tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19129587.post4183194970823766887..comments2024-01-13T08:49:14.041-08:00Comments on Myrhaf: The Perks of PowerMyrhafhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16340507405537605164noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19129587.post-65318642263662961162010-06-20T18:45:08.447-07:002010-06-20T18:45:08.447-07:00I will also like to add that the "left" ...<i>I will also like to add that the "left" (I can only speak for myself here), doesn't see self-interest and money-making as evil, it sees self-interest and money-making at the expense of others as evil. To me it is not really a matter of morality per se (morality rooted in religious doctrine) but a matter of Game Theory (if morality were to be rooted on best outcome Nash equilibria). If people keep acting on their own self-interest to the detriment of the whole in which the optimal outcome for society becomes unachievable then that is a problem, or as you termed it: "evil".</i><br /><br />The problem with your comment is collectivism ("the optimal outcome for society"). One must first defend the proper standard of morality (man's life) and beneficiary of values (oneself) before quibbling over decision-making algorithms.Monoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19129587.post-31617363194941484222010-05-07T00:35:56.006-07:002010-05-07T00:35:56.006-07:00"Taken to its logical end, the rulers are abo..."Taken to its logical end, the rulers are above the rule of law. In socialism there is no rule of law, only the rule of men. The rulers dictate to the ruled, and they call whatever whims of rule they establish law."<br /><br />What is the point in this statement. In capitalism there is no rule of law either, only the rule of men with money.The rulers dictate to the ruled, and they call whatever whims of rule they establish law the same exact way.<br /><br />I will also like to add that the "left" (I can only speak for myself here), doesn't see self-interest and money-making as evil, it sees self-interest and money-making at the expense of others as evil. To me it is not really a matter of morality per se (morality rooted in religious doctrine) but a matter of Game Theory (if morality were to be rooted on best outcome Nash equilibria). If people keep acting on their own self-interest to the detriment of the whole in which the optimal outcome for society becomes unachievable then that is a problem, or as you termed it: "evil".<br /><br />Also, the Plato - Aristotle dichotomy is completely overstated here. I know this wasn't written by you, but the re-posting here completely simplifies both these philosophers thoughts and ideas.<br /><br />"love may be described as the everlasting possession of the good" - Plato, The Symposium<br /><br />By good, what Plato is referencing is goods and services, which is motivated by self-interest. This further shows that he has no opposition to self-interest, which would be apparent if one did not only read his Republic, and give a sophomoric interpretation of it.<br /><br />And while I am not in possession of any of Aristotle works at the moment, I do recollect from his Taxonomy where speaks of Ethics and the nature of good citizen. He speaks of Natural and Unnatural citizens, of which a good citizen can only be a Natural citizen. He describes a Natural citizen as a person who had limited wants and who only need for money was that as a rate of exchange (C-M-C) not the practice trading money for commodities and then reselling it for money (M-C-M) which is what merchants of his time did and is currently the basis for our system of Capitalism, which he called unnatural. Aristotle was vehemently opposed to this notion, as well as to sophistry (the practice of arguing and promoting something for money). One could argue that Aristotle was against capitalism, but I wont go that far because that would be too simplistic a few of Aristotle. I just don't believe the difference among Aristotle and Plato are what the author is making it out to be as anyone with enough reading of either men can find multiple similarities and differences that contradict this simplified notion. The author makes a valid point that Plato was more about concepts and the abstract, but so was Aristotle in many instances.Bigvichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14286721672498946099noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19129587.post-11402839756112746482010-05-03T20:07:45.723-07:002010-05-03T20:07:45.723-07:00Interesting posting. ThanksInteresting posting. ThanksAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19129587.post-84332172902123810842010-03-26T00:10:32.435-07:002010-03-26T00:10:32.435-07:00Thanks, Norma. I blog over at newclarion.com all t...Thanks, Norma. I blog over at newclarion.com all the time.Myrhafhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16340507405537605164noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19129587.post-71029884164036838292010-03-25T17:36:56.455-07:002010-03-25T17:36:56.455-07:00Good stuff. Why do you write so seldom?Good stuff. Why do you write so seldom?Normahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11502895616873273470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19129587.post-48742732669039132512010-02-09T05:32:41.733-08:002010-02-09T05:32:41.733-08:00I posted it at New Clarion first. Sometimes I post...I posted it at New Clarion first. Sometimes I post them here as well just so I can put them in the favorite post archives.<br /><br />Thanks, Sam!Myrhafhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16340507405537605164noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19129587.post-61385325166301488522010-02-09T05:08:00.620-08:002010-02-09T05:08:00.620-08:00This is an edifying and powerful message. I wonder...This is an edifying and powerful message. I wonder why you've tucked it away here in your personal blog instead of posting it at The New Clarion.Samhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01894352527130274008noreply@blogger.com