Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Andreessen Horowitz to give half their earnings to charity

finance.fortune.cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 194 posts

Re: Andreessen Horowitz to give half their earnings to charity

#181

Post by xanados »

olalonde wrote: post #174
WalterBright wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Libertarianism is about people being free to choose what to do with their money. If they choose to give to charity, light cigars with banknotes, spend it on blackjack & hookers, invest in space flight, etc., it's all their right to make that choice. It isn't about the relative virtue of doing this or that.

Ayn Rand was a harsh critic of libertarianism. That's a bit funny considering how close her philosophy is to libertarianism.

I unfortunately can't find a reference (but I'm hoping someone else can!), but my understanding is that group conflict is often greater between those who have similar ideologies than between those of very different ideologies. For example, Emacs vs. Vi rather than Emacs/Vi vs. Visual Studio or Lisp vs. Scheme rather than Lisp/Scheme vs. everything else.

Re: Andreessen Horowitz to give half their earnings to charity

#182

Post by _delirium »

javert wrote: post #180
_delirium wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That view of compromise is actually at the core of what I don't see convincingly argued for. Why shouldn't we compromise on principles, rather than just concretes, if it would produce pragmatically better outcomes? Why is it better to have dueling, inflexible idealized political positions, the hardline socialist against the hardline capitalist, each knowing they're right through some kind of metaphysical inspiration…

You seem to believe that there is a conflict between principles and reality. AR did not. Because principles are induced from reality and are always true (within the relevant context). (By "principles" here, I mean correct ones.)

That's what I think is clearly a sham in her work: her unacknowledged Nietzschean influence is quite strong, and like him, she does not deduce principles from reality, but from metaphysical first principles that are arrived at through an obscure armchair-philosophizing process, certainly not an inductive, scientific one.

That there is really no nuance or context in her novels (or other work) follows fairly directly: these are idealized, metaphysical types, and an empirical or inductive methodology is nowhere in sight. She occasionally claims something about induction, but does not actually follow any such methodology, certainly not in any rigorous fashion.

Re: Andreessen Horowitz to give half their earnings to charity

#183

Post by _delirium »

javert wrote: post #123
_delirium wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like to think I'm fairly familiar with Ayn Rand's work, though I'm by no means an expert. I'm a computer scientist, but my philosophy minor was supervised by one of the few tenured professors who specializes in Rand scholarship in academia (and he is a fan of hers). I don't really see this as far off, though. Rand really did believe that it was unethical to be altruistic. Not because it led to negative outcomes, or…

Who was your supervisor?

One of the people on this page, but I'll let you guess which one. :) http://www.aynrandsociety.org/

Re: Andreessen Horowitz to give half their earnings to charity

#184

Post by josephjrobison »

PKop wrote: post #178
lhnz wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She was against people feeling like they had an obligation to self-sacrifice, but she wasn't against charity as the projection of one's own values [1]. A lot of people misunderstand Ayn Rand. [1] http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/charity.html

One of the best interviews I've seen with Ayn Rand, in her own words if anybody cares to read: http://ellensplace.net/ar_pboy.html

It's important to actually see it in context. I may not agree with her whole overall worldview, but there are parts that are good, and reading her actual words in context shows she's not really a lunatic or savage.

Re: Andreessen Horowitz to give half their earnings to charity

#185

Post by jimmyvanhalen »

irahul wrote: post #157
daenz wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's like claiming that Michael Phelps's 14 gold medals should carry no weight in a discussion of whether or not he's a good swimmer. Not really. It's like Michael Phelp's 14 gold medals should carry no weight in a discussion of whether or not his butterfly stroke has room for improvement. No one is arguing that Andreessan is not good at making money. If people were, then your analogy would be correct. People are a…

> Having 14 gold medals does not prove to anyone that your butterfly stoke technique could not be better. Having 14 gold medals means that though his butterfly stroke might or might not need improvement, a random punk on the internet doesn't have the authority to make a judgement call. > Nor does earning a lot of money prove that you always make good decisions with money. Take my $100 toilet paper example. Earning a…

the "random punk" is probably a swimming coach ;)

Re: Andreessen Horowitz to give half their earnings to charity

#186

Post by javert »

_delirium wrote: post #183
javert wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who was your supervisor?

One of the people on this page, but I'll let you guess which one. :) http://www.aynrandsociety.org/

I'm interested in finding out if it's the one who is at my school, but like you, I'm hesitant to dilute my own anonymity.

Re: Andreessen Horowitz to give half their earnings to charity

#187

Post by daenz »

gjm11 wrote: post #170
daenz wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your goal is to increase the amount of donations to a charity, then by all means, do it publicly...inspire and/or pressure others to do the same. If your goal is a personal exercise in selflessness and giving, then do it anonymously.

And which is the more selfless-and-giving of the two goals? The one that's about maximizing the benefit to a charitable organization, or the one that's about maximizing one's personal selflessness?

Depends, one is a short term investment and the other is a long term investment. Which is more giving and selfless: giving a man a fish, or investing time in learning how to be a great fishing teacher, then teaching men to fish?

Re: Andreessen Horowitz to give half their earnings to charity

#188

Post by javert »

_delirium wrote: post #182
javert wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to believe that there is a conflict between principles and reality. AR did not. Because principles are induced from reality and are always true (within the relevant context). (By "principles" here, I mean correct ones.)

That's what I think is clearly a sham in her work: her unacknowledged Nietzschean influence is quite strong, and like him, she does not deduce principles from reality, but from metaphysical first principles that are arrived at through an obscure armchair-philosophizing process, certainly not an inductive, scientific one. That there is really no nuance or context in her novels (or other work) follows fairly directly:…

her unacknowledged Nietzschean influence is quite strong

Can you point to one actual claim made by AR that is in common with Nietzche? I seriously doubt there is one.

Going away from actual claims to mere generalities, yes, AR and Nietzche were both "individualists" in a sense - but in a totally different one. Nietzche in a predatory way, AR in a "mutual trade for mutual benefit" way.

she does not deduce principles from reality, but from metaphysical first principles

She doesn't decduce, she induces, and she does not do it from metaphysical first principles at all. Her core metaphysics is axiomatic, but the rest of her philosophy is inducted from reality. Most of her philosophical essays are just summaries of the results of this process. There is no work that "competely induces" Objectivism. There are a couple of works by Leonard Peikoff that talk about the Objective process of doing this. Until recently, they were only recorded lectures, but "Understanding Objectivism" was just released as a book.

That there is really no nuance or context in her novels

A lot of people don't "get" the novels. Just a few days ago an Objectivist was telling me how mind-blowing Atlas Shrugged is, because there are about "12 layers" (quoting him) of meaning in any given chapter. You would be surprised. It does not appear to be this way on the surface.

Re: Andreessen Horowitz to give half their earnings to charity

#189

Post by daenz »

yesbabyyes wrote: post #161
daenz wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wasn't bragging. I was trying to relate...I made an ad hominem attack and was called out on it. I don't really have an opinion on the actual thing being discussed though, other than my comments back and forth with "paul"

I don't really have an opinion on the actual thing being discussed though, other than my comments back and forth with "paul" I.e., trolling. Yeah, I know.

These are my actual beliefs and I'm arguing their merit civilly. Unpopular != Troll.

Re: Andreessen Horowitz to give half their earnings to charity

#190

Post by daenz »

jimmyvanhalen wrote: post #185
irahul wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Having 14 gold medals does not prove to anyone that your butterfly stoke technique could not be better. Having 14 gold medals means that though his butterfly stroke might or might not need improvement, a random punk on the internet doesn't have the authority to make a judgement call. > Nor does earning a lot of money prove that you always make good decisions with money. Take my $100 toilet paper example. Earning a…

the "random punk" is probably a swimming coach ;)

That's the point. The defense should be valid whether or not the identity of the critic is known.
Post reply on HN