A questionable assertion by David Lewis

By -
Consider the following:

"The state of nature need not be a state in which we achieve coordination equilibria conforming to a regularity. Certainly Hobbes's state of nature is not: battles in the war of all against all do not result in equilibria (since the loser will wish he had adopted a different strategy), let alone coordination equilibria." -- Conventions, p. 95

The first part of this conclusion seems curious to me: In a Hobbesian state of nature, if some big guy shows up, kicks my butt, and takes my stuff, what "different strategy" would I wish I had adopted? "Don't get your butt kicked"?

Comments

  1. Lord8:48 PM

    1) All I have is yours, but my neighbor has much finer things, so let us join forces and make them our own.
    2) Let me serve you the rest of my days.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah3:32 PM

      I think Lewis is considering something like this, but in Hobbes's state of nature, could anyone trust such pledges? Better kill the guy while you can.

      Delete
  2. Josiah Neeley10:50 AM

    Run away?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Unknown11:24 AM

    Acquiring and holding less to no stuff

    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