2 Matching Annotations
  1. Feb 2017
    1. But all deter-minations of the understanding are not right

      Reminds me of the Stoics, such as Epictetus, who said that humans more often than not make false judgments in a certain situation based on their "sentiments," (he didn't use this word but I think it works) which then causes individuals to experience a "passion," such as grief, anxiety, despair, or anger. Stoics argued that people should indeed attempt to judge a situation correctly in order to avoid being overcome by passions and instead find true happiness (which for them was probably more equivalent to our American culture's version of "okay-ness").

  2. Feb 2014
    1. On one hand, there are infinite ideas, and so the taking of one idea as private property clearly leaves “enough,” and debatably “as good” for others (Locke, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: POLICY FOR INNOVATION 8   1690, Chap. V, Sect. 27).

      This statement seems to me a stretch-- a very far stretch.

      What does it mean to have "infinite ideas"? And how do you arrive at the judgments "enough" and "as good" here?

      Ideas don't exist in isolation; they are not individual fruits to be plucked from the world of thought. Ideas are built upon other ideas. They are embedded within each other, juxtaposed one next to the other, stacked, remixed; varied one from the other, sometimes as a derivation, sometimes an inspiration.

      And in the face of this, what is the notion of "creation"? Given a certain base of knowledge, there are some natural next steps that can be built from those basic building blocks.

      Here we have to disentangle the notion of discovery from creation. I think maybe that, in part, is the notion of patents vs copyright, but in the land of software we seem to have a tangled mess.