5 ms·

Nothing he said is out of line with what a lot of classical liberals were saying throughout the 19th century and they were refining ideas that basically go back

Nothing he said is out of line with what a lot of classical liberals were saying throughout the 19th century and they were refining ideas that basically go back to Aristotle. If echoing their thoughts qualifies one to be a pseudo-intellectual then I'm going to guess in horror at what you consider to be genuine intellectual thought.

mjburgess 13y ago
He isnt "echoing their thoughts" any one who has read Adam Smith systematically would know that the very first few lines of this are explicitly rejected by him. They're childish research-lite versions of a 50s-style classical liberalism. It is much the same as Ayn Rand another amateur philosopher who knew very little on the topics she was writing about. I dislike the "talking head" approach to serious topics. I dont think "giving your opinion" excuses a lack of serious research. Half-baked, under-informed opinion isnt truth or even the attempt to reach it; regardless of whether it is phrased with feigned objectivity. I wouldnt be too annoyed if he wasnt glorified by other $-eye'd idiots.
- jswinghammer 13y ago
  And anyone who has done any serious reading of economics is well aware that Smith is hardly considered authoritative on any subject in economics. His only insights are almost word for word copies from Cantillon. I'm not the biggest fan of Rand but she's far from a joke. Her writings deserve to analyzed and taken as seriously as any other philosopher. I don't know if PG is the right about everything he says or even most of what he says but he has inspired a lot of people to do things (largely for the good of society). A philosopher could hope for little more I suspect (not even suggesting PG would self-ascribe that term but I would ascribe it to him).
- ars_technician 13y ago
  >I dislike the "talking head" approach to serious topics. Similar to your unsubstantiated comment about Ayn Rand?
  - mjburgess 13y ago
    It's the opinion of any academic philosopher who has ever reviewed her. It also has nothing to do with her individualistic/libertarian view - Nozick, for example, who shares many of the same conclusions wrote a detailed review of her books in which he exposed her arguments and philosophical analysis as barely at an undergraduate level. This is why Nozick and others are taught in political philosophy and not ayn rand. You can listen to a somewhat detailed introductory treatment by people well-read in philosophy here: http://www.partiallyexaminedlife.com/2013/07/01/ep78-ayn-rand/ http://www.partiallyexaminedlife.com/2013/07/01/ep78-ayn-ran.... One of her greatest sins is her perpetually trashing people like Kant whilst having no idea what theyve said - because she makes many of the very same points. pg does this too.
- MoosePlissken 13y ago
  You obviously appreciate thoughtful investigation into serious topics, and that's commendable. But I think you're going a bit too far here. I think most people on HN enjoy pg's essays because they tend to be well written and logical. You're annoyed by some of the things he's written/spoken about, but that doesn't mean everyone who likes the guy is a "$-eye'd idiot". You're getting a negative reaction because you've gone totally off topic for the sole purpose of personally attacking people.
  - mercer 13y ago
    Spot on. I mostly agree with the content of mjburgess' comments, but I feel they're not really justified in this context. I occasionally read a comment here that seems to be fawning a bit too much over pg, and just shrug and move on. I don't get the impression that there's a serious personality cult thing going on, nor do I get the impression that pg actively cultivates such a thing. pg writes candidly (but respectfully) from the perspective of someone who has been very successful in some areas, and has opinions on other areas. His world view shines through clearly and he doesn't seem to claim authority (or not too often, anyways) on the issues. In fact, I started enjoying his articles long before I was even aware of HN or of who he was. He just seemed like a bright dude with interesting articles to me. I find everything he writes fascinating, and the closer to his expertise, the more 'value' I ascribe to his writing. But he isn't, nor does he seem to want to be, some kind of guru on all matters of life. He seems pretty honest. The fact that he has a relatively small group of starry-eyed followers exhibiting cult-like behavior is not really his fault, but just a natural consequence of his fame/success. I don't think it warrants mjburgess' response. But maybe I'm missing something or underestimating the degree of cult-like following going on?
    - mjburgess 13y ago
      The number of defenders coming out of the woodwork may perhaps suggest something. Whenever one writes something critical about pg or one of his articles you get many people making cultish appeals to authority, "what do you know, he's founded x/y/z" though this has nothing to do with his credibility on Q topic.
  - 13y ago

mjburgess 13y ago

He isnt "echoing their thoughts" any one who has read Adam Smith systematically would know that the very first few lines of this are explicitly rejected by him. They're childish research-lite versions of a 50s-style classical liberalism. It is much the same as Ayn Rand another amateur philosopher who knew very little on the topics she was writing about. I dislike the "talking head" approach to serious topics. I dont think "giving your opinion" excuses a lack of serious research. Half-baked, under-informed opinion isnt truth or even the attempt to reach it; regardless of whether it is phrased with feigned objectivity. I wouldnt be too annoyed if he wasnt glorified by other $-eye'd idiots.

jswinghammer 13y ago
And anyone who has done any serious reading of economics is well aware that Smith is hardly considered authoritative on any subject in economics. His only insights are almost word for word copies from Cantillon. I'm not the biggest fan of Rand but she's far from a joke. Her writings deserve to analyzed and taken as seriously as any other philosopher. I don't know if PG is the right about everything he says or even most of what he says but he has inspired a lot of people to do things (largely for the good of society). A philosopher could hope for little more I suspect (not even suggesting PG would self-ascribe that term but I would ascribe it to him).
ars_technician 13y ago
>I dislike the "talking head" approach to serious topics. Similar to your unsubstantiated comment about Ayn Rand?
- mjburgess 13y ago
  It's the opinion of any academic philosopher who has ever reviewed her. It also has nothing to do with her individualistic/libertarian view - Nozick, for example, who shares many of the same conclusions wrote a detailed review of her books in which he exposed her arguments and philosophical analysis as barely at an undergraduate level. This is why Nozick and others are taught in political philosophy and not ayn rand. You can listen to a somewhat detailed introductory treatment by people well-read in philosophy here: http://www.partiallyexaminedlife.com/2013/07/01/ep78-ayn-rand/ http://www.partiallyexaminedlife.com/2013/07/01/ep78-ayn-ran.... One of her greatest sins is her perpetually trashing people like Kant whilst having no idea what theyve said - because she makes many of the very same points. pg does this too.
MoosePlissken 13y ago
You obviously appreciate thoughtful investigation into serious topics, and that's commendable. But I think you're going a bit too far here. I think most people on HN enjoy pg's essays because they tend to be well written and logical. You're annoyed by some of the things he's written/spoken about, but that doesn't mean everyone who likes the guy is a "$-eye'd idiot". You're getting a negative reaction because you've gone totally off topic for the sole purpose of personally attacking people.
- mercer 13y ago
  Spot on. I mostly agree with the content of mjburgess' comments, but I feel they're not really justified in this context. I occasionally read a comment here that seems to be fawning a bit too much over pg, and just shrug and move on. I don't get the impression that there's a serious personality cult thing going on, nor do I get the impression that pg actively cultivates such a thing. pg writes candidly (but respectfully) from the perspective of someone who has been very successful in some areas, and has opinions on other areas. His world view shines through clearly and he doesn't seem to claim authority (or not too often, anyways) on the issues. In fact, I started enjoying his articles long before I was even aware of HN or of who he was. He just seemed like a bright dude with interesting articles to me. I find everything he writes fascinating, and the closer to his expertise, the more 'value' I ascribe to his writing. But he isn't, nor does he seem to want to be, some kind of guru on all matters of life. He seems pretty honest. The fact that he has a relatively small group of starry-eyed followers exhibiting cult-like behavior is not really his fault, but just a natural consequence of his fame/success. I don't think it warrants mjburgess' response. But maybe I'm missing something or underestimating the degree of cult-like following going on?
  - mjburgess 13y ago
    The number of defenders coming out of the woodwork may perhaps suggest something. Whenever one writes something critical about pg or one of his articles you get many people making cultish appeals to authority, "what do you know, he's founded x/y/z" though this has nothing to do with his credibility on Q topic.
- 13y ago