Stupid Human Tricks, Part LXVII

By -
Here is a fun game to play:

Choose a thinker whose ideas you instinctively don't like.

Root around in their biography until you find something unsavory. (It will be there, don't worry.)

Now, you can discredit that person without even having to bother with their ideas! Watch:

"Keynes didn't like Jews!"

"Oakeshott was a womanizer!"

"Jefferson kept slaves!"

"Mises said nice things about Mussolini!"

"Marx was very dirty and neglected his children!"

Why, once you've seen this enough, you might almost start to imagine that we are all fallen sinners.

Comments

  1. Anonymous1:33 PM

    To be sure, I never discount somebody's contributions due to their human failures. Certainly, we all have attributes to our character that others may find unsavory, but that is no reason to discount the things that we excel in. There are many people who I dislike or find disagreement with, but I find it more useful to find the good and the agreement instead.

    As we've talked about before, there are a lot of libertarians that dislike you merely based upon your rejection of libertarianism. I was initially very close to being this close-minded myself (the whole peer-pressure thing). However, I then realized my folly, and found that 1) you aren't a bad dude (a little harsh sometimes, but not bad), 2) you have much to contribute, and 3) I've actually learned quite a bit from you.

    It's funny how it is almost in our nature to reject those that do not conform into our own system of thought, and one often has to do a self-analysis to ensure that it isn't themselves that is being irrational.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ken B2:06 PM

      "that dislike you merely based upon your rejection of libertarianism."
      Non-sequitur. We're listing *failures* here.

      Delete
  2. marris12:37 PM

    "Marx was very dirty and neglected his children!"

    Is this also a criticism of Rousseau?

    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