|
|
|
|
|
|
by shalmanese
972 days ago
|
|
|
We don't live in a theoretical universe where ideas are placed in the idea analyzer machine and a determination is spit back upon its truth value, subsequent to which, all the good ideas are placed on a shelf so we can all gaze upon them together and mutter "hrmm, those are a fine set of ideas". Ideas are instrumental, they're advanced to achieve a specific purpose and their truth and falsity is important to the extent that they affect the instrumentality. You simply cannot separate out an idea from the person advancing the idea because the important question is not one idea in isolation, but of all the universe of ideas, why are we paying attention to this one, right now, towards what ends? |
|
|
You're absolutely right, we live in an objective reality where the basis of an idea can be analyzed and tested against said reality, and not invalidated because we don't like the person who said them.
> Ideas are instrumental, they're advanced to achieve a specific purpose and their truth and falsity is important to the extent that they affect the instrumentality. > ...why are we paying attention to this one, right now, towards what ends?
Absolutely, and Andreessen makes it clear he thinks his set of ideas would benefit the conditions of humanity as a whole, there's no ambiguity there.
> You simply cannot separate out an idea from the person advancing the idea...
You absolutely can, and it would be of enormous benefit to assess an idea independently of inflammatory rhetoric surrounding the speaker.
You as well as the author seem to be of the mind that Andreessen's holding of these ideas are wrong based solely on the fact that he himself is wildly successful, not because of any thoughtful critique of the ideas themselves. Intellectual default isn't a virtue; either address the claims themselves, or stop pretending that conspiratorial meta-analysis is an honest addressment.