- It’s text-based, so any editor you use will run lightning-fast.
- It’s text-based, so you can edit files on any computer, any operating system, with any suite of software.
- It separates content from typesetting, so if you decide you want all your headings changed, or different colors/styles for bold, or whatever, you change one typesetting command, not a thousand instances.
- For academic writing, footnotes and bibliographies are incredibly easy to add (including custom reference markers for the footnotes to point to the bibliography or so forth.)
- For scientific or mathematical writing, it’s a no-brainer. Every mathematical symbol is at your fingertips, and graphs and images and charts are remarkably easy to include.
- There are plugins for virtually every kind of typesetting. For example, for musicians it interfaces directly with LilyPond, the best music typesetter available (free and text-based, incidentally.)
- It’s completely free, and runs on every OS.
- It will increase your productivity, because when creating content you can focus on creating content, not fidgeting with its appearance, and when perfecting the typesetting, you can focus on that.
- However, most of the time you will not need to mess with the typesetting at all, because unlike WYSIWYG programs, LaTeX has been designed to typeset to professional standards.
- It is actually incredibly simple to learn for basic writing needs, and once you have a setup that works, you can just save a template and never have to think about it again.
Some proponents of Austrian economics (particularly those of the more severe Rothbardian and Hoppe-ian (Hans-Hermann Hoppe) bent) argue that the advantage Austrian economics has over other forms of economics is that, since Austrian economics is logically deduced from a priori axioms, its truth is known even in the absence of empirical evidence.
Now, if indeed all of Austrian economics is deducible from a set of a priori axioms (which I doubt, since I know of Austrian economists, like Ludwig Lachmann, who use empirical methods), I have the following questions:
- I’ve never seen an Austrian economist manage to provide a complete list of all the axioms of Austrian economics. Typically they point to only one, the axiom of human action, but of course one assumption is incapable of proving anything. (For example, if I assume that the sky is green, I can’t prove anything not tautologous to “the sky is green” without introducing another assumption.) Without such a list, how is it possible to argue that Austrian economics is all deducible from these axioms?
- Relatedly, I’ve never actually seen a formal logical proof provided for any claim of Austrian economics. I’ve seen arguments, I’ve seen arguments that use deductive logic, but there’s a reason logicians (and philosophers and mathematicians) use formal logical proofs: they make it easy(er) to demonstrate that no hidden assumptions slipped in, and that no fallacious reasoning took place. Particularly, they make it possible to ensure that all theorems proven follow from the axioms and other theorems proven from the axioms.
- Moreover, provided some such exact and finite list of axioms existed, why are there no attempts to prove consistency? Any axiomatic system that wishes to produce theorems (true statements) distinct from false statements must first demonstrate that its assumptions are consistent, that is, they do not in some way contradict each other. I’ve never seen this done for Austrian economics, no doubt due to the lack of such a clear and precise list, but if somehow the axioms aren’t consistent (and this isn’t always obvious!) then they could be used to prove literally any statement.
Notice, I’m saying “I’ve never seen” instead of “does not exist.” I’ll admit, I’d be very surprised to find out that such things do exist, because I have read (most of) Human Action and a number of other Austrian books and have never encountered any mention of them. But I’m more than welcome to be corrected (also why the above are questions, not statements.)
My point being: in the absence of any one of the above three (list of axioms, logical proof, consistency), any claim that Austrian economics produces logically necessary truths is simply baseless and premature. That’s not say it is wrong — Cantor’s set theory was largely correct in its conclusions, despite the inherent instability of its construction (notably, the contradiction derived form considering the set of all sets.) Nonetheless, Cantor’s system was not capable of making any broad claims about necessary truths: after all, his theory was contradictory. Equally, without positively demonstrating 1, 2, and 3 above, there is a possibility that Austrian economics is self-contradictory, in which case it requires substantial architectural revision if it wishes to be respected as an axiomatic, logical system.
Warning: spoilers contained herein. If you want to know whether you should go see this: you should. It is fantastic. After watching, come back here, and join me in the discussion.
What I loved about this movie, in list format:
- The plot/adaptation. Okay, I’m going to level with you. I’m a sucker for fairy-tale/myth reinventions. I even wrote and produced a few of my own when I was 16/17 with a youth theater company my sister and I founded (including Robin Hood and King Arthur.) But I’m so often disappointed by them in the movies: they either adhere too closely to the original plot, which we all know, or they throw together so many elements from so many different fairy tales that they become these rambling behemoths without any cohesive architecture to the story. SWATH avoided both of these: there was plenty there from the original fairy-tales it borrowed from, but plenty was new, and it all hung together extremely well.
- Two plot-elements that I thought were handled particularly well were the romance plotline and the evil witch plotline. The romance plotline was done extraordinarily well: indeed, with hardly any screentime the movie managed to show a bit of a love triangle with a bit of a resolution without it overpowering the story. Too often, movies with heroines, particularly fairy-tale adaptations, spend all their time on love stories, whose resolution any audience familiar with the archetype will be expecting. So the fact that SWATH actually turns some of those archetypes on their heads as well as not particularly dwelling on them is impressive and made for a well-timed storyline.
- As far as turning archetypes on their head, SWATH approached the romance from a much more nuanced perspective than most fairy-tales or fairy-tale adaptations: the childhood sweetheart is not the true love, rather, the fact that they still have that childhood relationship is problematized, and it is a more experienced and mature man (the huntsman) who is hinted at being her true love. However, that’s never actually resolved in the film, which is brilliant, since most of these movies would have given in in that last scene and shown them kissing or whatever. SWATH is happy to not make romance the most important aspect of their heroine’s story, which is a really smart move, for the story, but surprising from a major Hollywood film.
- I also mentioned that I liked the Evil Witch’s story, by which I mean the backstory (I mean, I like the rest too, obviously). Look, though: I’m not saying that she’s an entirely sympathetic character, but I think it was really good of the film creators to give us insight into why she is who she is, and let’s be honest, it’s about time one of these fairy-tale remakes deals with the inherently patriarchal nature of the universe they exist in, including the prevalence of rape and other sexual violence against women.
- On that note, I think the witch’s brother is played extraordinarily well, because even through his creepiest scenes, we don’t fully see how truly twisted and evil he is until his death scene.
- It’s taken me six items, but this should probably be number 1: Kristen Stewart is amazing in this movie. She does a fantastic job throughout of portraying a woman who hasn’t left a tower in years, who finds the world outside somewhat terrifying and hard to understand, but who nonetheless has enormous depths of character and courage. Seriously, I hate Twilight as much as anyone, but Kristen Stewart is actually a phenomenal actress.
- My only pet peeve is the heaving-bosom thing, but that’s common enough to these kinds of character portrayals that I can’t really blame her for it.
- Charlize Theron was also outstanding! Damn, performing that character in a way that is both utterly sympathetic and profoundly disturbing and terrifying takes serious acting chops. The final scene is especially compelling, but the scenes with her brother, and the scene right after she poisons Snow White with the apple are just so perfectly nuanced that you hate and pity her so much all at the same time. Superb.
Now, what I didn’t like so much.
- The troll. I’m sorry, the CGI here was super-cheesy, and I just don’t understand why, in every movie with a troll, some character has to yell “TROOOOLLLLLL.” Like, dude, we get it.
- The slightly parted lips and heaving bosom thing I already mentioned. It’s just a pet peeve of mine, nothing objectively wrong with it.
- The “Don’t flatter yourself” line when the Huntsman cuts off her dress. Rape apologia is not appreciated in my fairy-tale remake movies. But this one does redeem itself somewhat by actually addressing some of the patriarchal structures which created the whole terrible situation in the first place.
- The monsters-made-from-glass in the last fight scene. Why on earth would you introduce distractions from the incredible scene between Theron and Stewart? Why? I know it’s almost an archetype of this kind of film now, that the henches of the main character and the Big Bad engage in their own battle while the two main characters duke it out, but seriously, we didn’t need that.
- I’m a little tired of the Comic Relief Dwarf. I can’t really blame them, again, part of the archetype. But still.
- Not really much else. It was a damn fine movie.