Then there is the problem with reading someone so full of himself. Go read that again and note how much he refers to himself. I gave up reading him years ago. His little anti-self owner-ship word magic wasn't impressive then either, and trudging through paragraph after paragraph of narcissism for such a dubious pay off makes no sense.
August, your charge may or may not be correct, but... This was a *autobiographical* piece! It's really not very odd to mention oneself a bit in a work of autobiography, is it?
"His little anti-self owner-ship word magic wasn't impressive then either..."
Word magic? He provides long, substantive arguments for the emptiness of the concept. But I suppose it is easier to call this "word magic" if it helps maintain those beliefs!
This is the same Feser, autobiographical or not. At one time he just kept arguing with this same guy over and over again- and the argument seemed to be about Feser, not whatever the original subject was. The simple thing to do is point out Rothbard is wrong and any sort of property right to self must be serious enough to merit being able to get out of the womb alive. In other words, parents are the actors. It is a bad magic trick to focus on the property right when the act is the issue. A kidnapper cannot claim it just to let his victim die just because his victim happens to be on his property- the victim's self-ownership trumps all this other silliness. I suspect this is what Rothbard gets for trying to lie strategically; he never attracted any feminists and Feser's arguments likely serve the purgatorial function well.
I don't know what to think of self-ownership anymore, but this seems like too simplistic of an argument to be a good one, like arguments for self-ownership that cite the use of possessive words when speaking about one's body.
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.
The name is a misnomer. And a harmful one, because it interferes with understanding the process that is really occuring. What is really occurring is a search of a constrained program space. Let's say you want to be able to identify images of hot dogs . You begin with a plausible program for doing so, that is able to also search the space of nearby programs that might get better results on the problem. You then (in "supervised learning") provide scores that indicate how well one of these possible programs has done on solving the problem. After doing this for some time you settle upon a program that solves the problem "well enough." This is a great technique that can produce truly impressive results on a wide class of problems, such as identifying images of hot dogs. But notice that, except for the phrase in scare quotes, there is no "learning" in the description. Calling this "learning" is importing ideological baggage that just obscures what
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
I've read about 3/4 of it, but my tiny brain has to think more about the implications. I will say, however, that your comment on the page is spot on.
ReplyDeleteThen there is the problem with reading someone so full of himself. Go read that again and note how much he refers to himself.
ReplyDeleteI gave up reading him years ago. His little anti-self owner-ship word magic wasn't impressive then either, and trudging through paragraph after paragraph of narcissism for such a dubious pay off makes no sense.
August, your charge may or may not be correct, but...
DeleteThis was a *autobiographical* piece! It's really not very odd to mention oneself a bit in a work of autobiography, is it?
"His little anti-self owner-ship word magic wasn't impressive then either..."
Word magic? He provides long, substantive arguments for the emptiness of the concept. But I suppose it is easier to call this "word magic" if it helps maintain those beliefs!
This is the same Feser, autobiographical or not. At one time he just kept arguing with this same guy over and over again- and the argument seemed to be about Feser, not whatever the original subject was.
ReplyDeleteThe simple thing to do is point out Rothbard is wrong and any sort of property right to self must be serious enough to merit being able to get out of the womb alive. In other words, parents are the actors. It is a bad magic trick to focus on the property right when the act is the issue. A kidnapper cannot claim it just to let his victim die just because his victim happens to be on his property- the victim's self-ownership trumps all this other silliness. I suspect this is what Rothbard gets for trying to lie strategically; he never attracted any feminists and Feser's arguments likely serve the purgatorial function well.
"he never attracted any feminists"
DeleteWell, there was Wendy McElroy. :-)
I don't know what to think of self-ownership anymore, but this seems like too simplistic of an argument to be a good one, like arguments for self-ownership that cite the use of possessive words when speaking about one's body.
ReplyDelete