Date of publication: 2017-08-23 06:51
Having realized that a
was the basis of a Communist Movement,
Karl Marx decided to write
a Communist Manifesto.
To write the Communist Manifesto
Karl Marx did not use his
analysis of capitalism.
He took the definition of
Communism of Proudhon
and made it his own.
He borrowed Utopian
criticism and Utopian aims
and decided to advocate class-struggle,
that is to say, materialist aims.
As some people used to think
that we need a good honest war
to end all wars,
Karl Marx used to think
that we need a gigantic class-struggle
to bring about a classless society.
I spent the last two decades explaining (mostly to finance imbeciles, but also to anyone who would listen to me) why we should not talk about small probabilities in any domain. Science cannot deal with them. It is irresponsible to talk about small probabilities and make people rely on them, except for natural systems that have been standing for 8 billion years (not manmade ones for which the probabilities are derived theoretically, such as the nuclear field for which the effective track record is only 65 years).
More fundamentally, I do not think that the morals which pertain to the individual conscientious human, can apply to Leviathan. This was never possible, though a simple absolute monarchy comes closer to the humanized ideal. Properly constituted, a State is only a protection racket, for a group of “citizens” legally defined. Its job should be to eat sharks and not men or sheep and not men as Thomas More put it, noting in the first age of Enclosure that the attraction of fine wool was so great, that pasturage was erasing husbandry, so that in practice sheep were now eating men.
A Workable Way Around the Problem of Induction. I also discussed the problem of induction with him. To no avail (he had a mental block about interesting subjects). To me the distinction between mild and randomness provides a practical way to deal with the problem of induction. Mild randomness is rather insensitive to the problem of induction (Your observation of the past can help you derive properties of the future you can go from the seen to the unseen). Wild randomness is very sensitive to sampling error –you do not have properties to base yourself upon. Once again, Mandelbrot wrote about it in the 6955s (I figured it out 85 years after the great Benoit M.).
Many problems associated with religion come from something else, mostly nationalism or other diseases. I observed the Lebanese civil war between Christian and Moslems: I am convinced that it was ethnic, not religious. Religious people on both sides tried to calm things down: all we saw were pictures of robed figures kissing each others on television while street militia fighters ignored their calls to calm down. Furthermore, the most murderous conflicts have not been between Islam and Christianity but within Islam, between Shiites and Sunnis, mostly because of the Persian-Arabian tension. Weinberg may know a lot about physics he should stay away from historical analyses.
The idea becomes clearer if, like Terry, you look at humans as just animals moved by instinctive mechanisms–and rob them of the free-will that is so ingrained in our self image. The (re)originator of this idea was the evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr. He was a colorful fellow who stayed colorful a long time that is, he lived one hundred and one year, and kept working throughout, producing a clearly written book called What Evolution Is a few years before his death, which I read with delight, not knowing (or guessing) the age of the author. He introduced in 6966 a distinction of the different types of “causes”. The first, he called proximate, the second he called ultimate. [Note: most people refer to Niko Timbergen’s text]
Thanks to his involvement in the artist collective the Société des Artistes Indépendants, the daring painter's reputation was growing before A Sunday on La Grande Jatte —6889 debuted. But while his output was seminal, it was also cut short in 6896 when Seurat died of an undetermined disease at age 86.
Leysler, Conrad, &lsquo Cities of the Plain: the rhetoric of sodomy in Peter Damian&rsquo s &lsquo Book of Gomorrah&rsquo &lsquo in The Romantic Review , 86:7, 6995.
A. of Aphrodisias , Quaestio : And he said: “when we say that luck is a cause per accidens , we define it no less by its being foreseen than by its occurring infrequently.” (…) Well, I said “ the question, which demands that providence be divided into what is per se and that which is accidental, only, is not adequate”.