Hi Arjun. Are your able to share the unedited version of this discussion. I'm a Popperian myself and I find Yaron's criticism on Popper's epistemology and the beginning of infinity very interesting.
Thank you Arjun for this content. I appreciate your thoughtful questions discussion with Yaron. Very enjoyable. Yaron expressed the concerns many of us have with Beginning of Infinity. I found it very frustrating to read with its foundation in innate ideas as a starting point of epistemology. That said, your desire for critical rationalists and objectivists to better understanding each others philosophy and have more meaningful conversations is much appreciated. Thank you again. If you have the interests, I discuss much of this on my channel and in my books on Metaphysics and Epistemology. My third book on Ethics will be available soon as well. Thank you for your content.
I (provisionally?) stopped minute 12 after Yaron Brook made his argument defending the inevitability of inequality of wealth & saying that the only way we can get rid of it is by use of force and infringement on individual liberties. It all stems from attribution of moral desert for one’s success or failure. This is not the best theory we have atm (It further stems from one’s theory of free will but you don’t need to go there). See Michael Sandel for a comprehensive critique of moral consequences of meritocracy & what we might do about it.
Like all libertarians, he uses straw men. It is seldom about creating complete equality. It's mostly a matter of some alignment. Public schools are, of course, a terrible tyranny. But they give the children of parents without money a better chance. And which is also not uninteresting. Inequality also limits freedoms. If I have an uneducated population based on bad conditions, the political system is not very stable. Also, perhaps not all citizens can afford high walls to hide behind them from grateful fellow citizens.
Objectivism says that there is one reality that we have to learn by using reason, and ethically live in win-win scenarios with each other. The result of this is inequality, because everyone is different and therefore yield different results based on their merit. Nevertheless, everyone who is productive does yield results and therefore all improve, which is amplified by the elites selling life changing products to the people with less money. How else do you stop this if not with force?
Interesting at first. But it got boring quickly. The usual libertarian tales of how wealth was so historically generated. Plus straw men.I found the ideas interesting when I was 20, when I still didn't know much about history. With age it sounds like mundane defense strategy of status qou. With the difference that normal conservatism acts less arrogantly.
There is no argument in your comment. It's essentially just an insult, along the lines of "These ideas are childish (but I will provide no argument to back up this assertion)".
@@freetrade8830 As far as I can remember, the interviewee advocated a tougher approach to the Iraq war. Which also fits the logic. Objectivism is only considered an immunization strategy against left-wing criticism. Otherwise the general public will be called very quickly "Brook argues that Islamic terrorists initiated a war against the West because they hate its culture, wealth, love of life, and global influence" How mentally handicapped do you have to be to argue like that?. It also likes to stay in the abstract. In practice, it mostly boils down to why you can't collect taxes to fund a public school for workers' children. If the child wants to go to school, it can earn money.-In addition, there are relatively ridiculous assumptions about the history of the market economy.
Yaron's thoughts are gold!
Pretty cool video, thanks for the interesting information :)
Very interesting episode 👏
Hi Arjun. Are your able to share the unedited version of this discussion. I'm a Popperian myself and I find Yaron's criticism on Popper's epistemology and the beginning of infinity very
interesting.
Thank you Arjun for this content. I appreciate your thoughtful questions discussion with Yaron. Very enjoyable. Yaron expressed the concerns many of us have with Beginning of Infinity. I found it very frustrating to read with its foundation in innate ideas as a starting point of epistemology. That said, your desire for critical rationalists and objectivists to better understanding each others philosophy and have more meaningful conversations is much appreciated. Thank you again. If you have the interests, I discuss much of this on my channel and in my books on Metaphysics and Epistemology. My third book on Ethics will be available soon as well.
Thank you for your content.
Karl Popper was completely wrong.
I (provisionally?) stopped minute 12 after Yaron Brook made his argument defending the inevitability of inequality of wealth & saying that the only way we can get rid of it is by use of force and infringement on individual liberties. It all stems from attribution of moral desert for one’s success or failure. This is not the best theory we have atm (It further stems from one’s theory of free will but you don’t need to go there). See Michael Sandel for a comprehensive critique of moral consequences of meritocracy & what we might do about it.
Like all libertarians, he uses straw men. It is seldom about creating complete equality. It's mostly a matter of some alignment. Public schools are, of course, a terrible tyranny. But they give the children of parents without money a better chance.
And which is also not uninteresting. Inequality also limits freedoms. If I have an uneducated population based on bad conditions, the political system is not very stable. Also, perhaps not all citizens can afford high walls to hide behind them from grateful fellow citizens.
Objectivism says that there is one reality that we have to learn by using reason, and ethically live in win-win scenarios with each other. The result of this is inequality, because everyone is different and therefore yield different results based on their merit. Nevertheless, everyone who is productive does yield results and therefore all improve, which is amplified by the elites selling life changing products to the people with less money. How else do you stop this if not with force?
@@Vernichterlein too much emphasis on negative liberty instead of positive liberty,
Interesting at first. But it got boring quickly. The usual libertarian tales of how wealth was so historically generated. Plus straw men.I found the ideas interesting when I was 20, when I still didn't know much about history. With age it sounds like mundane defense strategy of status qou. With the difference that normal conservatism acts less arrogantly.
Your comment was interesting at first, but got boring from the second sentence onwards. 😂
This isn't sufficiently explanatory to spark interest. It needs a little more arrogance.🙃
You're wrong. Yaron is right.
There is no argument in your comment. It's essentially just an insult, along the lines of "These ideas are childish (but I will provide no argument to back up this assertion)".
@@freetrade8830 As far as I can remember, the interviewee advocated a tougher approach to the Iraq war. Which also fits the logic. Objectivism is only considered an immunization strategy against left-wing criticism. Otherwise the general public will be called very quickly
"Brook argues that Islamic terrorists initiated a war against the West because they hate its culture, wealth, love of life, and global influence"
How mentally handicapped do you have to be to argue like that?.
It also likes to stay in the abstract. In practice, it mostly boils down to why you can't collect taxes to fund a public school for workers' children. If the child wants to go to school, it can earn money.-In addition, there are relatively ridiculous assumptions about the history of the market economy.