Posted on 01/08/2002 1:56:43 PM PST by kattracks
I think this should be, "deep grasp of a multitude of subject matters". That would cover the two errors.
Are any of his publications available on the internet? I went to Harvard's web site but couldn't find anything.
The true error of this sentence lies within the empty head of the person who would employ such pretentious bullshit, and then proudly display it for all the world to see - thereby, of course, resembling nothing so much as a toddler joyfully showing mommy and daddy that he's just taken a dump on the living room rug.
Thanks for the input -- it sounded funny both ways so I wasn't sure.
The true error of this sentence lies within the empty head of the person who would employ such pretentious bullshit, and then proudly display it for all the world to see - thereby, of course, resembling nothing so much as a toddler joyfully showing mommy and daddy that he's just taken a dump on the living room rug.
LOL.
Deeply grasping a multitude of subject matter as well as many as fifteen others.
Thanks for the ping (you see, the Peanut Gallery DOES pay attention . . . ;-}).
You have, perhaps, by now, heard quite enough from me about Western Cultural Filters, one of my favorite Whipping Boys. But, then again, perhaps not. There seems some possibility, though, that Einstein's stupendous success at defining "all of reality" with E=mc2 leads us to think that sublimely complex humanity can be reduced to a simple material formula, and likewise all of human society. Reality ain't, however, quite so simple, as the recently departed Soviet Union clearly establishes. Yes, by all means, let's take a hard nother look at what it means to be human and, along the way, what it means to be God.
My Best.
** "Marxist thought becomes even more relevant after the collapse of communism in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe than it was before." **
How logical or even cogent is this statement? Even Gorby thinks the Third Way must be used now to bring the Russians and the rest of us back to where it will be possible to then inject Communism. Communism has a major fault in it's economic theories, said Gorby. We must use the Free Market and the State to stabilize the situation for the new coming of Communism. To continue to discuss the relevance of Communism is to ignore the fact that the 'Communist' World has moved on to the Third Way, even China.
Now we can see the relevance of the Third Way in our face. The Chinese have produced the entire range of manufactured goods in such quantity and at such a price they are putting companies out of business world wide causing a world recession.
The Chinese are intelligent and have learned many principles of Free Markets. They have not yet learned how destructive it is to produce everything. Your neighbor needs to make something also.
Before they learn this they will be the profound manufacture of products world wide.
Gorby will be involved in this process. He has been incharge of designing a New Ethic for the world. It will replace religion. Interesting, an atheistic Communist is in charge of designing a new ethic.
Is it possible to discuss what is going on in the so called Communist World? To do this would include the Universities and Educational and Media and Political parts of the United States of America.
'We have seen the enemy and it is us.' Really it is in and among us.
How should we struggle against this creeping and insidious monster of Stateism? They are using words with different meanings to take us. Meanwhile we have dumbed ourselves down to the point we find it difficult to listen to any serious discussion or speech.
Be awarew, it appears from the writings of many that these "thinkers" have a hidden agenda that just uses Communism to then bring about agreeable terms for their hidden agenda.
My understanding is that the agenda is horrible for all except the "Elite" of the moment.
Your understanding is correct. ;^)
Hello Slingshot! Forgive my simple-mindedness, but it seems to me that the Free Market + the State = Fascism. The "marriage" of the two was the specialty of Hitler and Mussolini. Now, the political Left has always insisted that Fascism is a phenomenon of the political Right. Hitler detested and feared the Communists, not because he hated their ideology, but because they were his rivals. In practice, it appears that Communism and Fascism both come down to the same thing. But "progressives" like Cornel West use words to disguise this fact. Folks who have difficulty distinguishing between rhetoric and reality will probably always be suckers for this guy, and other folks like him. This is the only thing that I can think of to account for his great success in life -- at Harvard, and in elite political and cultural circles beyond Cambridge.
Thanks so much for writing. Peace, bb.
Except in this case the Free Market has a distinct opportunity to be more equal than the state.
Funny how this system was in place under the Roman Empire and many world leaders continue to try to use it again and again. Very interesting.....
There has been a discussion for some time as to whether or not the Polical Spectrum is a line or a circle. My understanding agrees with the circle. That means that the Far Left and Far Right are almost exactly the same in operation. They are then able to use the same words and concepts to further different causes.
So good to see your replies.
Dear Slingshot, I’m not sure I’m following you here. I can’t imagine why the Free Market being “more equal” than the state should be a bad thing. I would hope that the sphere of individual decision making, unmolested by taxpayer-financed bureaucrats, is “more equal” than the state – lest the tail wag the dog of essential human affairs.
There has been a discussion for some time as to whether or not the Political Spectrum is a line or a circle. My understanding agrees with the circle. That means that the Far Left and Far Right are almost exactly the same in operation. They are then able to use the same words and concepts to further different causes.
The theory of cycles has long legs in human culture. At the same time, “ordinary” human life looks very linear in its progress to the subjective observer. So on this question, the prudent thing would be to say that we are probably not dealing with an “either/or” situation here.
Also, I do note a difference between the rhetoric of “Left” and of the “Right,” such that there seems to be no obvious common cause between them. In fact, the content of their respective worldviews seems to be very much at war.
The way I think about politics is pretty simple-minded I guess: I see Left and Right, not as potentially alternating events expressing linearly through time, nor as isolatable events in a great cycle, but simply as poles in a living, dynamic tension. Perhaps I oversimplify to say that the political Left ever holds the interest of the State (and the State’s personnel) first and foremost in its “social concerns”; and that the Right upholds the dignity and sanctity of human individuals as the paramount social value that polities and constitutions are designed to secure.
The Right seems to be in the ascendancy right now. That only means that the Right “pole” has the attractive power, and thus finds more people to resonate to its “note” than the other pole does…. At least for now. (But I'm still not gonna say that "resonating" to "this or that pole" falls into the "normal" categories of either linear or cyclical time. The entire point of this particular problem is that it is timeless. In the sense that history suggests: The fundamental questions of human order -- personal and social -- never go away, ever.)
I suspect your observation might have a more practical connotation, however: That since there’s no substantive difference between Left and Right, both are up to no good. I’m just not that cynical (yet!!!) to agree with you on that one, dear friend.
But whatta world we live in! Do we not live in “interesting times?”
Thanks so much for writing, Slingshot. Peace and love – bb.
An explanation is due since the reality of today is quite different from the simple form of just Free Market as opposed to the State.
You see the Free Market and the State have actually partnered. They have gone into a partnership because they say that governments are not able to accomplish many things that need to be done today.
For instance, Privatization is actually a partnership between the federal government and a Private business.
Now the partnerships are growing in different ways. Business-Local Government-Private individuals or organizations. They have become intertwined. You have probably read of them in your newspaper and not understood what you were reading.
Let's say India needs electricity.
Enron is a company that is able to get electic plants built and supply people with electricity.
The costs are stagaring. Government is unstable. Masses are unstable and tend to steal utilities not pay for them.
The UN gives it's sanction to get the electric plant built.
The USA through a government organization called OPIC looks for someone to build a plant.
Enron says it will.
Enron Partners with OPIC and an NGO and the government of India.
When Enron partners with OPIC (a USA government organization) they in effect partner with the USA government. OPIC will supply the money for the deal and the insurance to cover all sorts of occurances.
When Enron partners with an NGO that is sanctioned by the UN they are allowed to move money and people across any borders at will with out paying tariffs or taxes and without any interferance from any government while under the umbrella of the NGO.
Now can you think of a better means to steal money? This was set up by the UN. It is being pushed by Prince Charles through his PWBLF(Prince of Wales Business Leaders Forum)
The real winners are the Business "Leaders".
Therefore back to the original statement. The 'so called' free market is more equal than the state.
For a legal statement concerning this read the following web site.
http://www.icnl.org/journal/vol1iss1/istr.htm
This is only to scratch the surface. The entire operation is deeper yet.
**Also, I do note a difference between the rhetoric of “Left” and of the “Right,” such that there seems to be no obvious common cause between them. In fact, the content of their respective worldviews seems to be very much at war
I will come back to this later. I must leave now
Thank you for understanding.
"There are various philosophical views, mutually incompatible, which cannot be dismissed or simply rejected," he wrote in 'Philosophical Explanations.' "Philosophy's output is the basketful of these admissible views, all together." Nozick suggested that this basketful of views could be ordered according to criteria of coherence and adequacy and that even second- and third-ranked views might offer valuable truths and insights....
[Nozick] emphasized explanation rather than proof.
How very sad, beckett, that Professor Nozick has died so young -- only 63! I'm sure his early death has cheated us out of some extraordinarily fine work. Voegelin was 84 when he died; some of the best work he ever did, arguably, was in the last twenty years of his life.... Nozick was simply cut short, "in his prime"...what a sad thing, and what a great loss to philosophical thought.
annalex, please accept my apology for the gratuitous slap at Libertarians. (I have a weird sense of humor.) Nozick is usually associated with Libertarianism -- though his basic "style" -- his openness to the world and its beyond, his lack of "doctrinal closure" -- is not one I usually associate with Libertarianism, based on the typical views of some Libertarians that I have debated. I guess the Randian school -- which IMHO (FWIW) is "philosophically reductionist" and just as doctrinaire in its way as Marxism (reducing the universe to the facts of objective, material existence susceptible to sense perception, and excluding anything and everything else) -- has been too much identified, perhaps, with what normally passes for "standard" Libertarian thought these day. IMHO, Libs could benefit from laying aside Rand and her disciples (e.g., Piekoff, et al.), and taking up Nozick....
Thank you beckett for pointing me to Nozick's obituary in the Harvard University Gazette. May God rest him. Peace and love, bb.
Seriously, annalex: I'm very interested in this question. Want to talk about it? best -- bb.
Defense of Liberty: Two Articles On Anti-Terrorist Policy by Peikoff
Defense of Liberty: Just Intervention
Defense of Liberty. Philosophy: Who Needs It?
My critique of the present-day libertarian stance is in:
Defense of Liberty
Defense of Liberty: The Contours of Victory
Not exactly redunant, but certainly seperfluous.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.