People who care about their life try to better themselves.

By me, partially inspired by Ayn Rand in We The Living.

It sounds pretty obvious. Here's why it's important:

People often, for a wide variety of reasons, do not give learning their best effort. I knew these people do not care about truth-seeking and creating knowledge as much as Popper or I do. But I hadn't made the connection before that what they don't care about, at root, is their own life, in the way Rand cares about life. Life is not precious to them; they aren't dead set on making the most of it.

When someone is careless and wasteful during their own free time, they are disrespecting their own life. When people decide some of their problems are too hard and permanently give up on solving them, and try to be content settling for less, what they are really giving up on is life.

In his Lectures on Computation, at the very end of the chapter on Coding and Communication Theory, Richard Feynman writes:

Such developments will transform the future. Movies will be cleaned up, too -- optical fibers, for example, are now giving us overcapacity. The soap ad will appear with absolute clarity. It seems that the technological world progresses, but real humanistic culture slides in the mud!

Ads work because people like them; people voluntarily choose to respond to ads by buying the product, or increasing their opinion of the quality of the company or product. Being anti-ads is being anti-humans; it's thinking that people with a different approach to life are dumb and wrong, and declaring their values to be mud. Maybe they are mistaken, but Feynman hasn't given any argument that they are, nor has Feynman made any attempt to help or enlighten them. He's just insulting them harshly.

I do think people are sometimes insufficiently skeptical of claims made in ads. Perhaps often. But that's bad reason to trash those people. Who cares about their choice of soap brands? It's not important. There are much more important issues to worry about, like whether they use soap to violently wash out their child's mouth, or not. Let's not compare people to mud unless they do something seriously bad.

Further, the assertion that we are sliding into the mud claims human culture is getting worse. In other words, Feynman claims that people used to evaluate companies and products better, but now, due to advertising, they have gotten dumber. Feynman gives no explanation of how advertising cripples judgement.

Feynman is saying that, in some "humanistic" sense, primitive cultures with no achievements to speak of were better than modern culture with its spaceships, skyscrapers, science, and also moral achievements like giving women the vote, reducing prejudices, and creating unprecedented law and order and peace. I think that's out of character for Feynman and I'm unaware of him saying this anywhere else. Instead he, for example, understood the extreme gullibility of primitive cultures that formed cargo cults. Not only in the case of cargo cults, but also in general, people in the past were far more gullible, not less. One can't be really gullible and still achieve all the things we've achieved. One reason is that, as Feynman says, science is what we've learned about how to avoid fooling ourselves; not fooling yourself is a big part of not being gullible.

Suppose that 50% of the time you think someone said something dumb, actually you misunderstood them. This is a good rough guess because it supposes each party is equally likely to make a mistake, rather than the common supposition that other people are idiots and make all the mistakes. Of course if you're a super genius that could tilt the odds, but let's neglect that.

So, half the time you insult someone here's what happened: he said something reasonable, you got the wrong end of the stick, you blamed him for this, and then you lashed out at him. How embarrassing!

I think any kind person aware of this logic must swear off insults.

Many people think immorality is not self-defeating and needs nasty consequences imposed on it, like legal repurcussions or the community shunning offenders. And on the flip side think that morality is not very effective: doing moral actions means sacrificing getting the most money, prestige, etc, that is possible to get. In this way morality is closely tied to altruism.

One result of this way of thinking is the rich and successful are deemed prima facie immoral, and the powerless and weak are deemed prima facie virtuous. Another is that people who think this way don't whole heartedly try, strive, and want to be maximally moral; instead they are at least a little conflicted.

I define morality as our knowlege about how best to live, and thus it is effective by definition. I think the reason people shy away from this definition is if they used it then they can't see anything wrong with stealing, or with premarital, gay sex on the first date, but they are sure in advance that those are immoral, so they think my definition is refuted by contradiction.

I think it's scary that people don't understand that stealing is self-defeating even if you aren't caught and punshed. In a way, it's a denial that morality exists. They're saying that "immoral" actions are simply the ones society (or perhaps God) will punish you for, and they can't see any inherent logic in what is and isn't moral without reference to punishment.

On the other hand, I think premarital gay sex is not self-defeating, and also is not immoral. It has no negative consequences for one's life, except perhaps inciting bigots to be mean to you. I don't think we should defer to bigots; that's appeasement, and it would mean, for example, that as long as anti-semites exist people shouldn't be Jewish.

Here is a principle of mine:

True statements do not imply false statements.

The intended point is that if someone says something true (even if only in a strict, literal, or technical way), one should not "read between the lines" anything false.

For example, given that this principle is literally true, it specifies one should not assume it be intended to mean anything false. I therefore trust there will be no criticism of it in the comments. Any criticism involves interpretting the statement to imply something you consider false. :)

The FTC is going to monitor blogs to make sure when they review or praise products, they disclose if they were paid to say that.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/FTC-plans-to-monitor-blogs-apf-4106175840.html?x=0

"If you walk into a department store, you know the (sales) clerk is a clerk," said Rich Cleland, assistant director in the FTC's division of advertising practices. "Online, if you think that somebody is providing you with independent advice and ... they have an economic motive for what they're saying, that's information a consumer should know."

Why should a consumer know that? What does it matter?

If an advertisement or product review functions by persuasion, then it's irrelevant. How persuasive an argument is or isn't does not depend on whether the author was paid.

The FTC has a different model of how consumers shop in mind. In this model, people vouch for products and consumers judge whether to trust them based on their integrity and authority. Reason and persuasion are irrelevant.

I don't think the FTC should monitor whether sources of information are reputable, because I don't think it matters. I have one caveat. If a company pays a blogger to write demonstrably false factual claims about its product, then that's fraud.

I think the FTC sees it this way: when a blogger claims to have integrity (which all product reviews implicitly claim unless they state otherwise), but actually was paid to say stuff and hasn't disclosed this, then that's fraud. It's a demonstrably false factual claim about the author of the product review.

It's a shame how many ideas are judged by their source rather than their content.

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/godwin/pj8/pj8_10.html

Whilst this sheet is in the press for the third impression, I receive the intelligence of the death of Burke, who was principally in the author's mind, while he penned the preceding sentences. In all that is most exalted in talents, I regard him as the inferior of no man that ever adorned the face of earth; and, in the long record of human genius, I can find for him very few equals. In sublety of discrimination, in magnitude of conception, in sagacity and profoundness of judgement, he was never surpassed. But his characteristic exceilencies were vividness and justness of painting, and that boundless wealth of imagination that adorned the most ungrateful subjects, and heightened the most interesting. Of this wealth he was too lavish; and, though it is impossible for the man of taste not to derive gratification from almost every one of his images and metaphors while it passes before him, yet their exuberance subtracts, in no considerable degree, from that irresistibleness and rapidity of general effect, which is the highest excellence of composition. No impartial man can recall Burke to his mind, without confessing the granduer and integrity of his feelings of morality, and being convinced that he was eminently both the patriot and the philanthropist. His excellencies however were somewhat tinctured with a vein of dark and saturnine temper; so that the same man strangely united a degree of the rude character of his native island, with an urbanity and a susceptibility of the kinder affections, that have rarely been paralleled. But his principal defect consisted in this; that the false estimate as to the things entitled to our deference and admiration, which could alone tender aristocracy with whom he lived, unjust to his worth, in some degree infected his own mind. He therefore sought wealth and plunged in expense, instead of cultivating the simplicity of independence; and he entangled himself with a petty combination of political men, instead of reserving his illustrious talents unwarped, for the advancement of intellect, and the service of mankind. He unfortunately has left us a memorable example, of the power of a corrupt system of government, to undermine and divert from their genuine purposes, the noblest faculties that have yet been exhibited to the observation of the world.

My favorite part is

In all that is most exalted in talents, I regard [Edmund Burke] as the inferior of no man that ever adorned the face of earth; and, in the long record of human genius, I can find for him very few equals. In sublety of discrimination, in magnitude of conception, in sagacity and profoundness of judgement, he was never surpassed.

I think Godwin's criticism of Burke is incorrect. Burke, like Godwin, knew that there is knowledge in the status quo (in traditions), and that it should only be changed gradually/piecemeal to avoid both violence and destruction of knowledge. For this reason, both of them considered the French Revolution a bad idea. To my mind, they were basically in agreement. But somehow they did not see it.

Godwin would of course also have approved of Burke's take on America, India, and Irish Catholics. (Perhaps Godwin might think Burke was too timid in his advocacy for Catholics, but I don't think that).

The comments about political entanglements do make sense. Burke had those. But for good reason. He wanted to work within and with the system to reform the system. By taking on flawed allies (which are the only kind available), Burke was able to make important, good things happen like peace with America and recognizing American independence. That changed history for the better. Godwin held himself aloof, which I respect, but I don't think Godwin's way is a moral imperative, and I don't think Burke should be criticized for having some practicality. (Note: There were significant limits to Burke's practicality. For example, his impeachment of Warren Hastings became sufficiently politically impractical that Fox wanted him to stop, but he wouldn't. And he had his party turn down running the Government over some ideals.)

Burke turned down a seat in the house of lords. Someone commented that taking it would honor the house more than Burke. If he was corrupted by the Government and aristocracy, and adopted their values, it must only have been in quite a limited way, or he would have taken that seat. Burke could also have had a well paid and powerful position working for the King, if he'd wanted. I think Burke did hard work for his entire political career, and made sacrifices for the cause, and he did it because he cared about reform, and he wasn't very interested in any rewards. He was not corrupt.

I registered fallibleideas.com. I may put some new essays there; in any case it's good to have the option. I also have ElliotTemple.com btw. And I have a new web host which isn't so slow, but I haven't moved everything over yet.

Runner up idea was guessandcriticize.com. Feel free to take it. conjecturesandrefutations.com is also available.