Stand by Your Book, and Tell the World You Love It

By -
I have sometimes seen people saying that I don't "stand by" what I wrote in 2000, or 2004, or some other, earlier time.

I find this a truly extraordinary "sin" of which to accuse an author. Things I wrote in the past were not marriage vows or pledges of financial aid or military assistance. They were reports of my best attempts to understand markets or war or politics or society or whatever. Since then, I have kept striving to improve those understandings. When I have done so, I have reported back on how they have improved. Someone who "stands by" everything they wrote a decade ago is standing still, and has failed as an intellectual.

These accusations are as though I was a painter who had improved his technique, and then was accused of "betraying" his cruder, earlier paintings.

Comments

  1. Jim2:16 PM

    The old Gene was all about the music.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Bob Murphy2:37 PM

    The only thing I get uppity about--whether it's from you or Bruce Bartlett or David Frum, the other latter two do it more than I think you do--is when people get all huffy and make moral condemnations about the sort of person who would write X, when they themselves wrote X^2 10 years ago, and aren't even acknowledging that in their current condemnation.

    ReplyDelete
  3. traumerei10:20 PM

    "Someone who "stands by" everything they wrote a decade ago is standing still, and has failed as an intellectual."

    Well, let's hope you enjoy many more decades as a writer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ken B9:54 AM

      Oh that's lovely traumerei! Bravo.

      Delete

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