> artists want to be treated as artists (with emotion rather than rationality).
That doesn't make any sense. When you treat people with "emotions" ... this is the issue. Emotions are unclear, confusing and are different for everyone. Treating people based on emotions and feelings just results in inequality and confusion for everyone. This the perfect example where if treated it as a rational and business transaction, he would have come out on top. It's his emotions, and the fact that he created some sort of friendship for which he accepted "less" money is his fault. If he treated the issue rationally and sent it to this agent, he would be far happier today.
> If he treated the issue rationally and sent it to this agent, he would be far happier today.
this reasoning carries an implicit assumption (or axiom[1]): "money can buy happiness"
in fact, the argues in the story, that they would probably not have as good as a relationship with their first child if they'd had gotten a lot of money back when all this went down...
[1] what is an axiom? I haven't quite figured it out, but an axiom should never be implicit. so maybe not a good simile[2].
That doesn't make any sense. When you treat people with "emotions" ... this is the issue. Emotions are unclear, confusing and are different for everyone. Treating people based on emotions and feelings just results in inequality and confusion for everyone. This the perfect example where if treated it as a rational and business transaction, he would have come out on top. It's his emotions, and the fact that he created some sort of friendship for which he accepted "less" money is his fault. If he treated the issue rationally and sent it to this agent, he would be far happier today.