Why Do I Keep Posting on the Philosophy of History?

By -
I was having a hard time. I would post one thing, and Bob Murphy would agree with it, but Daniel Kuehn would abjure. I'd post another, and Silas would object, but Ryan would agree. Lord Keynes would like one post of mine on property rights, but Tom would hate the very same post. This was all very unsatisfactory.

But now, in my posts on the philosophy of history, I've found something to say about which every single one of my readers universally objects. I am in my milieu.

Comments

  1. Anonymous11:22 PM

    Oh oh oh oh, I have got a Gene Callahan joke related to just this very post.

    A communist, a fascist, and a libertarian log into Willingdone Museyroom...and that is just the first guy!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thomas L. Knapp4:00 AM

    Actually, I don't think I object to anything you've said on the subject so far.

    I raised a question, and you answered it. I'm still mulling your answer, which at the very least means I don't consider it facially unreasonable.

    Of course, I suspect that if I don't object to something you say, you'll decide to re-examine it ;-)

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
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.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 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
Read more