The Radical Academy Discussion Forum
Philosophy, Politics, and the Human Condition
|
||
| Search For Similar Forums · Return to Website | ||
 First |
 Prev |
 Reply |
 Home |
Next  |
Last  |
| Viewing Page 1 of 1 (Total Posts: 1) |
| Author | Comment |
Kevin
 Sep 27, 07 - 9:06 PM |
Nozick with Some "zip" (1 of 2)
Robert Nozick was a handsome man. He died of the effects of stomach cancer arguably disorganizing his physical constitution on, according to the Harvard Gazette, January 23, 2002, at the age of 63. Scary! Aristotle died of some sort of intestinal complaint at the same age. I previously asserted that Nozick was a self-contradicting idiot, given Ivo's quotations, from something he apparently wrote, on Philosophical Explanations. His friends and admirers did not think he was an idiot, although he apparently made a few enemies, or at minimum some harsh critics, with his first book "ANARCHY STATE AND UTOPIA". Somebody once said that Nozick had the morals of a midwestern "pump jockey" (gasoline pumping attendant at at an American Automotive Service Station), although such people could have very high moral standards. Why not? Calling people idiots, is not very nice, as Nozick himself once remarked, according to his obituary in the Harvard Gazette, quote NOZICK/(Harvard Gazette; Ken Gewertz Gazette Staff): In a discipline known for arduous writing (Political Philosophy), Nozick's approach was hailed as a breath of fresh air. He explained his approach in the article cited above: "It is as though what philosophers want is a way of saying something that will leave the person they're talking to no escape. Well, why should they be bludgeoning people like that? It's not a nice way to behave." COMMENT: I liked that. So I looked up some more of his stuff. And this guy was an amusing fella, described as a philosophical pleuralist. He wrote something on INTELLECTUALS for CATO on one occasion, quote:- NOZICK (according to CATO INSTITUTE; Why Do Intellectuals Oppose Captiatlism?; Rober Nozick): "...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. Why then do contemporary intellectuals feel entitled to the highest rewards their society has to offer and resentful when they do not receive this? COMMENT: Short answer:- "Wordsmith INTELLECTUALS" do well in school. Hence they are rewarded and praised in schools. But when they leave school, in a capitalist society, they don't get the rewards they think they still deserve for being "verbally-brainy". Plausible enough. But he goes a bit "off-the-rails", with some "quasi-historical" remarks, quote NOZICK (Cato Institute): The justice of a distribution may reside in its arising from a just process of voluntary exchange of justly acquired property and services. Whatever outcome is produced by that process will be just, but there is no particular pattern the outcome must fit. Why, then, do wordsmiths view themselves as most valuable and accept the principle of distribution in accordance with value? (Fair enough.) From the beginnings of recorded thought, intellectuals have told us their activity is most valuable. Plato valued the rational faculty above courage and the appetites and deemed that philosophers (actual one "Philosopher-King" KB) should rule; Aristotle held that intellectual contemplation was the highest activity. It is not surprising that surviving texts record this high evaluation of intellectual activity. The people who formulated evaluations, who wrote them down with reasons to back them up, were intellectuals, after all. They were praising themselves. Those who valued other things more than thinking things through with words, whether hunting or power or uninterrupted sensual pleasure, did not bother to leave enduring written records. Only the intellectual worked out a theory of who was best. CRITICISM: Not exactly correct, methinks, because... ARISTOTLE: All the arts (which provide for life) are more necessary. But none is better (than primary philosophy and the 3 philosophical sciences; Abstract Mathematics, Physics and Theology). [Metaphysics BkI] Epicurus (pleasure) wrote stuff that endures. So did Machiavelli (power). So did Marx (Revolution; Labor over Capital). And the practical Romans wrote about Law and Government. But his JEALOUSY thesis is a pretty good and fairly amusing thesis. In short, NOT an idiot. So Nozick should have the last biggest number of words... (in part 2) KB |
| First |
Prev |
Reply |
Home |
Next |
Last |
bravenet.com