tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4491040877840120845.post3998712436339932455..comments2024-03-16T17:47:07.792-04:00Comments on Stationary Waves: Beauty And The BeastRP Longhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15028013805248797978noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4491040877840120845.post-43025952488092629682013-01-28T21:31:33.919-05:002013-01-28T21:31:33.919-05:00Simon, Tucker's point doesn't exist in a v...Simon, Tucker's point doesn't exist in a vacuum. The only reason to declare the supposed absurdity of "the myth of the great inventor" is to contrast it to the supposed actual state of thing, i.e. where great inventors don't exist.<br /><br />This is not the first time Tucker has made this point. In the past, he has used the tired "thought-patterns" argument to argue against intellectual property. I'm against intellectual property, but you won't hear me making the case that all thought is unoriginal by nature.<br /><br />That kind of silliness is neither useful to a libertarian paradigm nor to life in general. There is no particular <i>benefit</i> to rejecting originality wholesale.<br /><br />Not only do I not care for Tucker's rejection of "the great inventor," but neither do I care for your "no idea is formed in a vacuum" watered-down version. Both are utterly useless concepts that shed no light on anything, and in the meantime do a lot of damage to some of society's most uplifting sentiments. RP Longhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15028013805248797978noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4491040877840120845.post-23393664174172136362013-01-28T17:23:02.199-05:002013-01-28T17:23:02.199-05:00"Doesn't it just completely invalidate th..."Doesn't it just completely invalidate the idea that a single person could ever be responsible for something amazing?"<br /><br />Tucker's point doesn't appear to come anywhere close to this, since Tucker isn't asserting that no one person can ever be responsible for something amazing. Instead, Tucker is asserting that any one person's amazing achievements don't occur in a vacuum.<br /><br />Look, no one denies that Steve Jobs did amazing things with technology. But at the same time, no one would claim that Steve Jobs, without any outside help or influences, completely revolutionized the market for tech consumption.<br /><br />Of course, part of the issue in this debate is undoubtedly the use of terms. What does "coming up with something new" even mean? Does it refer to having an original idea? What makes something original? Does coming up with something new refer to bringing it to market? Does it mean creating a prototype or sample?<br /><br />I don't think Tucker is advocating for communism or even buying into the idea that everything good must be accomplished collectively. Given Tucker's distrust of IP theory, I think it would be more correct to assert that Tucker is saying that, all things considered, no idea is forms in a vacuum. That doesn't preclude originality in either an idea's explication or its implementation, but it would suggest that perhaps we shouldn't go around acting as if original thinkers never stand on the shoulders of giants, as the metaphor goes.Simon Greyhttp://www.cygne-gris.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.com