Their fear is that the right will justify its position with something that makes sense, and weaken the left's position. This was the basis of the massive propaganda in Communist China. Literally all information in China was propaganda. Only insider news executives such as Sidney Rittenberg were allowed access to anything resembling real news, and even Rittenberg was never told about the tens of millions of peasants starving to death during The Great Leap Forward. Liberal elitists (which all leftists ultimately are) believe that the masses are not responsible enough to handle information on their own, or that offering good information to the masses is not beneficial to society.
This sort of belief manifests itself, for example, in Adam Rawling's argument that scientific research (both social and physical) should be restricted only to those who "are willing to push past barriers to access it", despite the obvious benefits of free information which is easily referenced, discussed, and examined. Imagine a Wikipedia which referenced a list of all scientific articles covering a particular issue, free for anyone to examine and critique individually.
The Council on Foreign Relations is a foreboding example of liberal elitism, with its penchant for surreptitiously advancing elitist "liberalism" and internationalism through unconstitutional and illegal means, if necessary (see FDR, his National Recovery Administration, and his attempt to pack the Supreme Court. The CFR's strongest supporters were Democrats such as FDR, Dean Acheson, George Marshall, and David Rockefeller. Some of these people found their way into Sidney Rittenberg's story: at one point a Communist says that Mao Zedong appreciates "deeply respects Dean Acheson and George Marshall." Later, after Senator McCarthy finally started to figure things out, economist Frank Coe (Soviet spy) is banished to Communist China to smoke cigars and live the easy life. Coincidentally, he was a high-ranking official in the Department of the Treasury, the, United Nations and the International Monetary Fund. Sol Adler was another Marxist spy and Department of the Treasury official who ended up in China working for Mao Zedong. Coincidentally, he worked for the CFR and Rockefeller funded Institute of Pacific Relations, the CFR's sister agency.
For those of you who feel the knee-jerk reaction to demonize McCarthy (spare me the standard rhetoric and offer me some history) - think about why. Do you really know what happened then? McCarthy was elected in 1946, but he didn't begin his attack on Communism until 1950. Meanwhile, the House Un-American Activities Committee was founded in 1947 and blacklisted Hollywood employees. McCarthy, in the Senate, was uninvolved with that effort. McCarthy's focus was on the State Department, and his attacks were largely ineffective. Read those Wikipedia articles on them for a decent little summary. It may also be of note that Communists in general supported an ideology which supported totalitarian control over information and people.
If I had the Shadows of Power book handy I could into the CFR at incriminating length, but I'm forced to transcribe the information, which is time-consuming. Nevertheless, trust me - it is damning. Some might say "well, if these guys were Communists, then why is Communism dead?" Well, who knows if they actually believed in Communism - if they believed in it as an idealistic tool towards peace and prosperity, then perhaps they came to their senses. If they believed in it as a tool towards power, then obviously they found that their strategy must change - and it obviously has changed. There are still people seeking to consolidate their already significant power in the world, but today one might find them in the Bilderberg Club. Not that the CFR isn't powerful - today, they happen to have Peter Peterson (don't recognize the name? Do you recognize the name Blackstone Group?) as their Chairmain, and one of the members, Fouad Ajami, just so happens to be one of the few Middle Eastern scholars who believes strongly in the Iraq War. I ought to check the early editions of Foreign Affairs.
Now I need to finish this book. Incidentally, it seems that Richard D. Kahlenberg (the author of Broken Contract has written several ostensibly favorable books on school vouchers, and another arguing against Affirmative Action in favor an economically-based affirmative action program.
Thursday, June 07, 2007
Autistic Economics
I've been browsing last few issues of The American Economic Review and it's making me feel duller than usual. Sometimes I can really relate to Nietzsche's disgust with myopic "deductive" logic.
Then again, perhaps what's most striking is how many articles point out that consumers are not rational and that markets are not always efficient.
Here is the abstract of an interesting (and less jargon-strewn) article from the AER Vol. 96, No. 3, 2006:
Could the free market be the solution to education woes? I think so.
Then again, perhaps what's most striking is how many articles point out that consumers are not rational and that markets are not always efficient.
Here is the abstract of an interesting (and less jargon-strewn) article from the AER Vol. 96, No. 3, 2006:
Long-Term Educational Consequences of Secondary School Vouchers: Evidence from Administrative Records in Colombia
Joshua Angrist, Eric Bettinger and Michael Kremer
Abstract
Colombia's PACES program provided over 125,000 poor children with vouchers that covered the cost of private secondary school. The vouchers were renewable annually conditional on adequate academic progress. Since many vouchers were assigned by lottery, program effects can reliably be assessed by comparing lottery winners and losers. Estimates using administrative records suggest the PACES program increases secondary school completion rates by 15 to 20 percent. Correcting for the greater percentage of lottery winners taking college admissions tests, the program increased test scores by two-tenths of a standard deviation in the distribution of potential test scores. (JEL: I21, J12, I28)
Could the free market be the solution to education woes? I think so.
Thursday, May 31, 2007
SIRC and Arpad Pusztai
When I searched for Arpad Pusztai to do some more research I quickly stumbled on this article: Pusztai Published!. It comes from the Social Issues Research Centre, which sort of sounds like an academic, unbiased source. Here is their page on GM foods. Here is their page on funding.
It's interesting to note that while they are a non-profit organization, they still have clients such as "Masterfoods", "GSK" (GlaxoSmithKline), and other very biased organizations. One must be very careful not to confuse "non-profit" with "non-biased". (In fact, most of the lobbying groups are "non-profit", because the individuals inside the group keep all the profits to themselves.) I doubt you will ever hear SIRC referring to the GM pea which caused allergic damage to mice or refuting Pusztai's claim as of 2001 that "no peer-reviewed publications of clinical studies on the human health effects exist". Anyone disagree with me there?
What it comes down to is the science, and notably SIRC doesn't spend much time talking about the science. Then again, neither do I. Neither of us really know biochemistry all that well. You might break us into people who believe that the risks are worth mentioning and the people who think that the risks aren't worth mentioning, because they "scare people." Or perhaps people who wish to present all possibilities and people who don't. All of their stories make the same essential points, using very few citations or empirical facts. They are a typical special interest group.
Sourcewatch has a good page on them. It covers one shady campaign where they were hired by a lobby group to campaign for an estrogen for postmenopausal women -- their coverage of the treatment didn't include the pharmaceutical funding.
What's scary is that this group "has played a central role in advising the government on the development of a "Code of Practice on Science and Health Communication" for communication science issues to the media."
Some economists like to believe that we can outsource lots of knowledge-gathering activities. People are "rationally ignorant". I don't think the average citizen can afford to be rationally ignorant -- there are too many people spinning half-truths in all areas. People who have something to hide will try to make things either overly complicated or overly simple, when the truth is probably somewhere in between, and likely accessible. (SIRC: "a GM tomato is just a tomato" - no, a GM tomato could have genes which are not even in the same genus as a normal tomato, which is impossible to attain through cross-breeding.)
At the very least, if these people are interested in helping consumers, then they should increase the amount of information available to consumers and support the labeling of GM products. Currently we don't even have that, and I see no reason why -- except that it could potentially hurt the profits a biotech company.
It's interesting to note that while they are a non-profit organization, they still have clients such as "Masterfoods", "GSK" (GlaxoSmithKline), and other very biased organizations. One must be very careful not to confuse "non-profit" with "non-biased". (In fact, most of the lobbying groups are "non-profit", because the individuals inside the group keep all the profits to themselves.) I doubt you will ever hear SIRC referring to the GM pea which caused allergic damage to mice or refuting Pusztai's claim as of 2001 that "no peer-reviewed publications of clinical studies on the human health effects exist". Anyone disagree with me there?
What it comes down to is the science, and notably SIRC doesn't spend much time talking about the science. Then again, neither do I. Neither of us really know biochemistry all that well. You might break us into people who believe that the risks are worth mentioning and the people who think that the risks aren't worth mentioning, because they "scare people." Or perhaps people who wish to present all possibilities and people who don't. All of their stories make the same essential points, using very few citations or empirical facts. They are a typical special interest group.
Sourcewatch has a good page on them. It covers one shady campaign where they were hired by a lobby group to campaign for an estrogen for postmenopausal women -- their coverage of the treatment didn't include the pharmaceutical funding.
What's scary is that this group "has played a central role in advising the government on the development of a "Code of Practice on Science and Health Communication" for communication science issues to the media."
Some economists like to believe that we can outsource lots of knowledge-gathering activities. People are "rationally ignorant". I don't think the average citizen can afford to be rationally ignorant -- there are too many people spinning half-truths in all areas. People who have something to hide will try to make things either overly complicated or overly simple, when the truth is probably somewhere in between, and likely accessible. (SIRC: "a GM tomato is just a tomato" - no, a GM tomato could have genes which are not even in the same genus as a normal tomato, which is impossible to attain through cross-breeding.)
At the very least, if these people are interested in helping consumers, then they should increase the amount of information available to consumers and support the labeling of GM products. Currently we don't even have that, and I see no reason why -- except that it could potentially hurt the profits a biotech company.
Reply To a "Science Debunker"
I wrote this as a comment in reply to this post. It really irritated me, especially with all the posts expressing vacuous agreement.
---------------------------------------
You'd get along well with Steven Milloy (the founder of junkscience.com) -- in fact, I wonder if you've been influenced by him.
Check him out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Milloy
A choice quote:
"In 1993, Milloy dismissed an Environmental Protection Agency report linking secondhand tobacco smoke to cancer as "a joke". When the British Medical Journal published a similar study in 1997, Milloy said, "it remains a joke today." When another researcher published a study linking secondhand smoke to cancer, Milloy wrote that she, "…must have pictures of journal editors in compromising positions with farm animals. How else can you explain her studies seeing the light of day?"[4] While at FoxNews.com, Milloy continued to attack research on the harms of secondhand smoke.[5]
During the time that Milloy was attacking the credibility of secondhand-smoke research, his junkscience.com website was receiving editorial oversight and content directly from the R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company.[6] Milloy's supposedly independent organization TASSC was funded and coordinated by Philip Morris[7] with the goal of "utilizing TASSC as a tool in targeted legislative battles."[8] A confidential 1994 Philip Morris memo listed Milloy's organization under "PM Tools to Affect Legislative Decisions".[9] Milloy himself was listed on Philip Morris' payroll, being budgeted over $180,000 in payments in the years 2000 and 2001.[10]
On June 27, 2006, summarizing over 10 years of scientific research, the United States Surgeon General issued a comprehensive scientific report concluding that secondhand smoke is a carcinogen with no risk-free level of exposure, refuting Milloy's claims.[11] The Surgeon General's report also stated that secondhand smoke exposure is a known cause of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), respiratory problems, ear infections, and asthma attacks in infants and children.[11]"
There are plenty of other similar examples. You would also be a global warming denier, I'm betting, who believes that the synthetic chemicals pervading our environment are getting a bad rap and hurting business.
Mind pointing out some real examples besides alluding to some book with a flashy name?
What's interesting is that in the past "science" (influenced by government) scammed the public into believing things like something like marijuana is harmful and things like DDT are not. Today we've got scientists telling us the opposite.
Today we also have the irrational Christians on the defensive. Coincidence? I think not.
When you discount the danger of synthetic chemicals (enjoy your Teflon fumes and volatile plasticizers with a good dose of cadmium, I'm guessing?) and drugs you serve as a corporate apologist, just like Milloy.
Today health problems are rampant among the masses, yet people who cook their own meals and avoid chemicals tend to go to the doctor sparingly, if at all. That should be encouraged. Many of the chemicals we use today are not actually very necessary, and the more information that people have about their risks the better.
Health effects is one of those areas that we say in economics is dominated by imperfect information, which leads people to make bad choices. If you care more about your health, choose juice instead of soda. The only people you'll be hurting really is the soda companies.
Parkinson's has been linked to pesticides. This is simply a strong statistical correlation. Take of it what you want.
Genetically engineered foods pose significant health risks. Many people are unaware of that, and at first glance it would seem that genetically engineered foods pose little risk. After all, genetic changes happen naturally. But these major changes can produce unexpected side affects. The most blatantly unhealthy modifications get caught in the lab (GM peas cause allergic lung damage in rice), but the others can have slower, long-term, insidious effects, as the researcher Arpad Pusztai has shown.
In conclusion, you are very wrong. The new millennium calls for a different kind of science - but that science should be more cautious, not less, when it comes to potential health effects. After all, what do we have to lose? A few less cans of soda, or rice with human proteins in it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'll add something that isn't on the comment: of course, there is potentially more to lose than the lost opportunity to taste human-rice. There is an argument that GM (genetically modified) foods are necessary to food the world's growing population. I think that's false; we can obviously more than feed the world right now. The poor in developing nations right now don't even accept GM foods (they refuse to take much of that food anyway), and when they do accept GM foods, their farmers are forced to pay pharmaceutical companies. The poor need money and livelihoods. That would be best served by helping them sell their own food; that means we need to reduce trade barriers and food subsidies in the US, as well as do what we can to build basic infrastructure (water and energy) and put pressure on despotic governments.
---------------------------------------
You'd get along well with Steven Milloy (the founder of junkscience.com) -- in fact, I wonder if you've been influenced by him.
Check him out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Milloy
A choice quote:
"In 1993, Milloy dismissed an Environmental Protection Agency report linking secondhand tobacco smoke to cancer as "a joke". When the British Medical Journal published a similar study in 1997, Milloy said, "it remains a joke today." When another researcher published a study linking secondhand smoke to cancer, Milloy wrote that she, "…must have pictures of journal editors in compromising positions with farm animals. How else can you explain her studies seeing the light of day?"[4] While at FoxNews.com, Milloy continued to attack research on the harms of secondhand smoke.[5]
During the time that Milloy was attacking the credibility of secondhand-smoke research, his junkscience.com website was receiving editorial oversight and content directly from the R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company.[6] Milloy's supposedly independent organization TASSC was funded and coordinated by Philip Morris[7] with the goal of "utilizing TASSC as a tool in targeted legislative battles."[8] A confidential 1994 Philip Morris memo listed Milloy's organization under "PM Tools to Affect Legislative Decisions".[9] Milloy himself was listed on Philip Morris' payroll, being budgeted over $180,000 in payments in the years 2000 and 2001.[10]
On June 27, 2006, summarizing over 10 years of scientific research, the United States Surgeon General issued a comprehensive scientific report concluding that secondhand smoke is a carcinogen with no risk-free level of exposure, refuting Milloy's claims.[11] The Surgeon General's report also stated that secondhand smoke exposure is a known cause of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), respiratory problems, ear infections, and asthma attacks in infants and children.[11]"
There are plenty of other similar examples. You would also be a global warming denier, I'm betting, who believes that the synthetic chemicals pervading our environment are getting a bad rap and hurting business.
Mind pointing out some real examples besides alluding to some book with a flashy name?
What's interesting is that in the past "science" (influenced by government) scammed the public into believing things like something like marijuana is harmful and things like DDT are not. Today we've got scientists telling us the opposite.
Today we also have the irrational Christians on the defensive. Coincidence? I think not.
When you discount the danger of synthetic chemicals (enjoy your Teflon fumes and volatile plasticizers with a good dose of cadmium, I'm guessing?) and drugs you serve as a corporate apologist, just like Milloy.
Today health problems are rampant among the masses, yet people who cook their own meals and avoid chemicals tend to go to the doctor sparingly, if at all. That should be encouraged. Many of the chemicals we use today are not actually very necessary, and the more information that people have about their risks the better.
Health effects is one of those areas that we say in economics is dominated by imperfect information, which leads people to make bad choices. If you care more about your health, choose juice instead of soda. The only people you'll be hurting really is the soda companies.
Parkinson's has been linked to pesticides. This is simply a strong statistical correlation. Take of it what you want.
Genetically engineered foods pose significant health risks. Many people are unaware of that, and at first glance it would seem that genetically engineered foods pose little risk. After all, genetic changes happen naturally. But these major changes can produce unexpected side affects. The most blatantly unhealthy modifications get caught in the lab (GM peas cause allergic lung damage in rice), but the others can have slower, long-term, insidious effects, as the researcher Arpad Pusztai has shown.
In conclusion, you are very wrong. The new millennium calls for a different kind of science - but that science should be more cautious, not less, when it comes to potential health effects. After all, what do we have to lose? A few less cans of soda, or rice with human proteins in it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'll add something that isn't on the comment: of course, there is potentially more to lose than the lost opportunity to taste human-rice. There is an argument that GM (genetically modified) foods are necessary to food the world's growing population. I think that's false; we can obviously more than feed the world right now. The poor in developing nations right now don't even accept GM foods (they refuse to take much of that food anyway), and when they do accept GM foods, their farmers are forced to pay pharmaceutical companies. The poor need money and livelihoods. That would be best served by helping them sell their own food; that means we need to reduce trade barriers and food subsidies in the US, as well as do what we can to build basic infrastructure (water and energy) and put pressure on despotic governments.
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Working Recently
As I forewarned in some earlier post, I don't post as much when I'm not getting high every other day. I'm more inhibited, neurotic, and frankly less insightful. When I read books and I'm not high I find myself skipping over lines, but when I'm high I tend to dwell on passages for way too long.
I sat around the house for a while upon coming back home after school, but now I'm back at work -- if you can call it that. I work for the government and get to sit around reading all day. So I visited the library. Here's what I checked out:
Other books that I own and have been reading are:
The nice thing about my job is that I basically sit around outside for long periods of time, and get paid over twice the minimum wage. Gives me plenty of time to read, even if it can get cold.
All of these books (with the exception of Remember Everything You Read and Master The GRE) are pretty interesting, but the most interesting has been The Shadows of Power. It is a well-researched and thoroughly incriminating look at the organization founded by J.P. Morgan which, up till 1988, produced "14 secretaries of state, 14 treasury secretaries, 11 defense secretaries, and scores of other federal department heads" since it was founded in 1921. According to Perloff, every Secretary of State since 1949 has been a member of the Council, although one joined the Council after being appointed.
The other very interesting book was Explaining the Atom. I never realized that chemicals were so interconnected, or that atomic chemicals had been so necessary for further research into the atomic particles. (I never took chemistry!) For example:
I hardly feel like I can do justice to an overview of these books, but I'll probably attempt to do an overview of the Shadows of Power. Really, I recommend that one out yourself, though.
I sat around the house for a while upon coming back home after school, but now I'm back at work -- if you can call it that. I work for the government and get to sit around reading all day. So I visited the library. Here's what I checked out:
Basic Writings of Nietzsche translated and edited by Walter Kaufmann
The Shadows of Power: The Council on Foreign Relations and American Decline by James Perloff
Letters to a Young Mathematician by Ian Stewart
Remember Everything You Read by Stanley D. Frank
Master The GRE 2005
Other books that I own and have been reading are:
Explaining the Atom by Selig Hecht
The Most of S.J Perelman
Play Poker Like the Pros by Phil Hellmuth, Jr.
The nice thing about my job is that I basically sit around outside for long periods of time, and get paid over twice the minimum wage. Gives me plenty of time to read, even if it can get cold.
All of these books (with the exception of Remember Everything You Read and Master The GRE) are pretty interesting, but the most interesting has been The Shadows of Power. It is a well-researched and thoroughly incriminating look at the organization founded by J.P. Morgan which, up till 1988, produced "14 secretaries of state, 14 treasury secretaries, 11 defense secretaries, and scores of other federal department heads" since it was founded in 1921. According to Perloff, every Secretary of State since 1949 has been a member of the Council, although one joined the Council after being appointed.
The other very interesting book was Explaining the Atom. I never realized that chemicals were so interconnected, or that atomic chemicals had been so necessary for further research into the atomic particles. (I never took chemistry!) For example:
...consider spot 32 in the fourth horizontol coil of the Periodic Table. This element lies in the vertical column between silicon and tin, and is now called germanium. Medelejev in 1871 predicted its existence and called it eka-silicon. He said it would be grayish-white in color, and would give a white oxide when burned, and would not be affected by acids and alkalis. Moreover, he gave definite values for its atomic weight, its density, its atomic volume, and even its boiling point. Fifteen years later ... found Mendelejev's predictions almost perfectly fulfilled.The book has inspired me to memorize the the periodic table and get the basic gist of every chemical on the list. (Up to number 26!) The last half of the book is all on the atom bomb, and I don't remember a whole lot of the details.
I hardly feel like I can do justice to an overview of these books, but I'll probably attempt to do an overview of the Shadows of Power. Really, I recommend that one out yourself, though.
Another Philosophy Graduate
I mentioned that I met a philosophy major working at Safeway here, and I thought I'd mention another that I found today: Carl Icahn. Admittedly, he graduated from Princeton. Today he's worth billions. Philosophy-type people should do well in investing. They can look at the big picture rationally, have the patience to read SEC filings, and, if they study economics, can easily grasp the fundamental concepts of sunk cost and marginal benefits. Then it's buying companies when they're cheap (support) and selling them when they're high (resistance).
Monday, May 28, 2007
Saving Democracy
A computer scientist named Don Lindsay has an idea that could fix democracy. I imagine it's been on his website for a long time, but it hasn't gotten the attention it deserves.
It's a pretty simple idea. When you vote, you put down a first choice and a second choice. If your first choice isn't in the top-two, your second choice is used instead. This would allow people to vote for third-party candidates without absolutely wasting their votes.
It might not fix things immediately, but even I am sometimes reluctant to vote for the third-party (although I always want to) because I know that I need to add my vote to the real tally or else very bad things could happen, like the Bush reelection.
If you like this idea, please pass it on.
By the way, this guy also publishes the longest list of informal fallacies I have ever seen.
It's a pretty simple idea. When you vote, you put down a first choice and a second choice. If your first choice isn't in the top-two, your second choice is used instead. This would allow people to vote for third-party candidates without absolutely wasting their votes.
It might not fix things immediately, but even I am sometimes reluctant to vote for the third-party (although I always want to) because I know that I need to add my vote to the real tally or else very bad things could happen, like the Bush reelection.
If you like this idea, please pass it on.
By the way, this guy also publishes the longest list of informal fallacies I have ever seen.
Friday, May 25, 2007
Prizes, not Patents
Although I have heard many criticisms of the patent system from computer scientists or, occasionally, politicians, I had yet to hear one from an economist - until recently. Perhaps that is because I have not looked for them. Your average economist will spend plenty of time arguing for patents, and most often they will defend them for one particularly disturbing industry - the pharmaceutical industry.
The story goes that pharmaceutical companies need patents (along with price discrimination and advertising freedom, among others) in order to pay for the exorbitant research costs that are required to produce new drugs. The drugs are a huge fixed cost, but producing pills costs pennies, if that. Therefore a pharmaceutical company can maximize profit by charging people exactly what they can afford to pay - in the United States, that is fairly high, but in the rest of the world (or even Canada) the price is lower. In order to cover their investment they must run tons of advertisements to get more and more people to take the pill. All these things are required to cover investments, many economists say, and to drive the research of new "important", "lifesaving" drugs.
Liberal economist Joseph Stiglitz (winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics, who's book Globalization and Its Discontents I flipped through earlier this year) points out in an article in the May PAER that:
In a related issue he notes that:
The good news is that there is a simple and effective solution, which immediately rewards the researchers: prizes for cures, similar to the past Ansari X Prize and the current Archon X Prize. He notes that "since governments already pay the cost of much drug research directly or indirectly, through prescription benefits, they could finance the prize fund." It would probably end up saving governments money.
He says that the prize funds would only complement the patent system, which could remain in place to research important things like Viagra and Propecia. I suppose the developers who received the prizes couldn't patent their drugs - though they might not want to anyway, since the drugs he has in mind mainly afflict the poor.
Anyway. Good idea.
The story goes that pharmaceutical companies need patents (along with price discrimination and advertising freedom, among others) in order to pay for the exorbitant research costs that are required to produce new drugs. The drugs are a huge fixed cost, but producing pills costs pennies, if that. Therefore a pharmaceutical company can maximize profit by charging people exactly what they can afford to pay - in the United States, that is fairly high, but in the rest of the world (or even Canada) the price is lower. In order to cover their investment they must run tons of advertisements to get more and more people to take the pill. All these things are required to cover investments, many economists say, and to drive the research of new "important", "lifesaving" drugs.
Liberal economist Joseph Stiglitz (winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics, who's book Globalization and Its Discontents I flipped through earlier this year) points out in an article in the May PAER that:
drug companies spend far more money on advertising and marketing than they do on research, far more on research for lifestyle drugs (for conditions like impotence and hair loss) than for lifesaving drugs and almost no money on diseases that afflict hundreds of millions of poor people, such as malaria. It is a matter of simple economics: companies direct their research where the money is, regardless of the relative value to society.
In a related issue he notes that:
companies raced to beat the human genome project in order to patent genes such as that associated with breast cancer. The value of these efforts was minimal: the knowledge was produced just a little sooner than it would have been otherwise. But the cost to society was enormous: the high price that Myriad (let me pause to see if this is a public company - it is, MYGN), the patent holder, places on genetic tests may well mean that thousands of women ... will die.
The good news is that there is a simple and effective solution, which immediately rewards the researchers: prizes for cures, similar to the past Ansari X Prize and the current Archon X Prize. He notes that "since governments already pay the cost of much drug research directly or indirectly, through prescription benefits, they could finance the prize fund." It would probably end up saving governments money.
He says that the prize funds would only complement the patent system, which could remain in place to research important things like Viagra and Propecia. I suppose the developers who received the prizes couldn't patent their drugs - though they might not want to anyway, since the drugs he has in mind mainly afflict the poor.
Anyway. Good idea.
Monday, May 21, 2007
PAER and the Dialogic Form
I referred to the PAER a couple months ago here. It's the only academic journal I've been reading, although sometimes I flip through others. It was started by a group of French graduate students who were tired of the narrow, mathematical rather than empirical approach of neoclassical economics, which is the only economics taught in most schools. I'm not going to comment too much on that - I don't know standard neoclassical economics deeply enough to say that it is fundamentally flawed. It all depends on your professor - some try to show you the big picture and the flawed assumptions, and some don't.
The first article is written by three economists: Diedre McCloskey (formerly Donald) of the neoclassical capital University of Chicago department, Arjo Klamer, and Stephen Ziliak. They say they are writing a textbook in the dialogic form, a form which has fallen out of favor in the modern age. They say that it used to be popular "before Newton", and quote some pages from a book by Galileo to prove it. They say the non-dialogic form was "perfected by Gauss", who "gave none of the indications natural to dialogue of where his ideas came from or where they were going."
Already I feel that they are being somewhat dishonest. They make the case that the dialogic form was very popular up until the 19th century - but, after reading plenty of historical philosophy, I know that I haven't read a book in the dialogic form since Plato. That doesn't meant that the form isn't helpful. I enjoyed Plato. But they could be overstating their case. Gauss is not a good example, as this was a mathematician who knew numbers so intuitively that, according to legend, he came up with the (n)(n+1)/2 trick for summing up numbers when he just a kid - it seems possible that there was no "dialogue" preceding his insight.
Still, those are just nitpicks. The dialogic form could be effective, especially when complemented by standard exposition, which it presumably is.
The first article is written by three economists: Diedre McCloskey (formerly Donald) of the neoclassical capital University of Chicago department, Arjo Klamer, and Stephen Ziliak. They say they are writing a textbook in the dialogic form, a form which has fallen out of favor in the modern age. They say that it used to be popular "before Newton", and quote some pages from a book by Galileo to prove it. They say the non-dialogic form was "perfected by Gauss", who "gave none of the indications natural to dialogue of where his ideas came from or where they were going."
Already I feel that they are being somewhat dishonest. They make the case that the dialogic form was very popular up until the 19th century - but, after reading plenty of historical philosophy, I know that I haven't read a book in the dialogic form since Plato. That doesn't meant that the form isn't helpful. I enjoyed Plato. But they could be overstating their case. Gauss is not a good example, as this was a mathematician who knew numbers so intuitively that, according to legend, he came up with the (n)(n+1)/2 trick for summing up numbers when he just a kid - it seems possible that there was no "dialogue" preceding his insight.
Still, those are just nitpicks. The dialogic form could be effective, especially when complemented by standard exposition, which it presumably is.
Sunday, May 20, 2007
Nerds, Popularity, and High-School
This essay captures all the factors which combined to make high-school a hell-hole.
In almost any group of people you'll find hierarchy. When groups of adults form in the real world, it's generally for some common purpose, and the leaders end up being those who are best at it. The problem with most schools is, they have no purpose. But hierarchy there must be. And so the kids make one out of nothing.
We have a phrase to describe what happens when rankings have to be created without any meaningful criteria. We say that the situation degenerates into a popularity contest. And that's exactly what happens in most American schools. Instead of depending on some real test, one's rank depends mostly on one's ability to increase one's rank. It's like the court of Louis XIV. There is no external opponent, so the kids become one another's opponents.
Saturday, May 19, 2007
Gluten Poisoned
I may not have mentioned it on here before, but I do not eat gluten. That makes life difficult for me - I cannot eat out at restaurants and I have to cook all my own food, despite not being a very good cook. Because I always live with (messy) people, I usually get gluten contaminations anyway. The result is that I am constantly sick - that's no exaggeration. You can't really understand what it's like to be severely gluten intolerant unless you are gluten intolerant. However, some days are worse than others, and it can take weeks to recover from the damage of one bad day.
Today I went to an organic supermarket which claims to cater to gluten-free people and had a meal. There were signs proclaiming "wheat-free", but the problem is that I, like all wheat-allergic people, am allergic to wheat, rye, barley, and oats. The Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act of 2004 really fuckin' ignored the people who were allergic to wheat. It's really astonishing, and it would be so easy for food manufacturers to put down whether there is any gluten containing ingredients.
For some reason they abstained from that in order to clarify the rules on labeling products "gluten-free." The problem with labeling something gluten-free is that it is very expensive to test, and nearly everything has some amount of gluten in it. The rest of the world fixes this by having two standards: one stating that there is "less than a certain amount of parts per million" (Codex is 200, Canada is 20, ect) and one for products which have zero gluten (I think). The FDA is looking to allow producers to label their products as gluten free if they have "less than 20 parts per million."
That dishonesty sickens me. It should be criminal to label your items as gluten free if they are not assuredly gluten free. But I suppose that should just remind me not to ever eat out or buy packaged foods. (Although I do like this authentic little Mexican place down the street from my house - real soft corn tortillas! I can't even buy those things in the supermarket!)
Today I was glutenated by either that deli meal (a wok bowl made with "wheat-free sauce"), the trail mix that I bought, or somehow the mashed potatoes, rice, crab, and applesauce I had for dinner. Ugh.
Today I went to an organic supermarket which claims to cater to gluten-free people and had a meal. There were signs proclaiming "wheat-free", but the problem is that I, like all wheat-allergic people, am allergic to wheat, rye, barley, and oats. The Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act of 2004 really fuckin' ignored the people who were allergic to wheat. It's really astonishing, and it would be so easy for food manufacturers to put down whether there is any gluten containing ingredients.
For some reason they abstained from that in order to clarify the rules on labeling products "gluten-free." The problem with labeling something gluten-free is that it is very expensive to test, and nearly everything has some amount of gluten in it. The rest of the world fixes this by having two standards: one stating that there is "less than a certain amount of parts per million" (Codex is 200, Canada is 20, ect) and one for products which have zero gluten (I think). The FDA is looking to allow producers to label their products as gluten free if they have "less than 20 parts per million."
That dishonesty sickens me. It should be criminal to label your items as gluten free if they are not assuredly gluten free. But I suppose that should just remind me not to ever eat out or buy packaged foods. (Although I do like this authentic little Mexican place down the street from my house - real soft corn tortillas! I can't even buy those things in the supermarket!)
Today I was glutenated by either that deli meal (a wok bowl made with "wheat-free sauce"), the trail mix that I bought, or somehow the mashed potatoes, rice, crab, and applesauce I had for dinner. Ugh.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
What do we know about volunteering?
I commented on good ol' ADHR's post saying something to the effect "everyone knows that volunteering is increasing." Perhaps I spoke too soon. This illuminating article says that our volunteering statistics are very crude.
I know that I read that more and more people have been signing up for the Peace Corp and AmeriCorp, and it looks like more people are donating. Web activism is very high. I read somewhere that the number of 501(c)(3) organizations is increasing. But I haven't been able to find an easy picture of the data, in numbers of hours worked or people who volunteered, yet. If anyone finds something, let me know.
I should update the section at Wikipedia...oh well
I know that I read that more and more people have been signing up for the Peace Corp and AmeriCorp, and it looks like more people are donating. Web activism is very high. I read somewhere that the number of 501(c)(3) organizations is increasing. But I haven't been able to find an easy picture of the data, in numbers of hours worked or people who volunteered, yet. If anyone finds something, let me know.
I should update the section at Wikipedia...oh well
The Murder Experiment
I thought this was a fascinating story. I have no idea what drove the kids to do it, but I honestly think a lot of people would feel little guilt - they are just too afraid.
Does the fact that many people would do something like that but feel no guilt mean it's not wrong? Of course not. (Though I wonder what it would feel like, too.)
Does the fact that many people would do something like that but feel no guilt mean it's not wrong? Of course not. (Though I wonder what it would feel like, too.)
Mathematics and the Real World
Is it very surprising that advanced mathematics describes the real world so well? We live in a world which has volume (l*w*h), rounded edges (circles), definite proportions (constants), and rates (derivatives). There is nothing logical, however, with the way that transcendental numbers exist all around us. If anything these strange numbers support the idea that our universe is nothing but a freakish accident; a product of some natural processes which happen rather than a self-conscious, purposeful Creator.
The constancy and consistency of math is frustrating to someone like me, who's always thinking that the answer must be a little more complicated than simply punching a few numbers.
The constancy and consistency of math is frustrating to someone like me, who's always thinking that the answer must be a little more complicated than simply punching a few numbers.
Sunday, May 13, 2007
Fixing Windows
I wish Windows did two things: 1) Keep the installed programs separate from the system programs, and 2) kept careful track of what programs do in the registry when they're installed, and make sure they change it back.
Simple enough requests.
Simple enough requests.
Saturday, May 12, 2007
The Logical Flowering of Western Metaphysics
When searching the tag metaphysics on Technorati I came across this nice post. Although I have never read Heidegger, it's nice to run across someone who has and is able to eloquently describe what he's saying - that is a rare find. Even if he (Peter Rohloff) is eloquent, it's hard to understand exactly what he means when he talks about Being with a capital B. Eloquence does not necessarily imply clarity - probably because clarity is impossible when it comes to Heidegger. Does he mean existing, as in existentialism? I'm not familiar with Heidegger enough to know, but it makes me want to read Heidegger. I can empathize with the statement that "nihilism is the logical flowering of Western metaphysics."
Philosophy has sometimes ignored what is staring it in the face for what it can analyze abstractly - past, present, future. When philosophers discuss metaphysics they cam go into great lengths on the nature of time, God, matter, and other things without discussing consciousness and time from the perspective of a human agent and life itself - at least, that's been my impression. It also continues to reason and judge in the face of obvious paradoxes (for example, determinism - nobodoy is morally blameworthy for any action, and the fact that philosophers continue to this day to cast "moral" blame on people is a testament to the fact that they are in blind denial and just don't get it. Note that I did not say that people are not causally responsible for actions which they cause).
Rohloff finishes with Heidegger's amusing reply to Leibniz' old sayind:
"Nihil est sine ratio" : nothing is without reason.
"Nichts ist—ohne grund" : nothing is - without grounds.
Though I don't completlely understand the latter sentence, anyone who's read Leibniz' philosophy knows that the man was deluded (through math, perhaps) enough to assert the former.
I can easily feel like I'm venturing off into silly land when I discuss vague topics like "Being" - the fact is that sometimes the most fundamental philosphic truths may not be so easy to analyze. The real truth is probably like quantum mechanics - completely bizarre and unapproachable through the formal dichotomies and theories of our grammatical logic. Thus the approach of Zen Buddhism and other "Enlightenment" religions, which probably have similarities, at their core, to Heidegger's approach.
Philosophers have always said they are interested in one thing, and one thing only: truth. But what if the truth is in conflict with life? Philosophers have also been interested in goodness. Socrates proclaimed that "the good life is the only life worth living", according to Plato, and he said that was the truth. But what if it isn't the truth? Ultimately philosophers may need to make a choice between the two.
If one believes in practical philosophy, as I do, one can easily question all this nonsense. Did Socrates ever do much to help people while he strode around arguing from his high horse? Did Diogenes? Did Nietzsche? Did Heidegger? Did Buddha? What's the point of all these vague philosophical people? Why should we take cues on living from losers like these rather than hyper-analytical types like Leibniz (who developed calculus) or Aristotle, who laid the foundations of science (and who's philosophy arguably slowed down its progress)? What's the point, really?
First of all, it is probably wrong to say that the former did not believe in practical applications of hard logic (especially Socrates, of course, even if he never wrote down anything and devoted his inquiries mainly to justice and how to live life). They have different natural abilities, and promote different things - they have been the greatest spiritual advisors for our race. Diogenes and Nietzsche have the right message: don't be afraid to contradict your betters and blaze your own path. Seek the truth even if it hurts, and if the truth doesn't exist than create a truth that you like. Or something like that. I don't know, and I've rambled on long enough. I guess I enjoy thinking like this, even if it amounts to nothing and distracts me from practical pursuits, so if you don't enjoy reading it, you can bite me. :)
Philosophy has sometimes ignored what is staring it in the face for what it can analyze abstractly - past, present, future. When philosophers discuss metaphysics they cam go into great lengths on the nature of time, God, matter, and other things without discussing consciousness and time from the perspective of a human agent and life itself - at least, that's been my impression. It also continues to reason and judge in the face of obvious paradoxes (for example, determinism - nobodoy is morally blameworthy for any action, and the fact that philosophers continue to this day to cast "moral" blame on people is a testament to the fact that they are in blind denial and just don't get it. Note that I did not say that people are not causally responsible for actions which they cause).
Rohloff finishes with Heidegger's amusing reply to Leibniz' old sayind:
"Nihil est sine ratio" : nothing is without reason.
"Nichts ist—ohne grund" : nothing is - without grounds.
Though I don't completlely understand the latter sentence, anyone who's read Leibniz' philosophy knows that the man was deluded (through math, perhaps) enough to assert the former.
I can easily feel like I'm venturing off into silly land when I discuss vague topics like "Being" - the fact is that sometimes the most fundamental philosphic truths may not be so easy to analyze. The real truth is probably like quantum mechanics - completely bizarre and unapproachable through the formal dichotomies and theories of our grammatical logic. Thus the approach of Zen Buddhism and other "Enlightenment" religions, which probably have similarities, at their core, to Heidegger's approach.
Philosophers have always said they are interested in one thing, and one thing only: truth. But what if the truth is in conflict with life? Philosophers have also been interested in goodness. Socrates proclaimed that "the good life is the only life worth living", according to Plato, and he said that was the truth. But what if it isn't the truth? Ultimately philosophers may need to make a choice between the two.
If one believes in practical philosophy, as I do, one can easily question all this nonsense. Did Socrates ever do much to help people while he strode around arguing from his high horse? Did Diogenes? Did Nietzsche? Did Heidegger? Did Buddha? What's the point of all these vague philosophical people? Why should we take cues on living from losers like these rather than hyper-analytical types like Leibniz (who developed calculus) or Aristotle, who laid the foundations of science (and who's philosophy arguably slowed down its progress)? What's the point, really?
First of all, it is probably wrong to say that the former did not believe in practical applications of hard logic (especially Socrates, of course, even if he never wrote down anything and devoted his inquiries mainly to justice and how to live life). They have different natural abilities, and promote different things - they have been the greatest spiritual advisors for our race. Diogenes and Nietzsche have the right message: don't be afraid to contradict your betters and blaze your own path. Seek the truth even if it hurts, and if the truth doesn't exist than create a truth that you like. Or something like that. I don't know, and I've rambled on long enough. I guess I enjoy thinking like this, even if it amounts to nothing and distracts me from practical pursuits, so if you don't enjoy reading it, you can bite me. :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)