If compete means there is intent then I don't think they do. If it
sounds that way I'm using a language of convenience.
>2)believing that the meaning of ideas are determined by
>the definitions of words used to express those ideas, (instead of meanings of
>words being determined by how they are used in a given context of an idea).
I agree that this is fallacious in itself. However, a *discussion* about
ideas has to start with some semblance (albeit mistaken) of a common
understanding.
<snip hegel>
I've come across this before (anyone on Extropians will know where). A
is A only in relation to that which is not A. If we remove not-A we
remove A. In an abstract sense I can see where it's coming from but I
don't think we remove A. I think we lose our ability to describe (and
conceive of) it.
>Does anyone misunderstand what Reed meant by 'altruism' in this context?
I believe I understood an essential part of it which was enough for me
to disagree precisely as Robin did.
> Hegel's virus can also be shown by the spread of Communism. Karl Marx, the
>father of Communism, claimed that Instead of people producing and controlling
>goods and services, goods or services controlled the people. (politically,
>socially, etc) Marx's theory, like selfish gene theory, might be simply an
>interesting mental exercise to understand and observe the economy, but was
>apparently taken literally by lots of people. Marx might have been joking but
>most people didn't get it.
Now that *would* be funny. Shades of L. Ron, eh?
-- Martz martz@martz.demon.co.ukFor my public key, <mailto:m.traynor@ic.ac.uk> with 'Send public key' as subject an automated reply will follow.
No more random quotes.