You mean the ideas of people being paid for pretending to be intellectuals, Grady :)
-
-
Replying to @Plinz @RitaJKing
Let’s follow your comment to its natural conclusion, then. Hence, if any idea has economic value it is therefore not intellectual. Continuing, the only One True and Pure Intellect is a person who offers absolute no measurable value to humanity.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Grady_Booch @RitaJKing
I think that the economic value, the intellectual value and the normative value of an idea are orthogonal dimensions. I don't intend to dismiss any of these dimensions.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @RitaJKing
And yet, you seemingly disparaged an idea because, to you, it served only the market, and was not sufficiently “intellectual.”
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Grady_Booch @RitaJKing
That was not my intention. I had not expressed clearly which dimension of goodness of ideas I wanted to talk about, which has led to a misunderstanding.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @Grady_Booch
You writing about drinking and driving, for example, would be utterly trivial, but only because you don't care about the subject, not because it isn't sufficiently "intellectual."
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RitaJKing @Grady_Booch
No, I just think that the physiological, factual and normative relationships between drinking and driving have been explored to such a degree that we probably won't wrestle much new insight by revisiting them, compared to what we could to in the meantime.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @Grady_Booch
The point of the example is that some ideas are objectively good. This doesn't imply that they require much further exploration. That one is fairly binary. Do it (bad idea) don't do it (good idea). That the person thinking it didn't invent the concept isn't the point.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RitaJKing @Grady_Booch
We may need to talk about what you define as good.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @Grady_Booch
I was responding to your use of the word.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Yes, and I am not suggesting that my use was right and yours was wrong, but that there are at least three dimensions of goodness we can point at, and that we are prone to misunderstand each other if we assume they must be the same somehow.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.