It's also quite hilarious that I could slot it into a number of threads on "the future of macroeconomics", "trendiness in micro topics" or even the current CT debate on "rationality as a method of sociology" and pretend it was written last week.
"When philosophy professors and others in the related social sciences discuss contemporary thinkers, they make use of empirical methodology and data. But when from there they discuss the foundations of their arguments they go into into the past, to Aristotle, Hobbes, Rousseau et al., authors for whom propositionalism is as much a literary device as a logical one. The most important commonalities between the present and the past are the claim to be a reliable narrator and the use of the word "science". Political philosophers read Aristotle but not Euripides. Are we supposed to credit Derrida with leading us to the understanding that this distinction is absurd?
We create patterns to make order/power out of perceived disorder/powerlessness. Patterns, the sense of autonomy and belonging within them, give pleasure. Any discussion of "rational action" has to include not only actions that are rationally chosen but also those that are rational as predictable, as aspects of a pattern. Reading text without subtext is irrational in the first sense, in ignoring relevant information. Assuming that it's rational in the second, what other function might it fulfill?"
Contemporary political philosophers read Aristotle seriously, but not Euripides. For fun they read the literature of precocious early adolescence. Everyone want to be Hari Seldon and they end up Alden Pyle. So fucking stupid. You do know that Krugman and Newt Gingrich both credit the Foundation Trilogy as the origin of their intellectual development?
The fantasy of the first person singular but only if it's never explicit. "Thus one sees..." And then on the weekend everyone is Bilbo Baggins. The history of world literature is the documentation of patterned irrationalism. But somehow that means nothing. Henry Farrell vs Philip Roth. "But Roth is just a storyteller! Stories are lies!" If novels are lies than so are buildings. Every narrator is unreliable. Remember when Krugman was a free trader? Did he ever allow facts the way of that?
The fans of a perennially losing sports team are together in the comradeship and community of losers. Community is comfort. Is it rational to be a proud coal miner? Proud to die of black lung at at 50!?
I know hard determinists shouldn't get angry, but then my anger is predetermined so there you go.
The article is from 1970, before the Chicago School took over.
As an economics nihilist I'm not likely to be convinced, but if the economists are not mostly prosperous, smug freemarket ideologues (whether authoritarian or libertarian), the profession's PR division needs to go into overdrive. The people most confused on this topic are smug free-market ideologues in all walks of life who have taken a few econ courses and maybe even have a BS degree. .
Maybe it's just that the freemarketers are more energetic and effective with PR, while the nice liberals sit in their ivory towers.
It doesn't work if you drag out the odd economist who's not totally awful to prove that the whole profession isn't totally awful.
I thought most economics papers end up in a "blaze of amateur sociology".
The Barnett book that Brooks cites is interesting, worth reading, etc, but you wouldn't want to rely on it. Still that's more than you could say for Brooks.
it is good isn't it. I'm a bit of a Solow fan boy. I really liked his review of Cassidy's book too.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.tnr.com/article/books-and-arts/hedging-america
It's also quite hilarious that I could slot it into a number of threads on "the future of macroeconomics", "trendiness in micro topics" or even the current CT debate on "rationality as a method of sociology" and pretend it was written last week.
ReplyDelete"When philosophy professors and others in the related social sciences discuss contemporary thinkers, they make use of empirical methodology and data. But when from there they discuss the foundations of their arguments they go into into the past, to Aristotle, Hobbes, Rousseau et al., authors for whom propositionalism is as much a literary device as a logical one. The most important commonalities between the present and the past are the claim to be a reliable narrator and the use of the word "science". Political philosophers read Aristotle but not Euripides. Are we supposed to credit Derrida with leading us to the understanding that this distinction is absurd?
ReplyDeleteWe create patterns to make order/power out of perceived disorder/powerlessness. Patterns, the sense of autonomy and belonging within them, give pleasure. Any discussion of "rational action" has to include not only actions that are rationally chosen but also those that are rational as predictable, as aspects of a pattern. Reading text without subtext is irrational in the first sense, in ignoring relevant information. Assuming that it's rational in the second, what other function might it fulfill?"
Contemporary political philosophers read Aristotle seriously, but not Euripides. For fun they read the literature of precocious early adolescence. Everyone want to be Hari Seldon and they end up Alden Pyle. So fucking stupid. You do know that Krugman and Newt Gingrich both credit the Foundation Trilogy as the origin of their intellectual development?
The fantasy of the first person singular but only if it's never explicit. "Thus one sees..."
And then on the weekend everyone is Bilbo Baggins.
The history of world literature is the documentation of patterned irrationalism. But somehow that means nothing. Henry Farrell vs Philip Roth. "But Roth is just a storyteller! Stories are lies!" If novels are lies than so are buildings. Every narrator is unreliable. Remember when Krugman was a free trader? Did he ever allow facts the way of that?
The fans of a perennially losing sports team are together in the comradeship and community of losers. Community is comfort.
Is it rational to be a proud coal miner? Proud to die of black lung at at 50!?
I know hard determinists shouldn't get angry, but then my anger is predetermined so there you go.
s.e.
The article is from 1970, before the Chicago School took over.
ReplyDeleteAs an economics nihilist I'm not likely to be convinced, but if the economists are not mostly prosperous, smug freemarket ideologues (whether authoritarian or libertarian), the profession's PR division needs to go into overdrive. The people most confused on this topic are smug free-market ideologues in all walks of life who have taken a few econ courses and maybe even have a BS degree. .
Maybe it's just that the freemarketers are more energetic and effective with PR, while the nice liberals sit in their ivory towers.
It doesn't work if you drag out the odd economist who's not totally awful to prove that the whole profession isn't totally awful.
The link isn't
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/10/opinion/10brooks.html?_r=1&hp
Apparently our economic decline from global superpower was in the mind... actually I can see New Delhi now, come to think of it...
I thought most economics papers end up in a "blaze of amateur sociology".
ReplyDeleteThe Barnett book that Brooks cites is interesting, worth reading, etc, but you wouldn't want to rely on it. Still that's more than you could say for Brooks.
It's not just good, it's impressive.
ReplyDelete