The value of veneration is in part a function of person's independent reasoning ability. If someone's own thinking is close to perfect, then veneration of anyone is likely to lead him astray, by biasing him accept that other person's view over his own.
However, inasmuch as someone's own thinking is lacking, veneration can be healthy towards attaining a healthier epistemic stance. While there's a risk of uncritically accepting the views of great thinkers, for most people, there's an even greater risk of failing to pay their thinking proper heed.
Even independent thinkers have shown veneration for others.
One contemporary economist described Thomas Szasz as follows:
"My great hero Thomas Szasz...I dined with the legend and had one of the best conversations of my life. He was by far the sharpest man in his eighties I’ve ever met...if you want to see his greatness as quickly as possible, start with..."
"He was by far, the sharpest guy in his 80s I have ever met...It wasn't just that he was great on things that he knew, he could comprehend and critically respond to totally new ideas. Most of the very greatest Nobel laureates that I've hung out with for hours - they might still be amazing on their topics, but they have long lost any capability of understanding a new idea. Szasz was just so quick on his feet...just an incredible guy... a model human being...not just thoughtful but with the courage of his convictions."
Writers are admired for what they achieved, not what they did not achieve. Everyone has flaws. You stand on the shoulders of giants, and yet you can't understand their greatness.
The point of veneration is so that you don't end up an "ignorant sack of meat" stuck in your mediocre hole.
Bryan, I do not venerate you, but I always expect well reasoned, compelling arguments and ideas from you. Persons are not to be venerated, but sometimes their ideas --- which ideas are almost certainly not solely due to just themselves --- are immortal. Who was it that said something like this: if I have seen farther it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants? I can't remember, because I just don't remember stuff like that, and I can look it up really easily these days. But I remember the idea, because it is immortal.
In my little book I pointed out in the acknowledgements that nothing in the book could be said to be original. We writers and thinkers are all unwitting plagiarist's.
Ya know something that is helpful on this issue is when two individuals, who agree on many economic points and are philosophically aligned publicly discuss one of the ‘venerated’ on a topic with which they disagree.
Very rarely, have I seen Caplan/Henderson throughly discussed topic with which they have a friendly disagreement.
Boudreaux/Henderson disagreement for the rest of us to view?
Whilst standing on shoulder’s of giants, we take for granted what is deemed as ‘obvious’ after having been introduced to the ideas not put together, once before.
This is much like once being astounded by the an assembly line for mass production, generation of electricity, and the first combustible engine but then looking back at it and remarking, “eh, that’s not so impressive! Eventually, such ideas would have permeated society. Individual X just happened to have been first to the forefront!”
You might at least have mentioned the religious figures: Moses, Jesus, Mohamed, Martin Luther, Joseph Smith, Baha’u’llah, etc. Veneration is a religious practice.
I have sobered on Ayn Rand since my early youthful intro, but only in the way of not being so high that I can't see how even she can err on the application of her own principles (n many instances). Yet I do live by the principles themselves, and I have yet to see how they are untrue. And I am still in awe of the depth and range of her intellectual achievements. I don't know that I energetically lobby for her to get credit for such-and-such, although I do get enthusiastic when discussing her ideas and recommending her works, particularly with young people.
I'd be curious to know more specifically what has been a massive let-down on her for you. Is it the insistence on the need for government? Is it her incomprehensible "permitted" adultery? Yes, I have found myself disagreeing with and disapproving of many conclusions and actions as I go along. But even those I would consider a sizable let down--and then even those put together--seem still to be small next to her unique insights, when their truth and power are taken into consideration. Is she still not a giant? Or is a giant of less stature than those deserving of veneration in your view?
You are a busy man. In your own time, and only if you care to, I would be very curious at some point to hear more specifically about Ayn Rand in illustration of your argument. And this is because as my intellectual independence has grown (in great part due to letdowns of various heroes over the years), I am ready to hear it. Thanks!
There's a clearcut way to avoid veneration: Every time you cite one of the people that others venerate, make sure you're citing or quoting his/her actual argument. Another way, of course, is to note weaknesses. I remember once, on Facebook, quoting a good insight from Adam Smith but saying that it's too bad he didn't write it more succinctly. Oh, my word! One of your colleagues, Bryan, came on to upbraid me for even saying such a thing. He didn't try to lay out why I was wrong, mind you. He simply pointed out that Smith had to be good because we're quoting him over 2 centuries later. Of course, I was quoting him and Smith was very good. But that's separate from the issue of whether one can subject him to criticism.
I would add Thomas Sowell to the list of those venerated above. He appears to be the right/libertarian equivalent of the left's Noam Chomsky—a guru who can do no wrong in the eyes of his followers.
This is true despite or because of Sowell being a political partisan. Most of his opinions are thus easy to predict. He also lacks some of the virtues of more modern intellectuals: he is less empirical, more philosophical, and likes to overuse historical analogies to make his case.
Actually, I could use a few Odes to my Greatness.
Somehow you managed to leave Milton Friedman off yourmlist. I suppose it's because he actually is worthy of veneration.
The value of veneration is in part a function of person's independent reasoning ability. If someone's own thinking is close to perfect, then veneration of anyone is likely to lead him astray, by biasing him accept that other person's view over his own.
However, inasmuch as someone's own thinking is lacking, veneration can be healthy towards attaining a healthier epistemic stance. While there's a risk of uncritically accepting the views of great thinkers, for most people, there's an even greater risk of failing to pay their thinking proper heed.
Even independent thinkers have shown veneration for others.
One contemporary economist described Thomas Szasz as follows:
"My great hero Thomas Szasz...I dined with the legend and had one of the best conversations of my life. He was by far the sharpest man in his eighties I’ve ever met...if you want to see his greatness as quickly as possible, start with..."
"He was by far, the sharpest guy in his 80s I have ever met...It wasn't just that he was great on things that he knew, he could comprehend and critically respond to totally new ideas. Most of the very greatest Nobel laureates that I've hung out with for hours - they might still be amazing on their topics, but they have long lost any capability of understanding a new idea. Szasz was just so quick on his feet...just an incredible guy... a model human being...not just thoughtful but with the courage of his convictions."
And that economist's name: Bryan Caplan: https://www.betonit.ai/p/thomas_szasz_ahtml, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kx7kIAAwe8M&t=1086s.
Writers are admired for what they achieved, not what they did not achieve. Everyone has flaws. You stand on the shoulders of giants, and yet you can't understand their greatness.
The point of veneration is so that you don't end up an "ignorant sack of meat" stuck in your mediocre hole.
You shall not make for yourself an idol
Good points to ponder. Did you consider venerating Socrates?
Bryan, I do not venerate you, but I always expect well reasoned, compelling arguments and ideas from you. Persons are not to be venerated, but sometimes their ideas --- which ideas are almost certainly not solely due to just themselves --- are immortal. Who was it that said something like this: if I have seen farther it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants? I can't remember, because I just don't remember stuff like that, and I can look it up really easily these days. But I remember the idea, because it is immortal.
In my little book I pointed out in the acknowledgements that nothing in the book could be said to be original. We writers and thinkers are all unwitting plagiarist's.
Relevant:
Boulding, K. E. 1971. “After Samuelson, Who Needs Adam Smith?” History of Political Economy 3 (2): 225–37. https://doi.org/10.1215/00182702-3-2-225.
Ya know something that is helpful on this issue is when two individuals, who agree on many economic points and are philosophically aligned publicly discuss one of the ‘venerated’ on a topic with which they disagree.
Very rarely, have I seen Caplan/Henderson throughly discussed topic with which they have a friendly disagreement.
Boudreaux/Henderson disagreement for the rest of us to view?
Still, it is those individuals who did the work, put pen to paper, and wrote it out for others to understand.
Is there another ‘Wealth of Nations’ book regurgitating the work?
Is there another ‘economics in one Lesson’ or ‘Applied Economics’?
There is not. Those Individuals put in the that stands the rest of time, where there isn’t much reason to re-write or duplicate.
Whilst standing on shoulder’s of giants, we take for granted what is deemed as ‘obvious’ after having been introduced to the ideas not put together, once before.
This is much like once being astounded by the an assembly line for mass production, generation of electricity, and the first combustible engine but then looking back at it and remarking, “eh, that’s not so impressive! Eventually, such ideas would have permeated society. Individual X just happened to have been first to the forefront!”
You might at least have mentioned the religious figures: Moses, Jesus, Mohamed, Martin Luther, Joseph Smith, Baha’u’llah, etc. Veneration is a religious practice.
I have sobered on Ayn Rand since my early youthful intro, but only in the way of not being so high that I can't see how even she can err on the application of her own principles (n many instances). Yet I do live by the principles themselves, and I have yet to see how they are untrue. And I am still in awe of the depth and range of her intellectual achievements. I don't know that I energetically lobby for her to get credit for such-and-such, although I do get enthusiastic when discussing her ideas and recommending her works, particularly with young people.
I'd be curious to know more specifically what has been a massive let-down on her for you. Is it the insistence on the need for government? Is it her incomprehensible "permitted" adultery? Yes, I have found myself disagreeing with and disapproving of many conclusions and actions as I go along. But even those I would consider a sizable let down--and then even those put together--seem still to be small next to her unique insights, when their truth and power are taken into consideration. Is she still not a giant? Or is a giant of less stature than those deserving of veneration in your view?
You are a busy man. In your own time, and only if you care to, I would be very curious at some point to hear more specifically about Ayn Rand in illustration of your argument. And this is because as my intellectual independence has grown (in great part due to letdowns of various heroes over the years), I am ready to hear it. Thanks!
There's a clearcut way to avoid veneration: Every time you cite one of the people that others venerate, make sure you're citing or quoting his/her actual argument. Another way, of course, is to note weaknesses. I remember once, on Facebook, quoting a good insight from Adam Smith but saying that it's too bad he didn't write it more succinctly. Oh, my word! One of your colleagues, Bryan, came on to upbraid me for even saying such a thing. He didn't try to lay out why I was wrong, mind you. He simply pointed out that Smith had to be good because we're quoting him over 2 centuries later. Of course, I was quoting him and Smith was very good. But that's separate from the issue of whether one can subject him to criticism.
I would add Thomas Sowell to the list of those venerated above. He appears to be the right/libertarian equivalent of the left's Noam Chomsky—a guru who can do no wrong in the eyes of his followers.
This is true despite or because of Sowell being a political partisan. Most of his opinions are thus easy to predict. He also lacks some of the virtues of more modern intellectuals: he is less empirical, more philosophical, and likes to overuse historical analogies to make his case.