Individuals add nuance to past achievements, but nuance is often the basis for huge leaps forward in human welfare. This is only philosophically difficult if you insist on treating it as so.
And, again, where did I ever say anything about market prices, etc.? You and your fellow individual-deniers slapped me with the charge that because I advocate an LTOP, I must be a backdoor liberal. That your mental blockage, not mine. I'm a Marxist on this question. LTOV and LTOP are bedrock to philosophy and social science, as Marx himself understood. Their meaning is well-explained by Robert Meister. They are categories of moral accounting.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org]
> On Behalf Of andie nachgeborenen
> Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2004 10:01 AM
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Subject: RE: [lbo-talk] Re: plagarism watch
>
>
> Since we're grading, you'd get a D in the philosophy
> class I used to teach. You don't respond to criticism.
> You just repeat. That's not persuasive.
>
> Of course playwrites deserve to be paid. The question
> is why. The idea that they create stuff all by
> themselves is not a plausible explanation. No one
> creates stuff all by himself, except Robinson Crusoe.
> who doesn't need to be paid.
>
> Nor am I denying the existence of individual
> creativity or genius. I am just challenging you to
> explain why whatever it is an individual adds "by
> himself" -- insofar as that notion makes sense --
> entitles him to, for example, the market price, or to
> any particular remuneration for his work. Or how much
> it entitles him too. As noted, there are hard
> questions to be asked about whether work that is
> harder to do or takes longer or req
>
> --- Michael Dawson <MDawson at pdx.edu> wrote:
>
> > Hey Brian, these guys are denying that individual
> > work exists. Standing on
> > the shoulders of giants is surely half the story of
> > genius. So is
> > individual alteration of previous inheritances,
> > which we all receive as a
> > gift from our ancestors.
> >
> > It's amazing to watch these guys who think they're
> > ultra-cutting-edge excise
> > the individual from the world. I'd give their
> > arguments a "C+" in my intro
> > to sociology class. No society; no individuals. No
> > individuals, no society
> > or conscious social change.
> >
> > Don't let them fluster you. Your playwright
> > deserves to get paid, if his
> > play proves worthy.
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org
> > [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org]
> > > On Behalf Of Brian Charles Dauth
> > > Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2004 4:48 AM
> > > To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> > > Subject: [lbo-talk] Re: plagarism watch
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > > Suppose writing the play is a breeze for him.
> > Has he contributed
> > > less than if it were an agony?
> > >
> > > No. Why should that matter?
> > >
> > > > Does it matter how much time he takes writing
> > it?\\
> > >
> > > No. A work of art takes the time it takes.
> > >
> > > > 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?
> > >
> > > > 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. I
> > think the bigger problem
> > > is that capitalist culture puts apremium on
> > originality instead of
> > > usefulness.
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > Brian Dauth
> > > Queer Buddhist Resister
> > >
> > >
> > > ___________________________________
> > >
> >
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> >
> > ___________________________________
> >
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk