Opportunity cost: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|devil|}}{{d|Opportunity cost|/ˌɒpəˈtjuːnɪti kɒst/|n|}} | {{a|devil|[[File:Cake.jpg|450px|frameless|center]]}}{{d|Opportunity cost|/ˌɒpəˈtjuːnɪti kɒst/|n|}} | ||
The potential advantages of taking ''this'' path that one forgoes by taking ''that'' one. | The potential advantages of taking ''this'' path that one forgoes by taking ''that'' one. | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
The principle underlying the proposition that one can’t ''have'' one’s cake, and ''eat'' it. | The principle underlying the proposition that one can’t ''have'' one’s cake, and ''eat'' it. | ||
The JC is fomenting a theory that somewhere the | The [[JC]] is fomenting a theory that somewhere along our faltering path to eudaemonia, the idea of the “opportunity cost” has been lost to modern discourse. The notion that you can be ''this'' or ''that'', or ''neither'', but not ''all of them at the same time'' — taking any of these [[option]]s and enjoying its [[Fruits of the contract|fruits]] means forgoing the alternatives, and ''their'' [[Fruits of the contract|fruits]], is one that appears not to have occurred to those under the age of thirty. | ||
===Analysts at the [[Vampire Squid]]=== | ===Analysts at the [[Vampire Squid]]=== | ||
You want to learn how to jam your stent into anything that smells of money on a nine to five?<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/mar/18/group-of-junior-bankers-at-goldman-sachs-claim-inhumane-work-conditions ''Group of junior bankers at Goldman Sachs claim “inhumane” work conditions'']: The Guardian, 18 March 2021.</ref> Come, now children. Would you read Faust, if you thought the good doctor | You want to learn how to jam your stent into anything that smells of money on a nine to five?<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/mar/18/group-of-junior-bankers-at-goldman-sachs-claim-inhumane-work-conditions ''Group of junior bankers at Goldman Sachs claim “inhumane” work conditions'']: The Guardian, 18 March 2021.</ref> Come, now children. Would you read Faust, if you thought the good doctor got to keep his soul? | ||
===The enlightenment cancelling the enlightenment=== | ===The enlightenment cancelling the enlightenment=== | ||
Kicking away the ladder is one thing: proposing to erase all records of | Kicking away the ladder is one thing: proposing to erase all records of one’s ascension up it, quite another.<ref>[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreas_Hinterstoisser Andreas Hinterstoisser and Toni Kurz], doomed climbers of the Eiger, might caution against kicking the ladder away, too. If things get sticky ahead, you might need it to get down.</ref> | ||
The enlightenment has been a serial victim of erasure. The [[reductionist]] certainty that “all explanatory arrows point downward”; that there is a single unifying principle that governs the physical operation of the universe at all points, for all times; that all scientific disciplines are consistent and reduce, ultimately, to physics, is inferred | The enlightenment has been a serial victim of erasure. The [[reductionist]] certainty that “all explanatory arrows point downward”; that there is a single unifying principle that governs the physical operation of the universe at all points, for all times; that all scientific disciplines are consistent and reduce, ultimately, to physics, is ''inferred'', entirely without evidence — how could there be any? — and is transparently an inheritance from Judeo-Christian orthodoxy. You can’t have the certainty and orderliness of a prime mover from whom all things derive ''and'' get to do what the hell you want, ''and'' get to tell everyone else what the hell to think. | ||
Likewise, the liberal pluralistic disposition — also a function of the enlightenment (though, curiously, incommensurate with the reductionism it accompanied) — a product of the towering intellects of the enlightenment: men like Hume, Smith, Mill, Bentham and Darwin — were necessary conditions for growth of continental philosophy, post modernism and the critical theories who would now write this stale colonial tradition from history. | Likewise, the liberal pluralistic disposition — also a function of the enlightenment (though, curiously, incommensurate with the reductionism it accompanied) — a product of the towering intellects of the enlightenment: men like [[David Hume|Hume]], [[Adam Smith]], John Stewart Mill, Jeremy Bentham and [[Charles Darwin]] — were necessary conditions for growth of continental philosophy, [[post modernism]] and the [[Critical theory|critical theories]] who would now write this stale colonial tradition from history. Look, knock yourself out: kick away the ladder, by all means — but be prepared for a cold night on {{plainlink|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEsVZ6xynZo|Death Bivouac}} if the weather closes in — but don’t pretend that wasn’t how you got there. | ||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
*[[Everyone is fighting a battle you know nothing about]] | *[[Everyone is fighting a battle you know nothing about]] | ||
{{ref}} | {{ref}} | ||
Revision as of 18:27, 17 September 2021
|
Opportunity cost
/ˌɒpəˈtjuːnɪti kɒst/ (n.)
The potential advantages of taking this path that one forgoes by taking that one.
The principle underlying the proposition that one can’t have one’s cake, and eat it.
The JC is fomenting a theory that somewhere along our faltering path to eudaemonia, the idea of the “opportunity cost” has been lost to modern discourse. The notion that you can be this or that, or neither, but not all of them at the same time — taking any of these options and enjoying its fruits means forgoing the alternatives, and their fruits, is one that appears not to have occurred to those under the age of thirty.
Analysts at the Vampire Squid
You want to learn how to jam your stent into anything that smells of money on a nine to five?[1] Come, now children. Would you read Faust, if you thought the good doctor got to keep his soul?
The enlightenment cancelling the enlightenment
Kicking away the ladder is one thing: proposing to erase all records of one’s ascension up it, quite another.[2]
The enlightenment has been a serial victim of erasure. The reductionist certainty that “all explanatory arrows point downward”; that there is a single unifying principle that governs the physical operation of the universe at all points, for all times; that all scientific disciplines are consistent and reduce, ultimately, to physics, is inferred, entirely without evidence — how could there be any? — and is transparently an inheritance from Judeo-Christian orthodoxy. You can’t have the certainty and orderliness of a prime mover from whom all things derive and get to do what the hell you want, and get to tell everyone else what the hell to think.
Likewise, the liberal pluralistic disposition — also a function of the enlightenment (though, curiously, incommensurate with the reductionism it accompanied) — a product of the towering intellects of the enlightenment: men like Hume, Adam Smith, John Stewart Mill, Jeremy Bentham and Charles Darwin — were necessary conditions for growth of continental philosophy, post modernism and the critical theories who would now write this stale colonial tradition from history. Look, knock yourself out: kick away the ladder, by all means — but be prepared for a cold night on [Death Bivouac {{{2}}}] if the weather closes in — but don’t pretend that wasn’t how you got there.
See also
References
- ↑ Group of junior bankers at Goldman Sachs claim “inhumane” work conditions: The Guardian, 18 March 2021.
- ↑ Andreas Hinterstoisser and Toni Kurz, doomed climbers of the Eiger, might caution against kicking the ladder away, too. If things get sticky ahead, you might need it to get down.