humanities.philosophy.objectivism

On Apr 3, 4:46 pm, Potroast wrote:
> RichD wrote:
> > "Corporations exploit the poor by raising their prices."
> > - A. Einstein
>
> That phrase obviously is out of context since while it might be argued
> as a socialist he was not a marxist.. (of course to an Oist
> libertarians are practically socialists)
>
> Out of curiosity....are you suggesting corporations never exploit the
> poor?

Without getting into the political debate, I'd like to make a
linguistic point. I think the word choice that Einstein deploys here
is not best understood in terms of quantification. That is, he is not
saying "Some corporations exploit the poor" or "Sometimes corporations
exploit the poor" such that the negation would be "No corporations
exploit the poor" or "Corporations never exploit the poor." Nor is he
making a claim about what *all* corporations do, all of the time.
Compare:

Frogs are amphibians.
Lions are predators.
etc.

This kind of statement is often equivalently made thus:

The Lion is a predator.
Lions are *typically* (or *normally*) predators.
Lions are essentially predators.

In other words, the plural is being used here to make a claim about
Types or Essences, with the understanding that individual instances of
Types or Essences can fail to "perform normally."

So. Suppose you see a lioness kill a gazelle. You are horrified. I
reply "that's just what They *do*." My statement is not refuted by
noting that you once saw a lioness in a zoo, or asleep, or diseased to
the point of death, which *didn't* prey on gazelles and the like.
"Lions feed by killing and eating other animals" is still true.

Notice also that the claim that "lions are predators" is not
equivalent to the claim that "the majority of lions are predators."
Compare "the majority of spermatazoa are egg-fertilizers." Well,
actually, no. But nonetheless, it is correct to say "that's what they
*do*."

Thus Einstein's comment should be understood to say what it is that
corporations *typically* do, from their very nature (exploit the poor)
and *how* they typically do it (by raising their prices). This implies
a theory about what profit is and where it typically comes from under
"normal" (for capitalism) conditions.

btw, that theory is fabulously false, as false as "Lions are
vegetarians." Though I suppose one could find some somewhere, under
abnormal conditions. I knew a vegan academic once who forced her pet
cat to eat soy, for moral reasons, but I don't think that refutes the
claim that Felines are Carnivores. And if vegan pet owners ruled the
world, and required that all felines be domesticated and made to eat
vegan catfood, they'd still be carnivores. Essences are like that.