You should in my view listen to it at the speed which maximizes your understanding of the material presented in the lecture. I am thankful of Dr. Gordons speed of speech, it was very informative and very enlightening of the arguments presented by Nozick. It is a magnificent lecture. My only complaint is that it lasted no longer, in order to present more arguments, than it did. I feel Dr. Gordon has more to say about the arguments against Nozick than what we saw here, and I would very much like to hear that :)
Nice exposition on the strengths and weaknesses of Nozick's nonchalent magnum opus. Also, I recommend the rather fiery commentary found in the preface of The Ethics of Liberty (Rothbard, 1982) written by Hans Hermann Hoppe, in which he tears Nozick's work asunder unlike anyone else.
I like how people misconstrue asking a philosophical question that checks assumptions (critical thinking) with endorsing an actual thing. It is annoying when people infer something you don't imply. coining the term "Misinfermation™" now.
Wittgenstein, Elizabeth Taylor, Bertrand Russell, Thomas Merton, Yogi Berra, Allen Ginsberg, Harry Wolfson, Thoreau, Casey Stengel, The Lubavitcher Rebbe, Picasso, Moses, Einstein, Hugh Hefner, Socrates, Henry Ford, Lenny Bruce, Baba Ram Dass, Gandhi, Sir Edmund Hillary, Raymond Lubitz, Buddha, Frank Sinatra, Columbus, Freud, Norman Mailer, Ayn Rand, Baron Rothschild, Ted Williams, Thomas Edison, H.L. Mencken, Thomas Jefferson, Ralph Ellison, Bobby Fischer, Emma Goldman, Peter Kropotkin, you, and your parents. Is there really one kind of life which is best for each of these people?
Kon Berner Not one specific kind of life - this would be like saying everyone is the same - but in general a life that enables both a striving towards something and freedom of expression. This way, those who don't feel like striving virtuously can derive some satisfaction by bitching and moaning about it :)
Nozick provides a sort of solution to this. Believing that the ancap approach does this is, I think, false. If someone wants to live like a commie, you can either be supportive of them doing that with like-minded others or you can claim it is absolutely inferior... Nozick explicitly selected the former.
Kon Berner I have trouble with the ancap idea of self ownership...considering there are more bacteria than human cells in my body, and my view that what happens in the mind is representational. To some degree I find use ownership valid eg taking in a breath, but not so much land or property ownership. Land stewardship would be more accurate. The corporative model that isn't geared solely towards profit and that has environmental regulations in place seems like the way to go, since in this way use is enabled while ownership headaches are avoided. Here's a good video on giving up the right to ownership ruclips.net/video/WAGU5WCRZnE/видео.html but I wouldn't want to impose this on anyone...just saying it's nice to have as an option. I agree with Nozick in being supportive of other lifestyles, since thinking otherwise would be saying everyone is (or should be) the same. I even have trouble with the idea of eudaimonia. Sometimes people do their best work in less than ideal situations. Take Nietzsche, for example, he might have been virtuous but I doubt there was a lot of well being going on. Instead, there was striving and free expression. So the kind of life that would encourage the greatest good would be one that removed obstacles to this.
Listen with 1.25x speed.
I need a 4x speed at least
2x speed seemed like normal for me. How are these other people listening at 3x and 4x speeds ? RUclips doesn't provide that option
You should in my view listen to it at the speed which maximizes your understanding of the material presented in the lecture. I am thankful of Dr. Gordons speed of speech, it was very informative and very enlightening of the arguments presented by Nozick. It is a magnificent lecture. My only complaint is that it lasted no longer, in order to present more arguments, than it did. I feel Dr. Gordon has more to say about the arguments against Nozick than what we saw here, and I would very much like to hear that :)
Thank you
Thank you. I got the 40 minutes and it was like my goodness I have to do something about this
Nice exposition on the strengths and weaknesses of Nozick's nonchalent magnum opus. Also, I recommend the rather fiery commentary found in the preface of The Ethics of Liberty (Rothbard, 1982) written by Hans Hermann Hoppe, in which he tears Nozick's work asunder unlike anyone else.
Oh! One of my fave books :) Thanks David.
first saw the book in the sopranos, i wanted to call the based department
Has David Chase read this book?
Interesting video - and equally interesting comments.
You can learn a lot from listening to David Gordon.
Is there a transcript of this lecture anywhere to be found?
I like how people misconstrue asking a philosophical question that checks assumptions (critical thinking) with endorsing an actual thing. It is annoying when people infer something you don't imply. coining the term "Misinfermation™" now.
Sir Bengali version request.
I could not find a bengali version, but here is the English version in writing archive.org/details/0001AnarchyStateAndUtopia/page/n251/mode/2up
Wittgenstein, Elizabeth Taylor, Bertrand Russell, Thomas Merton, Yogi Berra, Allen Ginsberg, Harry Wolfson, Thoreau, Casey Stengel, The Lubavitcher Rebbe, Picasso, Moses, Einstein, Hugh Hefner, Socrates, Henry Ford, Lenny Bruce, Baba Ram Dass, Gandhi, Sir Edmund Hillary, Raymond Lubitz, Buddha, Frank Sinatra, Columbus, Freud, Norman Mailer, Ayn Rand, Baron Rothschild, Ted Williams, Thomas Edison, H.L. Mencken, Thomas Jefferson, Ralph Ellison, Bobby Fischer, Emma Goldman, Peter Kropotkin, you, and your parents. Is there really one kind of life which is best for each of these people?
Yes. It's called Eudaimonia, go read Aristotle's N. Ethics
What if our idea of "right action" varies? Who decides? Do you think the well-being of all the above can be driven by the same kind of life?
Kon Berner Not one specific kind of life - this would be like saying everyone is the same - but in general a life that enables both a striving towards something and freedom of expression. This way, those who don't feel like striving virtuously can derive some satisfaction by bitching and moaning about it :)
Nozick provides a sort of solution to this. Believing that the ancap approach does this is, I think, false. If someone wants to live like a commie, you can either be supportive of them doing that with like-minded others or you can claim it is absolutely inferior... Nozick explicitly selected the former.
Kon Berner I have trouble with the ancap idea of self ownership...considering there are more bacteria than human cells in my body, and my view that what happens in the mind is representational. To some degree I find use ownership valid eg taking in a breath, but not so much land or property ownership. Land stewardship would be more accurate. The corporative model that isn't geared solely towards profit and that has environmental regulations in place seems like the way to go, since in this way use is enabled while ownership headaches are avoided. Here's a good video on giving up the right to ownership ruclips.net/video/WAGU5WCRZnE/видео.html but I wouldn't want to impose this on anyone...just saying it's nice to have as an option. I agree with Nozick in being supportive of other lifestyles, since thinking otherwise would be saying everyone is (or should be) the same.
I even have trouble with the idea of eudaimonia. Sometimes people do their best work in less than ideal situations. Take Nietzsche, for example, he might have been virtuous but I doubt there was a lot of well being going on. Instead, there was striving and free expression. So the kind of life that would encourage the greatest good would be one that removed obstacles to this.
Very slow moving.