Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version nyu B notes v1.5 12/10/84; site acf4.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!cmcl2!acf4!mms1646 From: mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) Newsgroups: net.politics.theory Subject: Re: What is "capitalism"? (Explorations of "self-interest") Message-ID: <2380044@acf4.UUCP> Date: Mon, 24-Jun-85 21:23:00 EDT Article-I.D.: acf4.2380044 Posted: Mon Jun 24 21:23:00 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 29-Jun-85 01:39:13 EDT References: <298@spar.UUCP> Organization: New York University Lines: 29 >/* flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) / 7:58 pm Jun 21, 1985 */ >I thought you were talking about self-interest generally, including >"technical" questions (just what do you mean by "technical", anyway?). By "technical" I mean issues of technique, i.e., means, as opposed to ends. >That would seem to me to be the more important issue, especially if, >e.g., whether one should wear a seat belt is a "technical" issue. I don't see why this is the more important issue. One should not consider ends until one has decided at least on the rudiments of ends. As for the seat-belt issue, this seems to include both technical and "goal" considerations. >(And you apparently admit that on "technical" issues it might be wise to >let others have a say in your decision.) Of course. It would be the height of folly to believe otherwise. >By the way, I think it's an oversimplification to speak of "fundamental >goals in life"; I think a rational person decides on goals piecemeal, >learning by experience all the while. I don't see any conflict between the concept of "fundamental goals" and dynamicism of these goals. Mike Sykora