My English Diet
I have eaten more packaged sandwiches since September than I had in the preceding 45 years.
Popular posts from this blog
"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness
By
gcallah
-
I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose...
Libertarians, My Libertarians!
By
gcallah
-
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas -- unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
But is cultural debasement a normal good or an inferior good?
ReplyDeleteI typically roll my eyes at these debates, but I don't see how they've reached the moral basement. The question they're asking is simply "do people desire additional children of their own as they get richer, or fewer?" In using technical language to ask this question, they throw off unfortunate connotations: "children are infereior goods? How dare you???", but that's not itself a sign of moral depravity. You yourself have asked the same question with respect to your own preference, albeit not in these terms.
ReplyDeleteAnd of course, few live up to their own high standards, but I doubt you think such a discussion was in the "moral basement". (I wonder if there's a "Moral Penthouse"...)
Silas, I don't think Gene is upset that someone might call a kid an inferior good. I think he's upset that someone might call a kid a good in the first place. As was I.
ReplyDeleteWhat Bob said, Silas.
ReplyDeleteSo because a topic makes you "queasy", it's therefore in the moral basement? I'm going to need a little more substantiation on this one.
ReplyDeleteIf you value your children, that *means* they're a good. If it makes you queasy, that just means you still feal some incongruity between the literal meaning of terms and your feelings about your choices.
lol @ captch: "tojew"
"If you value your children, that *means* they're a good."
ReplyDeleteIn the debased world of economism, it does. Well-adjusted people do not view other people as goods. Nor do some poorly adjusted people like me, who at least know who our moral betters are!
IF you value your children in terms of exchange value, or put a market price on them ("Well, I guess I'd turn him into dog meat for a billion dollars") THAT means you consider them a good.
That also means they are going to have pretty messed up lives.
IF you value your children in terms of exchange value, or put a market price on them ("Well, I guess I'd turn him into dog meat for a billion dollars") THAT means you consider them a good.
ReplyDeleteNot a requirement for a good. Again, you're just attaching connotations to economic terms rather than cashing them out to their ultimate meaning, and then beating your chest at how noble you can be for taking a superficially noble stance. Not helpful.