What You Can't Say (2004) • Hacker News Board

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#101

Post by waps » Fri, Mar 21, 2014, 8:25 PM UTC

jbooth wrote: post #94

waps wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The key here is to find out what the relation is between his "corrupted young" (ie. his students) and the thirty tyrants.

Do you have any citations at all or is this just a theory of yours? (not being hostile, would love to see a citation as this is a new theory to me)

E.g. http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/socrates/socra...

Quote:

  The standing of Socrates among his fellow citizens suffered mightily during two periods
  in which Athenian democracy was temporarily overthrown, one four-month period in 411-410
  and another slightly longer period in 404-403.  *The prime movers in both of the anti-democratic
  movements were former pupils of Socrates, Alcibiades and Critias*. Athenians undoubtedly
  considered the teachings of Socrates--especially his expressions of disdain for the
  established constitution--partially responsible for the resulting death and suffering.
  Alcibiades, perhaps Socrates' favorite Athenian politician, masterminded the first
  overthrow.  (Alcibiades had other strikes against him: four years earlier, Alcibiades had
  fled to Sparta to avoid facing trial for mutilating religious pillars--statues of
  Hermes--and while in Sparta had proposed to that state's leaders that he help them defeat
  Athens.)  Critias, first among an oligarchy known as the "Thirty Tyrants," led the second
  bloody revolt against the restored Athenian democracy in 404.  The revolt sent many of
  Athen's leading democratic citizens (including Anytus, later the driving force behind
  the prosecution of Socrates) into exile, where they organized a resistance movement.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#102

Post by garrettgrimsley » Fri, Mar 21, 2014, 8:25 PM UTC

gus_massa wrote: post #82

hobs wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had this thought this morning, though of a slightly different tone. The radio talking head mentioned that they were going to interview an anti-civilizationist, someone who apparently thinks that developed society is unsustainable and will be the end of us all. Apparently he advocates for a return to pre-civilization? I immediately thought, "We need to be able to leap forward, not backward. If this involves some sac…

2000 yeas ago, the Earth population was ~200 Millions. (This is only an estimation, so don't take the number too seriously.) And 2000 years ago, we had ~10,000 years of agriculture and ~5,000 years of diverse grades of civilization. So, to go to a pre-civilization population level we need at least 6,900,000,000 volunteers.

Prominent primitivists such as John Zerzan openly acknowledge this.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#103

Post by Jtsummers » Fri, Mar 21, 2014, 8:28 PM UTC

waps wrote: post #92

Jtsummers wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is at least a decent case to be made that Galileo was executed Where do you get that he was executed? Also, regarding differences between Copernicus's treatment and Galileo's. Copernicus didn't publish a lot of his material, nor was it widely known, until late in life. Galileo basically stepped into the controversy that had developed after Copernicus died. Essentially, there was little controversy in Copernic…

This is my point. Galileo didn't advance knowledge by his acts, that was already done (within the scientific community if not within the wider world) (And granted, he did advance knowledge at other times on other subjects). He attempted to use it to change the state by agitating large portions of the population using that fact. I would even say he was not so much looking to change the state, rather to destroy it, bec…

Can you cite some sources on Galileo as instigator against the state? I've never heard of this before. Also, did you really mean, in your OP, to say that he was executed? That was the first I'd heard of that, and everything I checked (in an admittedly short search) indicated that he died of old age.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#104

Post by LaaT » Fri, Mar 21, 2014, 8:29 PM UTC

afterburner wrote: post #63

waps wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. Even in Paul Graham's own essay, some things are always forgotten. He's smart enough to question why the Church/Italian state attacked Galileo for repeating Copernicus' ideas, who was a celebrated hero of the church. And nobody ever realizes that Galileo was not at all interested in the scientific facts (well he was, up to the point he went insane and became a political agitator and generally a lunatic, read…

"Kemal Ataturk, an early 20th century figure that a lot more genocidal than Hitler. He also ended the 1.5 millenia long war of muslims against the west and the east, and frankly without him we would not have a modern time." Bit grandiose.

And he didn't even get his facts right. His atrocities were minor at best. Much of the killing had happened long before his time.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#105

Post by Meekro » Fri, Mar 21, 2014, 8:29 PM UTC

ggreer wrote: post #68

Here are some things I think future societies will condemn us for: 1. Prison. Almost every modern penal system focuses on punishment rather than rehabilitation. I think that as our understanding of the brain improves, we'll be able to find the causes of violent behavior and cure them. Punishment will become cruel and unusual. 2. Eating meat (and other animal rights issues). Even if they're not conscious, most tasty a…

The downside of rehabilitation is that it's really easy for the criminally minded to take advantage of. For example, if you have an opportunity to make millions from insider trading and the only risk if you get caught is that you'll get a stern talking-to about ethics, lots more people would be willing to risk it.

And meat is just so tasty!

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#106

Post by mikeash » Fri, Mar 21, 2014, 8:36 PM UTC

ChuckMcM wrote: post #14

I find that in engineering circles theology and the notion of the existence of God is one of those 'moral taboos.' And advocating more nuclear power stations or private gun ownership. It is fascinating that were you to advocate gun control in the late 19th century, it seems nearly everyone would have laughed you out of the room. But that sentiment has reversed here in the 21st century. Always interesting to think abo…

Discussing God is a completely practical taboo, though.

Most people, perhaps all people, don't arrive at their opinion on religion through rational thought. I make this claim due to the obvious fact that there are a lot of contradictory religious beliefs out there, and if most people used rational thought then you'd expect most people to have similar beliefs. They don't, thus most people aren't rational about it.

Since most, perhaps all, people are irrational about it, there's no point in discussing it. It's just going to cause anger and pain. Better to avoid it.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#107

Post by noonespecial » Fri, Mar 21, 2014, 8:37 PM UTC

Blahah wrote: post #18

robobro wrote: post #4

Do you think you'll raise your children to believe in Santa, HN?

One of my earliest memories is of Christmas eve, sharing a room at a relative's house with my younger siblings. It was some time after midnight, my siblings were asleep. I heard a rustling outside and, knowing santa was purportedly coming, I pretended to sleep and kept one eye very slightly open. In comes Santa. I can just make out his big fat belly, red suit, white beard, and a big sack. He unloads presents in vario…

Reminds me of some choice Pratchett:

Death: Humans need fantasy to be human. To be the place where the falling angel meets the rising ape.

Susan: With tooth fairies? Hogfathers?

Death: Yes. As practice, you have to start out learning to believe the little lies.

Susan: So we can believe the big ones?

Death: Yes. Justice, mercy, duty. That sort of thing.

Susan: They're not the same at all.

Death: You think so? Then take the universe and grind it down to the finest powder, and sieve it through the finest sieve, and then show me one atom of justice, one molecule of mercy. And yet, you try to act as if there is some ideal order in the world. As if there is some, some rightness in the universe, by which it may be judged.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#108

Post by coolsunglasses » Fri, Mar 21, 2014, 8:38 PM UTC

ggreer wrote: post #68

Here are some things I think future societies will condemn us for: 1. Prison. Almost every modern penal system focuses on punishment rather than rehabilitation. I think that as our understanding of the brain improves, we'll be able to find the causes of violent behavior and cure them. Punishment will become cruel and unusual. 2. Eating meat (and other animal rights issues). Even if they're not conscious, most tasty a…

#1 is only partly correct insofar as some people that can be helped.

Sociopathy is permanent and uncurable. It's also common among people with a criminal record. Sifting those out from otherwise lost but psychonormal individuals is not trivial.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#109

Post by mikeash » Fri, Mar 21, 2014, 8:39 PM UTC

declan wrote: post #90

afterburner wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't it anti-gun-control that takes on a religious import? "From my cold dead hands" and all that?

Not in the same way. I know the chairman of the Calguns Foundation (hoffmang on Twitter), who's also for HN purposes the chairman and CEO of a ~200-employee Silicon Valley recurring billing/subscription management startup. My understanding of his position, and I may of course have it wrong or be misremembering, is that he's okay with some form of background checks, perhaps via proof of backgroundcheckness, for owners…

So you pick two people, one moderate and one extreme, and pretend they're representative?

Most people's opinions on this stuff is somewhere in the middle (i.e. there should be some regulations on guns but some private gun ownership should be allowed). There are extremists on both sides. On one side it manifests as "ban them all" and on the other side it's "no regulation whatsoever".

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#110

Post by oskarth » Fri, Mar 21, 2014, 8:39 PM UTC

ggreer wrote: post #68

Here are some things I think future societies will condemn us for: 1. Prison. Almost every modern penal system focuses on punishment rather than rehabilitation. I think that as our understanding of the brain improves, we'll be able to find the causes of violent behavior and cure them. Punishment will become cruel and unusual. 2. Eating meat (and other animal rights issues). Even if they're not conscious, most tasty a…

While you may be right that future generations will condemn us for them, none of those things are remotely controversial enough. You can say any of them in almost any setting and people will mostly yawn. Many people think prisons should be banished, or at least severely limited (especially US prisons); there are plenty of popular vegetarians out there; assisted suicided is just your average polarizing subject.

This is what pg wrote five years ago, referencing this essay:

Just as well I've avoided saying most of the "things you can't say," or 90% of the people who read that essay and think "hear, hear" would hate me instead.... (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=255492)