--- Brian Charles Dauth <magcomm at ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Dear List:
>
> Justin writes:
>
> > But there are a bunch of problems. He's not doing
> it alone.
>
> Well, I haven't seen anyone else in our apartment
> typing
> with him. LOL.
No man ids an island. You're helping feed him, do the housework, making it possible for him to write. Somone provided hgim with paper and pencils or a computer and printer. Someone will (he hopes_ take and produce his play. ACtors will act in it, directors will direct it, publishers will publish it, booksellers distribute it. If he just composed it in his head hge's still require a social divisioin of labor to permit him to do that. He's not Robinson Crusoe.
>
> > How much is his contribution and to what and how
> much
> does that (morally) entitle him?
>
> I do not know. That is why I was asking.
Locke and Nozick gave up on trying to say. I don't think there is an intelligible answer.
>
> > Suppose writing the play is a breeze for him. Has
> he contributed
> less than if it were an agony?
>
> No. Why should that matter?
So, what matters is the product, not the effort? Does it matter if the product is good or bad? Does a great work belong more to the creator than a poor or derivative onee?
>
> > Does it matter how much time he takes writing
> it?\\
>
> No. A work of art takes the time it takes.
So only the product matters? JUst testing your intuitions.
The problem is that the labor theory of property tells you that the act of proucing confers ownership rights. Why then shouldn't the effort and time of that act count too? Doesn't it matter tha he worked hard or for a long time? (Or not?)
>
> > Also, even if he has a right to the product of
> "his" labors,
> it doesn't follow that he has a right to the fruit
> of that product,
> e.g., the profit, if any, from selling it in the
> market.
>
> Why? Isn't part of the struggle getting workers the
> right to
> the fruit of their labors?
No -- as Mike Ballard was saying, if aything gives workers a right to the fuit of their products, it's not their having produced it, but the bad consequences of keeping it from them, like alienation and oppression.
>
> > Plagiarism is conscious copying.
>
> Okay. Got it.
>
> > Btw, I don't think there are a finite # of ways to
> look at
> Hitchcock or any great artist.
>
> I think we are finite creatures in a finite
> universe. I do not believe
> that the finite can give rise to the infinite.
So far we haven't run out of new things to say about Homer and Sophocles.
I
> think the bigger problem
> is that capitalist culture puts apremium on
> originality instead of
> usefulness.
Agreed.
> I think it is much healthier to be pragmatic (didn't
> James say pragmatism
> was just a new name for old ways of thinking?) than
> original. An
> emphasis on usefulness also cuts down on the cult of
> self.
Depnds on usefulness for what.
jks
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Send a seasonal email greeting and help others. Do good. http://celebrity.mail.yahoo.com