- seigneur
- Member
Offline - Registered: 6/26/2015
- Posts: 469
Re: Resources on Political, Economical and Ethical philosophy
UGADawg wrote:
Yes, I guess to be fair, if that's how inept your understanding of the point here is, then it's no wonder you find him ridiculous.
Well done for not beginning to defend the indefensible, but you have done nothing to explain how my understanding is inept and yours isn't.
Hayek is most obviously indefensible. In the passage quoted (and that would really apply to everything in the book cited), he is not doing economics or any sort of social science. He is doing ideological rhetoric with a clearly un-Christian attitude. Apart from his moral failure, his scientific failure is equally serious. He is not empirically relevant to anything, so he is safely dismissed or at least postponed.
On any complex topic, it's best to start reading a careful selection ancients. My recommended text for beginners is Athenian Constitution, attributed to Aristotle.
- Clinias
- Banned
Offline
- From: Battle Creek, Michigan
- Registered: 2/12/2018
- Posts: 65
Re: Resources on Political, Economical and Ethical philosophy
Ancient authors think correctly and thoroughly, but then again there are those who think too abstractly or wishfully. Plato's Republic is just a castle in the air. A very nice castle, to be sure, but completely in the air, ungroundable and unworkable. To save time, this particular work is safely postponed or perhaps even avoided.
That my friend is so far from the truth! You couldn't be MORE wrong. Plato's castle is "in the air"? Really?
This is how screwed up modern academia is. All the books are wrong. And certainly no one pays attention. Seigneur is right that modern scholarship is corrupted with ideology but it is much, much worse. The last 400 years of books are all wrong in regards to classical scholarship, political science and philosophy.
The first ancient author I ever read was Plato's Republic while I was in school at the Lateranisi [sp] in Rome. Oh-boy what a book. Of course I read Jowett's translation which opened my eyes to the secret of true philosophy,
The error of Seigneur in regarding the context of Plato's Republic is that everybody has dismissed or does not read a section of the Protagoras! A certain Protagoras section, that many dismiss outright, is the backdrop, the context to Plato's Republic. It is Protagoras (§342a-343c).
There you will find the history and origins of Greek philosophy----and it ain't Athens! and it ain't Ionians.
Socrates says: "The most ancient and fertile home of Greek philosophy is Crete and Sparta"!!!! Every modern textbook misses that. Every classical scholar misses that---or dismisses that. Every so-called philosopher misses that--or dismisses that. Every political scientist has mischaracterized Sparta and Crete's form of government! Because the form of government, which is portrayed in Plato's Republic, is BASED on Crete and Sparta!
No---Plato's Republic is NOT pie-in-the-sky fantasy world---but an alliteration of the Doric Greek form of government. Plato's Republic is thoroughly, foundationally, grounded in REALITY. It is based on the city states of the Doric Greeks.
I suggest that one reads Plato first by using Jowett's translation. There is a certain phrase there that Jowett inserts that is not word for word translation of the Greek but an earthy British agrarian saying that is the secret to the whole idea of what philosophy is.
The Home of Greek philosophy is the Doric Greeks. Socrates lays out the history of it and his proofs. Not only does he lay out his proofs----Socrates is living that---that is how serious Socrates is. He lives it.
Why do you think Socrates went around barefoot? Did you even notice this detail? Why would Plato insert such a small insignificant detail of Socrates going barefoot?
All modern scholarship is garbage. It is all wrong. Because there is NOT a single book, or reference book, that reports that the home of Greek philosophy is the Dorians.
Here is a paper on this:
"Doric Crete and Sparta the home of Greek philosophy"
And here is a book, online and free, that lays out more of the ancillary and circumstantial evidence that Socrates wasn't making that up!
Part I The Case of the Barefoot Socrates: Academic Myth-Making
Why was Socrates barefoot? Because Socrates was an admirer, adherent, and disciple of Spartan culture!!!! When you read Plato's Republic, you see the philosophy undergirding the Spartan Republic. Plato's Republic is based on the European instinct of Trifunctionality. Europeans create caste societies because it is the sense of order that they have that does so.
By all means begin with Plato's Republic, Jowett's translation. Get the Gold.
.
"We are not in the world to give the laws...but in order to obey the commands of the gods".
~ Plutarch, priest of Apollo at the Doric Temple of Delphi.
- Clinias
- Banned
Offline
- From: Battle Creek, Michigan
- Registered: 2/12/2018
- Posts: 65
Re: Resources on Political, Economical and Ethical philosophy
The English Classicist Burnett notes:
“…The Platonist tradition underlies the whole of western civilization”.
"We are not in the world to give the laws...but in order to obey the commands of the gods".
~ Plutarch, priest of Apollo at the Doric Temple of Delphi.
- seigneur
- Member
Offline
- Registered: 6/26/2015
- Posts: 469
Re: Resources on Political, Economical and Ethical philosophy
Ancient authors think correctly and thoroughly, but then again there are those who think too abstractly or wishfully. Plato's Republic is just a castle in the air. A very nice castle, to be sure, but completely in the air, ungroundable and unworkable. To save time, this particular work is safely postponed or perhaps even avoided.
That my friend is so far from the truth! You couldn't be MORE wrong. Plato's castle is "in the air"? Really?
This is how screwed up modern academia is. All the books are wrong. And certainly no one pays attention. Seigneur is right that modern scholarship is corrupted with ideology but it is much, much worse. The last 400 years of books are all wrong in regards to classical scholarship, political science and philosophy.
The first ancient author I ever read was Plato's Republic while I was in school at the Lateranisi [sp] in Rome. Oh-boy what a book. Of course I read Jowett's translation which opened my eyes to the secret of true philosophy,
I fully agree on the philosophical merits of Plato's Republic. However, I disagree when one tries to learn politics or economics from there, because politics and economics are practical crafts.
Philosophy requires the ability to think straight, in valid and sound manner from premises to conclusions, and Republic sure enough provides plenty of practice for that. But philosophy does not require anything else. It does not even require you to communicate what you have thought through. You can be a philosopher all by yourself.
Not so with politics and economics. These are social skills where you have to be able to make things work for others. Reportedly, Plato tried to institute his republic somewhere in Italy and failed. There simply are no philosopher-kings available, so Plato's vision where philosopher-kings would rule is impractical. Plato's Republic paints a philosophically insightful utopia, but utopias are impracticable.
Last edited by seigneur (2/15/2018 10:48 am)
- Clinias
- Banned
Offline
- From: Battle Creek, Michigan
- Registered: 2/12/2018
- Posts: 65
Re: Resources on Political, Economical and Ethical philosophy
Plato's Republic is not a Utopia. That is a mischaracterization due to the lack of context.
Plato's Republic is a manual on how to prevent the kyklos.
What does Plato talk about in the Republic? About education. Education that implants virtue. Why?
Plato is living in Athens that suffered many times of the Kyklos. Sparta never suffered from a kyklos. Plato's Republic is a manual on how to create a stable society that would not turn. Kyklos is the turning of government, i.e. revolutions that change the government.
The key is at the end of Plato's Republic where he describes the timocratic man to the democratic man. Socrates said, "The character of the man is the character of the state". That is the key. The turning, the Kyklos of government. How does one prevent the kyklos? By character training.
I mean how else to understand Socrates saying that one needs to take the children away from the parents and trained away from them? How and why is that there? Plato's Republic is NOT a utopia but a manual of creating the virtuous citizen which in turn creates a stable government.
If you read the Platonic dialogues, throughout, you will find the phrase, "according to nature". Philosophy is about doing all things according to nature. And oh yes, Philosophy does touch lightly on economics---Socrates says in the Republic "Where Money is Prized, Virtue is despised". Philosophers eschew riches and money. They have to. Philosophy teaches the need for sumptuary laws.
Ohh, and by the way, the whole of the so-called "Enlightenment" from Kant, Locke, Montesquieu and others need to be thrown in the trashcan. The "Enlightenment" was an Atheist revolution.
"We are not in the world to give the laws...but in order to obey the commands of the gods".
~ Plutarch, priest of Apollo at the Doric Temple of Delphi.
- UGADawg
- Member
Offline
- Registered: 6/18/2017
- Posts: 128
Re: Resources on Political, Economical and Ethical philosophy
Yes, I guess to be fair, if that's how inept your understanding of the point here is, then it's no wonder you find him ridiculous.
Well done for not beginning to defend the indefensible, but you have done nothing to explain how my understanding is inept and yours isn't.
Hayek is most obviously indefensible. In the passage quoted (and that would really apply to everything in the book cited), he is not doing economics or any sort of social science. He is doing ideological rhetoric with a clearly un-Christian attitude. Apart from his moral failure, his scientific failure is equally serious. He is not empirically relevant to anything, so he is safely dismissed or at least postponed.
On any complex topic, it's best to start reading a careful selection ancients. My recommended text for beginners is Athenian Constitution, attributed to Aristotle.
On a forum full of people who are at least nominally interested in philosophy, this attitude is quite disappointing. Not to be too rude but you sound sort of like new atheists do w.r.t. classical theism. It's cringey and it doesn't really even rise to the level of meriting a serious reply, because, to anyone who has read Hayek, it's just abundantly clear you don't know what you're talking about.
Last edited by UGADawg (2/15/2018 11:47 am)
- Karl3125
- Member
Offline
- From: California, U.S.A.
- Registered: 7/09/2015
- Posts: 37
Re: Resources on Political, Economical and Ethical philosophy
Yes, I guess to be fair, if that's how inept your understanding of the point here is, then it's no wonder you find him ridiculous.
Well done for not beginning to defend the indefensible, but you have done nothing to explain how my understanding is inept and yours isn't.
Hayek is most obviously indefensible. In the passage quoted (and that would really apply to everything in the book cited), he is not doing economics or any sort of social science. He is doing ideological rhetoric with a clearly un-Christian attitude. Apart from his moral failure, his scientific failure is equally serious. He is not empirically relevant to anything, so he is safely dismissed or at least postponed.
You quoted The Road to Serfdom, which was a political work. Hayek did not intend it as a scientific treatise.
Why don't you quote a passage from The Pure Theory of Capital or Prices and Production, and explain to us how class analysis could improve Hayek's insights?
- Karl3125
- Member
Offline
- From: California, U.S.A.
- Registered: 7/09/2015
- Posts: 37
Re: Resources on Political, Economical and Ethical philosophy
On any complex topic, it's best to start reading a careful selection ancients. My recommended text for beginners is Athenian Constitution, attributed to Aristotle.
Why not The Nicomachean Ethics or The Politics?
- Jeremy Taylor
- Administrator
Offline
- Registered: 6/25/2015
- Posts: 792
Re: Resources on Political, Economical and Ethical philosophy
Isn't Hayek comparing the British low-paid worker to employers and managers in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, in that passage? Hardly seems a moral failure to think it was better even to be low-paid in Britain in the 30s and 40s to being well off in totalitarian dictatorships. I'm quite open to criticisms of Hayek's philosophy, sociology, and economics, and even more so other classical liberal economists, like Friedman or Mises, but these criticisms seem off the mark.
I certainly agree one shouldn't take introductory economic works from a neoclassical or Austrian perspective as definitive. One should read around and get different views. This is why I mentioned Parkinson's Law. Kevin Carson is interesting. USADawg mentioned his stuff on the Labour Theory of Value, but that is a rare outing into pure economic theory for him (and whilst I agree the LTV is problematic, I don't think it is much more so than some cherished marginalist theories, like marginal productivity theory). He usually spends much of his time exploring empirical issues, and he has done some fascinating work looking into the role of government in creating economies of scale, giantism, etc., in our contemporary economy. He also brings together the work of many interesting but neglected writers. He's not someone who I'd look to for definitive answers, but for interesting suggestions.
For my money, I think it is hard to get a basic idea of economics as it actually is (not the majority opinion today or even what is strictly the discipline), because there are so many different views, and also because it is hard to separate it from sociology and politics. To begin with to, apart Hayek, Roepke, Parkinson, and Carson, I would suggest a wide survey of writers: Chesterbelloc, Ruskin, E. F. Schumacher, Ivan Illich, Wendell Berry, H. J. Massingham, Lord Northbourne, Henry George, Silvio Gesell, Ralph Borsodi, Lewis Mumford, the post-marginalist Keynes (1937 onwards) alongside with some overview of the major post-Keynesians (Sraffa - who still sends shivers down neoclassical spines - Kaldor, and Joan Robinson, for example), some introduction to the (old) institutionalists. I'd also check out Steve Keen's Debunking Economics for a good introduction to some of the problems with neoclassical economics, as well as some stuff from the post-Austistic economics movement.
- seigneur
- Member
Offline
- Registered: 6/26/2015
- Posts: 469
Re: Resources on Political, Economical and Ethical philosophy
For my money, I think it is hard to get a basic idea of economics as it actually is (not the majority opinion today or even what is strictly the discipline), because there are so many different views, and also because it is hard to separate it from sociology and politics.
Well, it's hard to get a good grasp of economics because it tends to be ideologically loaded, as it is with the Hayek quote. What do you think the whole book is motivated by? What does the title tell you?
Often enough, the word "socialism" is a curse word for the proponents of capitalism and "capitalism" is a curse word for the proponents of socialism. It should not be like this for a rational student. For rational students of economics these should be neutral terms referring to economic systems or economic principles, apart from politics and sociology, and definitely apart from ideology.
As far as I have looked into it, economics as a science is in a very sorry state. There is no uncontroversial basic theory of any aspect of it. I have not seen Feser defend his pick of Hayek as his authority on economics. I guess he simply picked him because among his circle of friends Hayek is deemed uncontroversial, but in reality there are no uncontroversial undisputed authorities in economics.
If one wants to get an idea of "pure" economics, free from all ideological controversies, then the only way is to study accounting and bookkeeping. Everything beyond that is tinged by ideology, warped by taking the side either of the wage-earner or the employer or the regulator or the "free markets"...
When one is unable or unwilling to categorically distinguish economics from politics and sociology (as they are indeed intertwined - e.g. rich people don't just earn profits and own assets, they tend to exercise political power over politicians and over the lives of their underlings, and part of their profits and assets follow as a consequence of this; also, economics is often enough said to be a social science, for good reasons; etc.), one can operate with terms like socio-economics and political economy. The usefulness of those terms should be obvious and there's a way to treat them analytically, free of ideology, even though it's difficult indeed because you'd have to get into comparisons of major sociopolitical and economic systems in practice as exemplified by real-life countries, empires, and eras.