81–90 of 119 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Realistically, art is whatever the art community considers art, either at the time or after the fact. That's why John Cage can be an artist for being quiet whereas I'm just being quiet.
That's simply avoiding the question. For what reasons does the art community consider some things art and others not?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have any evidence I can read to refute Moldbug, or are we stopping at name-calling?
Evidence to refute which assertion and to refute which arguments offered in favor of that assertion?
It's far better than the trendy Jared Diamond writing. IMHO, Jared Diamond's collapse is a book written from end to beginning, much like Guns, Germs and Steel to simply reconfirm existing left of center ideas by torturing and cherry picking the data to ignore anything that doesn't reconfirm accepted and popular political narratives.
Joseph A. Tainter's The Collapse Of Complex Societies is a bit academic but very good study of civilizational collapse. It has a lot of data, studies many different civilizations and examines all popular theories of civilizational collapse. It points to diminshing marginal returns on increasing complexity in civilizations as the mechanism of collapse. It's far better than the trendy Jared Diamond writing. IMHO, Jared…
There is fundamentally sound economics behind the authors theory, but there's also really easy to understand logic: IF you have a strong state that controls the economy, then everything that is done must be authorized by the state. This is necessary if the purpose of the state is to extract the nations wealth to profit an elite few. If you have a weak state, then experiments can be tried, and while many experiments w…
This is only true where a strong state exists to enforce monopoly of violence. Businesses are perfectly capable of imposing edicts by violence where there is none.
Once again Occam's butterknife is spotted in the wild. Richard Lynn, call your office: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations
I can't get past how needlessly wordy this article is. It's as if someone is trying to flaunt their language skills and it distracts me from the actual content; I must admit that I read the whole thing and did not catch wind of the author's point. Sentences like these just read as nonsense to me: "The intuition behind the theory is nonetheless compelling, which makes the scarcity of policy prescriptions frustrating."
Once again Occam's butterknife is spotted in the wild. Richard Lynn, call your office: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations
The graph on the Wikipedia page looks like it would correlate well with climate. (I've always had a pet theory about climate and the history of academic and economic development.)
Once again Occam's butterknife is spotted in the wild. Richard Lynn, call your office: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations