This is a reply to an FI post:
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/fallible-ideas/conversations/messages/11100
On Aug 23, 2015, at 6:58 PM, Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum petrogradphilosopher@gmail.com [fallible-ideas] <fallible-ideas@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
> On Aug 23, 2015, at 4:04 AM, Elliot Temple <curi@curi.us> wrote:
>
>> At least preferences about nature and reality are good. But preferences about humans are dangerous.
>
> Great distinction. people are autonomous thinkers with their own preferences. having preferences about what they do doesn't make sense.
>
> reminds me of the part in atlas shrugged when the government wants people to treat their arbitrary edicts as facts of nature. the govt was trying to blur a similar distinction.
>
>> How do you maintain autonomy without giving up being selective and discerning? Or do you have preferences about people but then never ask anyone to meet them and just kinda passively hope?
>
> i hope that Elliot keeps participating in public philosophy discussions.
Because you think that's better (for you) than if Elliot stops participating in public discussions. Right?
> I don't think that counts as a preference about him because I would only want him to do that if he thinks it best.
As far as I know, having preferences for people is compatible with the preference that those people only interact together voluntarily. You seem to think otherwise but you're not explaining why.
-- Rami
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/fallible-ideas/conversations/messages/11100
On Aug 23, 2015, at 6:58 PM, Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum petrogradphilosopher@gmail.com [fallible-ideas] <fallible-ideas@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
> On Aug 23, 2015, at 4:04 AM, Elliot Temple <curi@curi.us> wrote:
>
>> At least preferences about nature and reality are good. But preferences about humans are dangerous.
>
> Great distinction. people are autonomous thinkers with their own preferences. having preferences about what they do doesn't make sense.
>
> reminds me of the part in atlas shrugged when the government wants people to treat their arbitrary edicts as facts of nature. the govt was trying to blur a similar distinction.
>
>> How do you maintain autonomy without giving up being selective and discerning? Or do you have preferences about people but then never ask anyone to meet them and just kinda passively hope?
>
> i hope that Elliot keeps participating in public philosophy discussions.
Because you think that's better (for you) than if Elliot stops participating in public discussions. Right?
> I don't think that counts as a preference about him because I would only want him to do that if he thinks it best.
As far as I know, having preferences for people is compatible with the preference that those people only interact together voluntarily. You seem to think otherwise but you're not explaining why.
-- Rami
No comments:
Post a Comment