Then it would not be about the law, but a false equivalence nevertheless. Congratulations on your Pyrrhic victory. — Sapientia

Good. What is it about then? I never disagreed there are differences between those places, but they're not primarily about the law and the regulations that exist.

No it's not. Get real. — Sapientia

The law is very similar.

And is this scenario more akin to "attracting agent" or to "necessary precondition"? That's the core of the difference. — Mariner

Granted that Buddha-nature is personal, I think it's very much an attracting agent.

Compare the gospel sentence -- "When I have been lifted up from the earth, I will draw all people toward me" -- with the Buddhist mindset and the difference is clear. The agent in Christ's sentence is Christ. — Mariner

Well, I obviously agree that there is a difference in emphasis between the two of them, but that isn't to say that they're different substantially on this point.

The same emphasis found in Christianity, isn't found in Judaism for example, but that's not to say that Judaism lacks them completely.

But it's arguable whether the former prime minister, David Cameron, was corrupt in his former role. The Panama Papers implicated his father. He is not his father. He did own shares, but they were sold before he entered office. — Sapientia

Oh right, of course, you have to be an idiot to do it under your own name. A father, a sister, a distant relative - who cares, someone to cover up.

On the other hand, he never broke any laws, and was never charged with any offence. The UK has laws on corruption. — Sapientia

Yeah, Kazakhstan does too :s - you seem to be under the impression that China, Russia, North Korea, etc. don't have laws against corruption...

What I have emphasised is that somewhere like the UK is very different from somewhere like Syria. — Sapientia

Yeah but that's not because the UK has laws and regulations that Syria lacks.

Over here, if you're found out, you can't get away with it scott free, so it's a big gamble and a disincentive. — Sapientia

That's the same everywhere. Those laws can always be used to get rid of you, and punishments are often more severe than in the UK. When China's current leader came to power and ran a campaign against corruption, many very important officials were jailed or even executed, including one of the former heads of an intelligence agency. So by no means do these places lack laws and harsh punishments. But laws are enforced by people. If you get those people who enforce the laws on your side, then you are safe, at least for some time. You're really talking as if it was oh so difficult to abuse public office.

In the UK it happens less because people have some decency, that in other places they lack. They are better educated, and respect the institutions more, so they don't dare create prejudices of $50 million in one go, shamelessly. Look at the US - Trump doesn't respect the institutions, and he has no trouble changing or ignoring them. You seem to think that once in power, someone is somehow constrained by the law, as if the law was some abstract person, and not something that people who hold the power have to enforce themselves.

In the end, it all comes down to individual people. Whether that's millionaires with cash, or government bureaucrats with the judiciary power of the state behind them - it's still people.

The difference is that in one case (Christian grace) it is a gift from an agent (God) to the subject; in the other case, it is a precondition that is not offered by an agent. In Buddhism (as far as I know) there is no mind guiding or attracting people towards 'salvation' -- it is a result of personal effort + necessary preconditions. Therefore, it is quite unlike Christian grace in that it does not require external conscious help by an agent. — Mariner

In the oldest sects of Theravada, it is absolutely required to have met a buddha in at least some past life for enlightenment to be possible - or otherwise to encounter the Dhamma externally by yourself, a direct revelation. Buddha-mind/nature, Nirvana and the Dhamma are eternal and not subject to change, much like the Christian Trinity. But when in a state of deep ignorance, you can only encounter the Buddha-mind, and therefore the Dhamma externally. That's why some sects of Buddhism venerate the statue of Buddha.

Pah! No, it certainly isn't. Your dismissal is irrelevant. The very serious consequences in one case, yet not the other, in light of the relevant laws, is of clear relevance. Denial won't stop you from being arrested. — Sapientia

In North Korea the law is that there should be democratic elections. Is the law relevant or not? And if it's not relevant, then we have clearly arrived at an understanding that the mere presence of a law isn't relevant to stopping a certain activity. What else is required?

Yes, and some pigs may fly. Point being that it's not impossible in principle, but implausible in reality. — Sapientia

Okay fine, I do not think it is implausible in reality, we can agree to disagree on this point.

The bottom line is that, in the UK, misconduct in public office is a serious crime, and carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. A public servant who grossly misappropriated public funds for personal gain would certainly be guilty of misconduct in public office. — Sapientia

The same laws exist in Russia, Kazakhstan, North Korea, etc. The punishments may even be more severe there. It doesn't seem to me like the law by itself is of any relevance.

(I very much doubt that Jesus would have been so possessive or so tight with his purse strings when considering those less fortunate). — Sapientia

Who said that you shouldn't give alms and help the less fortunate? I was saying quite the contrary. But alms-giving isn't the same as the state coming by force and taking your money.

Who will hold you to account? — Sapientia

Society. If I spend my money on yachts, etc. while other people in my society are starving, they will hold me accountable. The same way as if a politician steals money from the government - it's still society who will hold them accountable through its mechanisms, not the law by itself.

Do you think me a fool? — Sapientia

No, what makes you think that? Quite the contrary, if I thought you a fool, I wouldn't be having this conversation with you.

But the system would allow me to amass all of that personal wealth, and the system would allow me to spend it as I see fit. — Sapientia

I do think that if you amass your wealth fairly then you should dictate how it gets spent, of course.

So, sadly, it is almost by necessity that is world is ruled by fucking idiots. Those who see the truth would want nothing to do with this world. — Aurora

I agree with BC - this is nonsense. Just because you're not smart enough to figure out a way to rule and replace whoever you claim the idiots are, it doesn't mean that the world is by necessity ruled by idiots. It just means you're failing. There comes a time when one gets sick and tired of hearing people complain about politicians, etc. - why don't you go replace them eh? They're idiots afterall - it shouldn't be hard for you, given that you see the truth - to take power should it? If even the blind - those who do not see the truth - take power, why can't the enlightened ones? If they are so virtuous and strong, this should be child play for them, a warm-up. A real man or woman does not complain, he or she goes out there to change the world - precisely because they are smart and enlightened and have an advantage over everyone else who is blind and foolish.

And even if the world was ruled by idiots - it's your fault for allowing them. You are intelligent, why do they hold power?! What's that intelligence of yours doing fusting in you unused?

This is an abysmally lazy statement, and crude too -- no sign of refined thinking on your part. You and Myttenar too, — Bitter Crank

(Y)

The rarified philosopher may be very deficient and impoverished in his understanding of the physical world. — Bitter Crank

I agree. But theory and ideas are required to shape and change the world. Very many people discount books & study as a valid way of affecting the world, but I actually think that the learned are more powerful than the unlearned in shaping the world. Depending on the learning of course. It needs to be done with pragmatic aims in mind.

Apparently people can't be happy with being good at something and being fairly compensated for it. Apparently people can't be happy unless what they are good at enjoys high social status, is allowed to have greater influence in public policy, and is widely recognized for its greatness. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

It would be, except that I don't think most people are so obsessed. — Bitter Crank

I think they are so obsessed. Sure, they're not obsessed with power on a large scale, absolutely not. They can care less about it. But they are obsessed with power over their husbands, over their children, over their local community, etc. And they are often more draconian, perfidious and demanding when it comes to this sort of power than those who strive for power on a grand scale. Those who strive for power on a grand scale do get, sooner or later, a sense of their own smallness and vulnerability which persists, regardless of how powerful they become. Take people like Marcus Aurelius, Seneca, and the like. Sure, there are also Neros out there, but they are an exception I would say.

Some, a small minority, really are obsessed with power, influence, prestige, status, wealth, etc. and they are a troublesome lot. — Bitter Crank

The small minority obsessed with power, influence, prestige, money etc. can be troublesome, depending on their characters. But more often than not, they happen to be less troublesome and less draconian than the relatively uninfluential who strive after influence even on a small level.

About money....

"There are few ways in which a man can be more innocently employed than in getting money" - Samuel Johnson

And that is often true, because to make money, at least honestly, you have to do something that is valuable to others.

Without establishing a starting point (read: defining "belief" and salvation"), how can you proceed? — tim wood

I agree.


There also seem to be two notions of salvation at play. The salvation you're talking about with regards to your friend I suppose isn't a religious form of salvation, is it? I mean you're not a Christian anymore as far as I know, right?

But it is also unimaginable that salvation can be achieved without external assistance -- the very word, "salvation", would become an exaggeration in such a scenario. "Saving oneself" without any external aid is more like "learning something" or "regular development" than like really "saving". — Mariner

The entire concept of salvation, of course, is predicated on a, let's say, Abrahamic anthropology that views man as at least mildly tainted (on a spectrum that goes all the way to fully damned). — Mariner

Right, but this idea that salvation does, to some extent, depend on something external can be found in non-Abrahamic traditions too. For example, in Buddhism, one must encounter the Dhamma, at least in one of their past lives, for the possibility of salvation to exist in this life.

You're losing track. That some deserve more than others was never a bone of contention. — Sapientia

Good, so some may deserve $20 million as a result of their work.

It is not against the law for you, as a private citizen, to spend your $20 million on beer for you and your mates. — Sapientia

The law is irrelevant. The law is going to stop neither me, nor the politician, if we really want to do something. It's not very difficult to take money from the government, politicians are all very skilled at abusing their position to benefit themselves. Look at, for example, Obama - he made many millions of dollars as President. It doesn't even take much intelligence, just shamelessness.

And now Malia Obama, his daughter, is hitting it at Harvard kissing rich white non-working class boys and smoking weed. Give me a break.

to spend your $20 million on beer for you and your mates. — Sapientia

It's going to take me many years to spend $20 million on beer for me and my mates.

It is very much against the law for a public servant to spend $20 million of government funds on beer for him and his mates. — Sapientia

>:O Nope. If I'm an ambassador, for example, I spend money on booze because I need it - I meet with important officials who need to be treated well - I need to take them to expensive golf resorts, buy a lot of alcohol, etc. that's what it takes for me to negotiate great deals for the great & glorious nation of Kazakhstan. But of course, many of these times, I'm actually just meeting with friends. But no one knows, because I make the paperwork or supervise how it's made.

Governments and the law function on the basis of paperwork. Whosoever understands this, can easily abuse government. Just don't get your signature anywhere in shady deals, and you're relatively safe.

It is not against the law for you, as a private citizen, to spend your $20 million on beer for you and your mates. — Sapientia

No, it is not against the law, except that I worked for that money. That's MY money, not other people's. It is the result of my sweat and effort. You reckon I'm going to throw it away on beer with my mates? :s

You try spending 10-15 years of your life getting to the point where you can make that $20 million fairly without being corrupt or a crook, and then see if you start spending it on beer with your mates after that.

So what? Pride comes before a fall. — Sapientia

There are healthy and unhealthy forms of pride. Marcus Aurelius or Socrates or Seneca - all of them had a certain "pride", or better said self-respect. They wouldn't stoop below a certain level to get something done.

You contradict yourself. It is about persuasion, and that is a skill. Think about what you're saying. If they don't like you, then that means that you've failed to sell yourself. And if that's an insurmountable obstacle to getting yourself elected, then you've failed to achieve what you desire. — Sapientia

Nope, it's not about persuasion, it's about lacking moral values so that when you have all sorts of people asking you for favours in exchange of support, money, etc. you accept them.

Then what were you talking about? I think that you may need to go back, look over what it was that you said which caused me to respond in the way that I've done, and explain yourself properly. — Sapientia

To get into a political party and rise up the ranks you need to make compromises. To run for public office you need funding. To get funding, unless you have your own dough, you need to go beg around for it. And guess what, when you're begging around for it, you're going to be told: "okay, I will give you this money, but you have to promise me that once elected, you're going to make sure that this bill passes through. It's really important for our country and we need people like you to do the right thing" - of course this is just coded language for asking you to pass something that's not so great for the country but will be great for the private interests of your donor.

An ambiguous question. Unless you clarify, my answer is yes and no. — Sapientia

It's a simple question. I asked you if he is corrupt. He was your PM. If even the PM is corrupt (Panama papers for example), imagine how everyone else must be. You say there is no corruption in the UK. You're very very wrong. The only difference between UK and the glorious nation of Kazakhstan is that in the UK the corruption is done behind closed curtains. In the glorious nation of Kazakhstan, it is out in the open.

No, it doesn't, not in my view. — Sapientia

Well that should clearly matter. Someone could desire excessive wealth to live on a beach for the rest of their life with many women around them, etc. That someone obviously desires excessive wealth for selfish reasons. Another may desire excessive wealth because wealth is a form of power that allows them to make positive changes for society.

From a quantum mechanical viewpoint, nothing always happens. The most we can say is that the probability of it not happening is negligible. But we can still work with that.

Is the following a fair rendition of your concept of 'is directed towards'.

We say that an object of category C1 (e.g. a match) is 'directed towards' phenomena of category C2 (e.g. ignition) if there exists a set of conditions S that include at least one condition relating to an object of class C1, such that our current scientific theories predict that, whenever conditions S are satisfied, an event of class C2 will occur with probability p, where p is very close to 1 [we would need to specify an exact value to complete the definition. Let's say 0.99999]. — andrewk

It doesn't matter. This doesn't save you in any way. We're still back to the same square. Take radioactive decay which is probabilistic by nature.

Is an atom of whatever - say Uranium - going to decay with a specific probability of x%? Sure. This means that that specific atom (or type of atom) is directed towards decaying into the following components (X, Y, Z) with this, and only this probability.

Whatever causes there are out there, they have to be directed towards producing whatever their range of effects happen to be (even if those effects are probabilistic), otherwise, why is it that they always produce only that range of effects and not just any effect imaginable?

That's a non sequitur. You alone are just cog in the machine. For the machine to function, it needs a system of cogs. It's true that if you remove a cog, then the machine won't function, but it is false that one cog by itself causes the machine to function. — Sapientia

Do you agree then that a very small clog can exert great leverage on the machine, producing exceedingly great force relative to its size? If so, then it rightly deserves more.

A government minister obviously cannot. — Sapientia

Right, he can spend other people's money buying $3000 dollar public toilets from a distant relative of his :B

I am more accountable than the government minister since I have skin in the game. The government minister doesn't.

You can't have your cake and eat it. If you want business people to govern, then they have to go through the same system as the rest of us. If they get humiliated, then they get humiliated. That would just be a reflection of their lack of skill. — Sapientia

I didn't mean that. I meant that the nature of the system necessitates humiliation. It has nothing to do with lack of skill or anything of that sort. Even the most skilful humiliate themselves to rise to the top in politics.

If you have nothing appealing to offer, or if you are inept at persuading people, then yes, you may well face humiliation — Sapientia

It's not about persuading people, it's about having to bow your head to the right people before you even get the chance to run, much less get elected. If the other boys and girls don't like you, you think they'll let you run? :s

Besides, you yourself pointed out the example of Trump, and he's hardly the first businessman to develop a relatively successful career in politics. So clearly it can be done. — Sapientia

No, I wasn't actually talking about businessmen. Businessmen can go into politics without being humiliated. They have money, they don't need to go around bowing their head, and kissing the hand of this and that person to obtain a bit of money to run a campaign. That's the humiliating aspect.

Trump is a perfect example. He didn't have to humiliate himself before the donors, kiss their hands, bow his head, promise them this and that, etc. Why not? Cause he had the money.

And I don't buy this incredibly one-sided nonsense from you where you try to make out as though government is corrupt and inept. — Sapientia

Is David Cameron corrupt?

Desiring excessive wealth for yourself at the expense of many others is selfish. — Sapientia

Depends why I desire excessive wealth. Maybe I desire excessive wealth because it gives me the leverage I need to make what I've identified as the right changes in society.

No, a man of character would have guts, and would face up to the fact that if you want to govern, then want alone will not achieve results. You have to act, you have to put your neck on the line, and you ought to respect due process in doing so. — Sapientia

I agree. I never said not to risk. You misinterpreted the bit about humiliation. It's not failure that is humiliating.

What I do know is that, if one is not an A, there is no need to use the concept of being 'directed towards' in the explanation, which is just as well, because I don't know what that concept means. — andrewk

It means, for example, that friction always produces heat. It doesn't one time produce heat, and the next time produce butterflies. It always produces heat, and only heat. That's what the concept of "being directed towards" means.

For a particular strike, current scientific theories predict that, If certain conditions are met, ignition will almost certainly occur. — andrewk

Why will it occur if certain conditions are met?

why does friction always produce heat? — Agustino

I'm still not seeing the A-connection. — andrewk

Friction always produces heat because it is directed towards the production of heat. That's part of its nature, what being friction is in the first place.

The explanation for the match lighting up is that heat arises from friction between the match and the match box. The friction is particularly high because of the roughened match tip and matchbox side. The match is coated with material that has a combustion point lower than the temp generated by the friction, so the material ignites. — andrewk

Right, but that's not the question I was asking. I wasn't asking why it catches fire in this or that particular instance. Clearly, it does because of the friction which produces heat. I was asking why does it always and consistently catch fire in that particular set of circumstances?

The question can be moved further too - why does friction always produce heat?

Plus, being a pedant (sorry) I'd probably correct the child's use of 'always' and point out that sometimes it doesn't catch fire, and there can be various reasons why that happens. — andrewk

Sure, I preempted you being a pedant, that's why I said:

Take the case of the match. We observe that it consistently produces fire when we strike it in the right place on the matchbox in favourable conditions. — Agustino

The As believe that reality has those aspects and that they have objective meanings, and the non-As do not. — andrewk

Even though the referenced aspects are open to observation? Take the case of the match. We observe that it consistently produces fire when we strike it in the right place on the matchbox in favourable conditions. Why is that? Is that even a valid question?

If it is, then what is the answer? If your kid asked you "Daddy why does the match always light up when you strike it on the right side of the match box?", what would you answer?

If it's not a valid question, why isn't it?

It became apparent - after a long discussion - that if one accepts the Aristotelean view of the world, in which notions like 'potential, 'essence' and 'directed' are believed to have meanings beyond their everyday pragmatic meanings, then the OP argument has some bite, and if one doesn't, then it has none. — andrewk

I don't think you're correct in this analysis. The Aristotelian notions are signposts which signal to some relevant aspects of reality. Do those aspects of reality exist? If they do, then the notions are valid. I haven't seen a relevant argument from the non-Aristotelians which show that those aspects of reality don't exist - maybe I've missed it cause I haven't read all posts here, so I'd appreciate if you could point me to it.

I think it's pretty simple. — litewave

Yeah it is very simplistic, though that's not a merit.

I will not reply further, since you are obviously not ready to follow the conclusions of your own reasoning and keep trying to hide behind your own finger.

So now you are making an irrelevant distinction between impulse and you, while previously you said that impulse is you. — litewave

False, I never said that.

Proof:

So it's impulse -> You -> action. — Agustino

An impulse in general is a cause. An intention is an impulse, a cause, too, because it causes an intentional action. — litewave

Nope, those terms are related but different.

What you called "the process of forming an intention, of choice" above is a causal chain of impulses which results in an intention, and the intention is an impulse that causes the action. — litewave

Nope. You have no understanding of feedback loops or how systems regulate themselves no? No understanding of top-down causality perhaps? :s

This causal chain you're referring is not like a series of dominos, one hitting the next, etc. etc. No - it is rather self-regulating. It self-regulates and maintains itself (its own nature) by modifying and re-directing external impulses.

The action is always determined by something that you cannot choose, and in this sense the action is not free - it is determined by something you cannot choose. — litewave

Nope. That's actually never the case. You keep talking about something I cannot choose, as if I was outside of the causal chain, but somehow still affected by it.

My argument simply is that your action is determined by something you cannot choose and therefore your action is not free, at least not in the libertarian sense. — litewave

No, your argument is that your action is determined by your intention, ie by you. Do you want me to cite again the part where you say that you are your intention(s)? So you absolutely freely choose it. You don't seem capable to follow the logic of your own statements.

You keep parroting about not freely choosing your intentions :s - of course, since you are your intentions. But being your intentions, you do freely choose your actions.

You don't choose to come into existence. But once in existence, you do choose things, since you are a system capable of autonomy. Once this system is put together, once it starts existing, things are no longer determined for it like one domino hitting the next, since it has top-down causality - it is a causal chain, which processes whatever forces/impulses, etc. come to it.

I choose my actions — litewave

Okay, so you choose your actions. End of story. Therefore you're free in-so-far as you choose your actions, which is pretty much everytime you act.

You are the one muddying the waters. It is really a pathetically low level of philosophy. You do not even coherently distinguish between impulses, intentions, actions and all the other relevant terms. You take intentions to be impulses for example...

Impulse -> You (the process of forming an intention, of choice) -> action

You are the process which takes the impulse and forms an intention out of it, which is then translated into action. You as that process have free will, since you process whatever impulse you get from the external world, and only then do you act.

So you - according to your model - are an intention or an impulse right?

You said it yourself - the impulse is you. — litewave

self who can resist his own impulses, his own intentions — litewave

Yes.

You're just muddying the waters. A freely willed action should be intentional, and in order to do an intentional action you need an intention, which is an impulse (a mental state) that causes the action. But since you can't choose the intention, your intentional action is caused by something you have not chosen. — litewave

So I need an intention?! Who is this I?! Isn't this I the intention? If it is, then nobody needs any intention at all to act freely. They act freely by their very nature - by being who they are, an intention. And that's the real truth - you simply cannot act unfreely while being you.

But since you can't choose the intention — litewave

So who is the you here?!

Your framework isn't even capable to understand the process of choosing. It's as if you didn't choose anything, as if you didn't exist, except as a spectator. If this is a wrong interpretation, then please be very specific about what it is that you are choosing. What do you choose, ever?

If your answer is nothing, then you are a spectator in that framework.

Here I thought I was actually understanding what you were saying. :-} — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I was correcting a general assumption that people make, namely that spending is good for the economy or virtuous. That's not necessarily true. How this is applied to your own particular situation I do not know, because I haven't thought about your case in detail.

But I do not make that interpretation. I am content to simply describe the processes that occur within the body. If somebody asks how the body came to have those processes, it can be explained in terms of evolution, again without teleology. — andrewk

And those processes don't affect each other, and don't function together to create effects that they couldn't by themselves?

For example, is a match not directed towards the production of fire when you strike it on the right side of the match box? If it wasn't so directed, then why does it start burning?! Is this a miracle that every time, or almost every time, the match starts burning instead of turning into a cute buterfly?

The fact that we notice that particular things are directed towards particular effects - and not to any effect at all - shows us that they are goal-directed. Putting a sharpened pencil on a regular paper is directed towards producing a mark on that paper. It's not directed towards turning into a cute hamster that proceeds to eat the paper, is it? Why does it never turn into the cute hamster? Because that's not its telos.

Science looks for patterns and makes models to describe them. One does not need to postulate a telos to do that, any more than one needs a telos when one looks for interesting shapes in clouds or star constellations. One may overlay a telos on it, if one's philosophical disposition encourages that - and some do. But such an overlay is strictly optional, and plenty don't. — andrewk

That is false. Part of understanding a thing is understanding that thing within a particular context. There are no context-less things out there. So when I understand the heart in the context of the body, I need teleology. Otherwise how will I understand it?

So please take this simple example, of the heart pumping blood, and give me a non-teleological explanation of it. You won't be able to do so without appealing to the larger context in which the heart works (the body), and hence without appealing to the heart's telos - which just is an explanation of how it fits in within its larger context.

In my view, part of the essential nature of a lion is that it lives in the world that we inhabit, whereas a unicorn is a merely a fictional creature represented in books and pictures. — Andrew M

So... if someone genetically engineered a horse to become a unicorn, then the unicorn would be fictional? :s

It's not that a real lion and a fictional lion share the same essence where one exists and the other does not. Instead they are essentially different things. — Andrew M

What makes them different, apart from existence? If existence is what makes them different, then you're granting Feser's point that existence is a property, and denying Kant's.

So what you are saying is that eventually AZ will eat itself alive? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

No, I wasn't saying anything with regards to you in particular or AZ in particular (I don't know much about AZ haha). Was just talking a theoretical issue with ssu :P .

And if you produce a service that others want, well what on Earth is so bad about it compared to some manufactured gadget? — ssu

That is production, why does it matter that you produce a service or a manufactured gadget? Cleaning services, etc. have practical and productive effects in society. Financial speculation, gambling, etc.? Not so much.

What happens if you grow consumption too much is that your economy actually shrinks. Consumption grows, supposing Investments remain the same, government spending remains the same, then your trade balance will decrease. Growth in consumption without simultaneous growth in production is actually harmful. Why do you think the USA has a negative trade balance with China for example, of around $300 billion?

So consumption grows by $10 dollars, if your government spending remains the same, and your investments remain the same, then where is that consumption going? Towards imports, of course. That's a financial weakness, not a strength. Read, for example, something like this.

we have to take a methodological breakaway to unusual circumstances of our being to study its structures comprehensively; — fdrake

That's what science has always sought to do - looking for the limit conditions (what you call unusual circumstances) of theories. Seeing farther than Newton's theory of gravity involved the limit case of non-euclidean geometry and so on.

No time to reply to everything now, but I may get back to some responses in more detail.

That's what I'm saying. — litewave

No, that's not what you're saying because you think it's reasonable to talk about resisting your own impulses, an incoherent statement. You tell me you cannot resist your own impulses. False. That's nonsense.

Even your own intentions are external impulses? :s — litewave

My choices are not impulses. They are processing of impulses, which is done by complex feedback loops with respect to my nature.

a. That individual's decisions will be honest, the government bureaucrat is often corrupt. — Bitter Crank

It's not that they will necessarily be honest, but the individual has skin in the game. If something goes wrong, the individual is held accountable by reality, whereas the government official never bears responsibility. If he bankrupts the country, what happens to him? Nothing, just loses office.

Individuals who have no connection to government are as likely to be dishonest and corrupt as the government official. — Bitter Crank

No they're not - because they actually have skin in the game. If things don't go well, they don't profit. But government bureaucrats can profit even when things go badly, since they control the powers of the state.

they have more opportunity to shield their activities from the prying public eye than government officials do — Bitter Crank

Government officials who control the judiciary system and the laws of the country clearly have far more opportunity to be corrupt than mere individuals who simply have to obey a law that is not of their own making.

c. Government bureaucrats have very little knowledge about what is going on in society. — Bitter Crank

I did not say this. I said that individuals - because they work in the economy - have more knowledge than government officials about how the economy of their society works. A simple example - someone who works in business knows more about business than someone who works in an NGO. Someone who works in an NGO cannot understand what makes a business work, what the essential social structures there are, etc.

And someone who works for the government is even worse.

You alone could have added that much value? I don't think so. Again, an unrealistic, or very unrepresentative, hypothetical scenario. — Sapientia

Yes, I alone added that value, since without me that movement of goods would not have occurred. You don't seem to be willing to recognise that few people can be responsible for disproportionately large results. But this is just a fact of nature. You see this everywhere in nature, where small changes lead to vast differences in outcomes, since the underlying phenomena are non-linear. You assume that the distribution of wealth should be linear to be fair.

And yes, $20 million for one person is clearly way too much. What would one person need all of that money for? — Sapientia

Let's see, maybe I want to start a factory producing medicine. Maybe I want to invest that money in bettering - say - 3D printing technology. Maybe I will spend that money building affordable housing. Etc. I have a feeling you're thinking I or anyone else needs that money for ourselves - well obviously not. But that money is mighty useful in trying to do a lot of thing for society at a larger scale.

Do you reckon that people who want to do something for the world should go and humiliate themselves before government bureaucrats who don't do anything, begging for a few votes here and there, give a few bribes here and there (bribes aren't just monetary, they can also be in the form of promises of what you'll do once you have power), so that they can grab the governments power to make changes in society? :s I reckon not, so therefore individuals should be allowed to accumulate large sums of money. What can I do with $100K in society? Almost nothing. I can probably do a lot of things for myself, but pretty much nothing for society at large.

And government bureaucrats are incapable to do anything, why do you think they need private entrepreneurs to do things for them? :s Elon Musk's company, for example, did what NASA couldn't do for years already.

No, in practice, it means that the selfish desires of a privileged few get indulged at the expense of the many. — Sapientia

Starting a factory and the like are not selfish desires.

That is immoral, and that is not Christlike. Are you sure that Christianity is for you? — Sapientia

So developing the productive capacities of my society is immoral? :s

The only bit I agree with, to some extent, is that the stupid mob can be swayed one way or the other. — Sapientia

Right, so then you can understand that no man of character would stoop so low to beg for those people's votes. Can you imagine Marcus Aurelius begging such people for their votes? :s

'Not really' — andrewk

Democracy doesn't really exist anywhere anyway. Some people though have the illusion it does.

resist his own impulses, his own intentions - intentionally! — litewave

There is no question of resisting your own self if that's what you mean. There is no self outside your self to resist your self, so the very question is absurd. It literarily makes no sense.

And impulses are external. So yes, the self can absolutely resist those external impulses, whatever they are.

In your view, not mine. In my view, even compared to the value you added, that's still too much. — Sapientia

It's 0.4% of the value I added. That's too much? :s Really?!

Your view is selfish, my view is fair. — Sapientia

It is only selfish if "the individual" = Agustino. Otherwise if I value the individual (any individual) over society, that is not at all selfish, since it means that every individual has worth and should be respected. Society shouldn't get to oppress the individual and subjugate him to whatever 'its' aims are. Society should rather be aimed towards the aims of the individual.

If business men and women want to govern, then they should put themselves up for election, and see how they fare. — Sapientia

Well, Trump did quite well >:)

The government here is democratically elected. — Sapientia

Yes and no. Depends what role the state apparatus plays in the election. The voting can be democratic, but the counting may not be. Also, the stupid mob can be swayed one way or another by the right intelligence agencies which can pull the right strings.

You said it yourself - the impulse is you. I don't claim there is any "homunculus". You are the impulses, including the intentions, that cause your actions. And you can't choose your impulses - you can't choose your self. — litewave

Of course I can't choose my self, because that would imply to be other than my self when choosing. That would be contrary to the whole notion of being a self in the first place, and therefore contrary to even the notion of choosing. You have an incoherent model based on mechanistic assumptions.

Yes, because a $20 million bonus is too much. — Sapientia

Not compared to the value I added.

I factor in what else that money could go towards, and I factor in priorities for society. — Sapientia

So why should the government invest that money, instead of me the individual? :s Why can't the responsibility for the well-being of society rest on the individual, why must it rest on (often corrupt) government bureaucrats, who actually have very little idea of what is going on, economically, in society?

You need an impulse in order to resist an impulse. Don't forget that intentions are impulses too. If you want to do an intentional action, you need an intention, which is an impulse that drives an intentional action. — litewave

This analysis is naive because it leaves out of the question your own self. There's nothing in the picture that you can identify with your self at this point, except a homunculus who just sits there and watches as experience flows by. That's now how it works since your self is embedded within reality, within the causal chain. When you choose you process and organise impulses according to your own nature - this process alters those impulses, whatever they happen to be.

So it's impulse -> You -> action. That processing that goes on in the "you" box is your freedom. It's not determined by external impulses, it's internally determined. In your model there is no "you" box - the you is just a homonculus, who isn't part of the causal chain at all - he's just watching the causal chain. Your model is impulse -> action. On that model, of course there is no free will. But that's a naive model, which doesn't represent reality - it's based on the Cartesian illusion.

But you wouldn't be absolutely essential, so that's not a realistic scenario to consider. There'd be someone else who could get similar results for less. — Sapientia

Sure, but they would also deserve a fair share of the value they add. If they get 5-10% of it, that seems fair. It's not just that someone can do it for less. Sure, they might do that. But would that be just to themselves and others?

I think that that's excessive, and I don't agree with excessive pay. — Sapientia

Why is it excessive if I am an absolutely essential piece in the distribution of those $5 billion worth of goods? Would you rather have excessive prices due to supply shortages and the like?

Small things or few people can lead to huge results - it seems fair that they deserve their share of that success. For example, it's not unusual for a 1 word change in a Google ad to lead to x2 improvement in clickthrough rates. There exist a series of things in nature which when done right, and being done right involves just subtle differences, leads to hugely different results.

I haven't forgotten that you think that money is simply an estimation of value added. — Sapientia

Not exactly, just that money is an attempt at quantifying value (which is qualitative in many regards).

They dominated the Australian home improvement market, and they are now looking to dominate the UK home improvement market, and I think that they have a good chance of succeeding. One of the "three pillars" they have for success is best service, and they recognise the importance of staff on the front line. — Sapientia

Yes, but they are valuable quantitatively - many small amounts of value added together from all those employees. Not individually. And what adds a chunk of the value isn't their work, but the system they're all organised in. That's why retailers typically tend to have many employees. There are online businesses out there with very few employees (less than 10) running revenues of upward of $10 million. That's impossible to do in most brick and mortar retailing unless you have hundreds or thousands of employees. Retail is inherently inefficient in that way, difficult to scale.

Also, I imagine the company you work for is quite large. Large companies employ massive amounts of PR and managerial resources mainly to keep their employees happy and in check. So internal company policies are obviously structured around this goal, as well as whatever financial goals the company has. No doubt that "best service" - or marketing yourself as the best service - is highly important. It allows you to charge higher prices, and makes it easier to compete against others. It's part of your unique selling proposition.

Most popular or best selling or highly in demand doesn't necessarily correlate to best - or even good -
value — Sapientia

Sure, I said it's an approximation. Every time you try to convert something qualitative into a numerical representation, the conversion is imperfect. In some cases, it will be widely imperfect.

So take pet food. I found that out when I worked at a pet shop. The nutritional value of the pet food of the leading brands, such as Pedigree Chum, Bakers, and Whiskers, was and remains to be very poor in comparison to, for example, their own branded pet food, which sells considerably less, because of factors like it being less widely advertised and only sold in their own stores. — Sapientia

Yes, but I presume Pedigree runs a low-profit margin business based on high volume, while the local brand is a high-profit margin (high efficiency) operation, which, if marketed well, can easily scale.

Value is most important in business. And then comes marketing. But value without marketing doesn't really take you anywhere. Value is the gas, and marketing is the engine which makes the car work. And value can be a simple thing - take a look at this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pet_Rock

Even a rock is valuable. The guy made many millions selling... rocks.

Huge numbers of consumers fall for things like brand names, adverts, sales techniques, and price tags, instead of actually looking at quality or value. — Sapientia

Everyone uses sales techniques - especially the super-efficient high-value brands, which are many times smaller in size, but have significantly higher profit margins usually. Apple used to be a primary example. They were small relative to Google, Microsoft, Dell, HP, etc. - but they were super efficient because they were employing very effective marketing. While others in IT had ~25% profit margins, they had close to 40%, which is huge. A high profit margin means you can make a lot of mistakes - in the long run, you're more likely to survive than someone with low profit margins. A low profit margin means that mistakes are very costly (not that 25% is low, but you get the idea... 25% is actually very high, you usually only get that in software companies which have fewer employees than other companies :P ) .

So, going by value added, shouldn't those businesses who produce high sales for poor quality products or services receive some sort of forfeit, rather than a bonus? — Sapientia

Well, they are penalised in decreased profit margin and competition on price. That's what commodification is, when a good becomes a standard level commodity, and then the only point of competition is price.

The harsh reality is that 9 out of 10 startups fail. — Sapientia

Yes, but those startups don't fail due to bad luck. They fail for specific reasons, which have to do with the decisions the founders have taken along the way. Also, the difference between success and failure isn't all that large. Tiny differences in practice, which lead to huge differences in results.

The fantasy is that anyone can make a success of it if they just try hard enough. — Sapientia

It's not about working hard (though that is certainly part of it), it's about having the knowledge of what you need to work on.

Value, when rendered in monetary terms, is profit based. What's valuable is not. — creativesoul

How is value profit based? :s Profit is the difference between revenues and costs. If anything your profit margin is an indication of the percentage of value you keep, compared to what you pass through the economy.

Economic jargon is far too often used as a means to justify knowingly causing quantifiable harm to millions upon millions of people. — creativesoul

What do you mean?

Your choice is caused by your impulses and since you can't choose your impulses, your choice is caused by something you have not chosen. In this sense it is not free, see? — litewave

Nope, my choice isn't caused by my impulses at all. That's exactly why impulses can be resisted once they are perceived in the first place.

The individual is destined by his impulses, which he has not chosen. — litewave

:s - that's not true. Impulses may give a natural predisposition towards something, but not a destiny. We can resist impulses, fight against them, etc.

Hey! You can't post in this thread! Shooo! — Lone Wolf

:'O

I'm pretty sure that Tiff won't be using money that is debt, but that her hard earned savings. (Or I assume that is the case) — ssu

That's irrelevant.

A job in the service sector does grow the economy just like a job in a factory. If Tiff helps people be employed by casinos, that's great. — ssu

:s - a job that doesn't produce anything useful, but merely involves consumption of goods that others produce isn't useful to the economy. Quite the contrary - take a job in financial speculation on Wall Street for instance.

There is a false idea going around that spending and consumption are key to the growth of the economy. More than anything, that's a manipulation of the stupid public to encourage consumerism so that at least some of the people who produce useful things can get that money. It would be better if instead of consumption, those people invested part of that money in production.

And any way you are helping the economy to grow by spending your money. — ssu

That's wrong. The economy doesn't grow because of consumption, it grows because of production. Consumption is destructive of the value that is created actually. So only if that money goes towards a productive activity that creates value, only then does the economy grow.

What follows is that all your actions are ultimately determined by that which you have not freely willed. So they are a matter of luck. — litewave

:s

I am created by someone else. Once created I have the FREE CHOICE between A and B. I choose one of them, and therefore end where I end up. So where I end up was, to the degree that I had a choice between A and B - determined by ME and not by luck. If you cannot see this, I suggest you think about it more carefully.

If you want, the fact that I am given choices A and B, and not C, D, E, etc. is a matter of luck. But what I do with the choices I'm given, that's up to me, and most definitely not a matter of luck.

But in the ultimate sense, the individual has no control at all. — litewave

Then this ultimate sense is bullshit.

Again, you don't have a clue what you're talking about. An individual's choice is part of the causal chain. The universe is not FATALISTIC. There is a big big difference between determinism and fatalism. The individual isn't destined by absolute necessity to X or Y particular things.