>Ian wrote:
>
>>These are judgments and opinions, not irrefutable assertions of facts,
>>which would nonetheless run into the theory ladenness of observations. The
>>same goes for Aristotle.
>>
>>Note how you are basically using an argument from authority that is not
>>much different from an xtian using Leviticus in asserting that
>>homosexuality is an abomination.
>
>Thanks Ian. I mistakenly though I was making interpretative claims about
>Marx and Keynes supported with text, and, in the post to which you're
>responding here, correcting your misrepresentation of these claims as
>amounting to the claim that "Warren Buffett and Bill Gates are
>psychopaths." I hadn't realized that what I was doing was "not much
>different from an xtian using Levitcus in asserting that homosexuality is
>an abomination." How stupid of me. In future, I'll try to be more like
>you and avoid offering up mistaken "judgments and opinions" as
>"irrefutable assertions of facts."
>
>Ted
Yeah, Ian, I agree with Ted. There wasn't anything in his post to suggest that Ted was claiming Buffet and Gates are psychopaths. He'd noted that Keynes would understand it that way, but he didn't claim to agree with Keyes. Also, agree with Todd: Whether Artistotle is worth paying attention to, whether he was right/wrong, wotevah... it's irrelevant whether he was wealthy or not.
Kelley