thelawgoddess Posted June 20, 2003 Share Posted June 20, 2003 klenke said: So what if someone knows how to write, how to be a wordsmith. I have written poetry, a novel, critical views, and professed/instructed, and would consider myself a 'wordsmith.' I am not a left-wing anti-capitalist intellect, though. klenke, he says "wordsmiths include poets, novelists, literary critics, newspaper and magazine journalists, and many professors." he doesn't say "all poets are wordsmiths." he also doesn't say "all wordsmiths are anti-capitalist intellects." it may seem like i'm nitpicking here, but word usage is pretty important in academic philosophical writing. so is logic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gapertimmy Posted June 20, 2003 Share Posted June 20, 2003 no one, i mean NO ONE, is smarter than this man Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted June 20, 2003 Author Share Posted June 20, 2003 Jordrop Quote: The sense that those who do not have the tools the economy values will be displaced. The equating of the dog-eat-dog world of the hallway to the greater econmy is laughable: The schools contain another informal social system within classrooms, hallways, and schoolyards, wherein rewards are distributed not by central direction but spontaneously at the pleasure and whim of schoolmates. Here the intellectuals do less well. This is akin to a parent of a bully justifying his behaviour as natural. First I must admit some confusion as to exactly what point you are replying. If it is Darwinism I think you are way off base. And your final sentence involviong justifying behavior is confusing. Again I ask clearly and simply: how is capitalism justified or explained by this essay specifically by Darwinism? Further I would ask how your last sentence makes any sense at all. As far as your friend I am mildly surprised he already doesn't know Nozick as he is a well known writer especially with regard to the book Anarchy, State and Utopia. PP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bunglehead Posted June 20, 2003 Share Posted June 20, 2003 What a fucking moron!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jordop Posted June 20, 2003 Share Posted June 20, 2003 (edited) . Edited June 15, 2021 by jordop Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thelawgoddess Posted June 20, 2003 Share Posted June 20, 2003 jordop said: Okay, I love this bit. Schools should teach only accounting and shop, hisotry and english are useless ... wow; you totally missed what he was saying. jordop said: Nozick assumes success is only defined in $$ terms not exactly, but i'm curious you how would define success -- within a capitalist society. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted June 20, 2003 Author Share Posted June 20, 2003 jordop said: The school system imparts and rewards only some skills relevant to later success (it is, after all, a specialized institution) so its reward system will differ from that of the wider society. This guarantees that some, in moving to the wider society, will experience downward social mobility and its attendant consequences. Earlier I said that intellectuals want the society to be the schools writ large. Now we see that the resentment due to a frustrated sense of entitlement stems from the fact that the schools (as a specialized first extra-familial social system) are not the society writ small. Okay, I love this bit. Schools should teach only accounting and shop, hisotry and english are useless and students should be streamed from an early age since the ideas and values taught in schools are not found in greater society. School should mirror industry and all that Christy Clark blah blah blah double plus good crap. I added italics. Jordrop first relax and then show us where he was suggesting that schools should or should not do anything. Did he ever even decry the phenomenon he is trying to explain? Look, schools have always preached higher ideals of human behaviour, society, and non-profit-associated values as important because we as a society value those qualities in human beings. Nozick assumes success is only defined in $$ terms so that if one is not moving upward in the income level, then he/she was not imparted with the correct tools in training. A brilliant financial planner with a stacked portfolio but no idea when Confederation was, could also be experiencing lack of success. Yes, this is a predicable rebuke and a childish one at that, but there is a reason a lot of the non-financial success stuff is taught in schools; it is hard to measure it's worth, but there are discrete indicators that it provides students with those vague qualitites of "rounding". I added italics. What of the schools in Sparta? What of the schools in NAzi Germany? What of schools in the Palestinian Authority. What of some Madrassa in Pakastan. I say Chatter! Chatter! stop the insanity! Where does he indicate what he believes should be taught in schools? Does what he believes differ from what is currently taught? How do you know? Stop the chatter! PP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jordop Posted June 20, 2003 Share Posted June 20, 2003 (edited) Quote thelawgoddess said: Quote jordop said: Okay, I love this bit. Schools should teach only accounting and shop, hisotry and english are useless ... wow; you totally missed what he was saying. No, not at all, this is the argument taken by neocons when calling for a school system that better reflects the reality of the woorkplace, that schools teach a whole bunch of useless stuff which does not prepare for the reality of looking for a job. Quote jordop said: Nozick assumes success is only defined in $$ terms not exactly, but i'm curious you how would define success -- within a capitalist society. . Edited June 15, 2021 by jordop Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thelawgoddess Posted June 20, 2003 Share Posted June 20, 2003 jordop said: No, not at all, this is the argument taken by neocons when calling for a school system that better reflects the reality of the woorkplace, you're still missing his point. he isn't taking that argument, and he isn't calling for anything! jordop said: Ahh, I know a few friends who make 100k+ but who cannot look another person in the eye, have annoying crotch scratching probelms, or who haven't gotten laid since the Reagan admin. Success aint just moolah oh really? do you know what "capitalism" actually means? (nice friends, by the way. ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted June 20, 2003 Author Share Posted June 20, 2003 thelawgoddess said: Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- jordop said: Okay, I love this bit. Schools should teach only accounting and shop, hisotry and english are useless ... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- wow; you totally missed what he was saying. No, not at all, this is the argument taken by neocons when calling for a school system that better reflects the reality of the woorkplace, that schools teach a whole bunch of useless stuff which does not prepare for the reality of looking for a job. Jordrop you again miss the point entirely. I would ask how Bennet fits into your equation or even a Bloom? I would also ask how institutions like Aquinas fit in? Stop the insanity! Why silence regarding my offer to pay for the first hour of a PC? PP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted June 20, 2003 Share Posted June 20, 2003 this is his premise: "Intellectuals now expect to be the most highly valued people in a society, those with the most prestige and power, those with the greatest rewards. Intellectuals feel entitled to this. But, by and large, a capitalist society does not honor its intellectuals. Ludwig von Mises explains the special resentment of intellectuals, in contrast to workers, by saying they mix socially with successful capitalists and so have them as a salient comparison group and are humiliated by their lesser status. However, even those intellectuals who do not mix socially are similarly resentful, while merely mixing is not enough--the sports and dancing instructors who cater to the rich and have affairs with them are not noticeably anti-capitalist." and it is entirely unsupported .... if ever he has supporting evidence, his hypothesis may be worth consideration. in the meantime, it only amounts to a cliche about bitter, resentful intellectuals. in other words it's the usual: if you can't defeat their ideas, sling mud to discredit the individuals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted June 20, 2003 Author Share Posted June 20, 2003 Now J-B – I call BS on that. Novicks clearly claims to be creating a hypothesis. He then points out several ways that the hypothesis can be tested. Show me the mud! Didn’t anyone else laugh out loud while reading this? PP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thelawgoddess Posted June 20, 2003 Share Posted June 20, 2003 i did. j_b said: if ever he has supporting evidence, his hypothesis may be worth consideration. in the meantime, it only amounts to a cliche about bitter, resentful intellectuals. in other words it's the usual: if you can't defeat their ideas, sling mud to discredit the individuals. if it's really a cliché, why would he even need supporting evidence? (besides, that wasn't his "premise".) and who do you think he's trying to discredit? your argument = Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted June 20, 2003 Share Posted June 20, 2003 shouldn't "sheer BLOODY poetry" be the name of that Tommy Caldwell thread or perhaps the Layton-pin-pictures thread? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted June 20, 2003 Share Posted June 20, 2003 premise: something assumed or taken for granted. "intellectuals feel entitled to greater rewards and are resentful for not receiving them", "Intellectuals feel they are the most valuable people, the ones with the highest merit" .... more or less what he says (that' s the mud by the way). now where is the supporting evidence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted June 20, 2003 Author Share Posted June 20, 2003 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thelawgoddess Posted June 20, 2003 Share Posted June 20, 2003 philosophy, dude. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted June 20, 2003 Share Posted June 20, 2003 no, tripe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thelawgoddess Posted June 20, 2003 Share Posted June 20, 2003 everyone's entitled to their own opinion. i like flank steak pho myself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlpineK Posted June 20, 2003 Share Posted June 20, 2003 Essays like this one are funny. The author defines the parameters in order to reach his predefined conclusions. Having been a, "Numbersmith," in school I would say the question he set out to answer was poorly defined. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.