Jobs for philosophers?
Mike Dubbeld
it but I really don't know.
"Mike" <mike_ha...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:khV68.11482$cy1.5...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca...
> If you obtain a PhD in philosophy. For example Ethics, what is the job
> market like? What jobs are offered for Philosophy PhD's? I am entering
> graduate school and am unsure whether I would like to continue studying
> philosophy and go on to get my PhD or maybe I should go on to law school.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>
Nick Lilavois
>If you obtain a PhD in philosophy. For example Ethics, what is the job
>market like? What jobs are offered for Philosophy PhD's? I am entering
>graduate school and am unsure whether I would like to continue studying
>philosophy and go on to get my PhD or maybe I should go on to law school.
Philosophy is not a degree one gets if you want to make
money. The only occupations I can think of would be teaching
philosophy and writing about philosophy. I would recommend
studying both philosophy and law. Your profession would be a
lawyer, and your knowledge of philosophy might help make you
a better lawyer.
/*'`^`'~-.,_,.-~'`^`'~-.,_,.-~'`^`'~-.,_,.-~'`^`'~-.,_,.-~'`^`'*\
|* Unique, Artistic T-Shirts, Caps, Mugs, Mousepads and More! *|
|* * Mystical * Political * Funny * Sexy * Artsy * *|
|* MagentaStudios | http://shop.magentastudios.com/ *|
|* Nick Lilavois | http://www.lilavois.com/nick/ *|
\*'`^`'~-.,_,.-~'`^`'~-.,_,.-~'`^`'~-.,_,.-~'`^`'~-.,_,.-~'`^`'*/
urthman
> market like? What jobs are offered for Philosophy PhD's? I am entering
> graduate school and am unsure whether I would like to continue studying
> philosophy and go on to get my PhD or maybe I should go on to law school.
Create one.
Possibilities: (... and I'm not really kidding)
1. Go directly into politics, skipping law school, political science,
business degrees, etc., end relying entirely on what you have learned - a
real-world application for the thinkerer.
2. Philosophical counseling (distinct from psychological): [2a] Where a
psychologists job is not to offer assertions of truth, but to help the
patient deal with his/her experiences that have screwed up their delusions
of reality, offer various assertions of truth to address ones perceptions
directly. [2b] Offer the key elements offered by religion to those that
don't {practice; accept; have} one.
3. McPhilosophy: A club-franshise arranged as a beatnik-age bistro, decked
out in art-deco and abstract or mind-bending decor (ala Dali; Escher;
Geiger) that serves gourmet soups, odd-flavored ice cream, strong coffee and
juices, and where paying members (and no more than one guest) gather to
debate ideas of truth and reality in a semi-organized manner.
4. eMcPhilosophy: As above, but an online VRML version of the bistro
dependent entirely on the mind-candy stimulants of the 3D web (VRML).
Mike Dubbeld
force to drink hemlock and Aristotle was run out of town and died
a year latter! Sophists told lies but at least they got paid for their lies.
The federal govenment hired a 'Futurist' recently to try and get a
handle on technology and how to deal with it. The Pentagon
hires psychics - do a search on 'Stargate'.
I believe that as a philosopher working at a university because of your
status/position - you may be sought out by attorneys handling big time
cases for precedents set in the history by famous people with underlying
philosophies for action. Like Supreme Court nominees - appropriate
counter arguments on their underlying philosophies. (Not just simple
shallow rhetoric for the sake of argument winning) Philosophy of law.
Then there is the book-writing and lectures.
I wonder if some of the older workers at McDonalds have degrees
in philosophy and sociology because they also thought about a
burger with fortune telling with it - except attaching a philosophy instead?
Mike Dubbeld
"urthman" <urt...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:V0278.4006$3E5.3...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> "Mike" <mike_ha...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:khV68.11482$cy1.5...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca...
> > If you obtain a PhD in philosophy. For example Ethics, what is the job
> > market like? What jobs are offered for Philosophy PhD's? I am entering
> > graduate school and am unsure whether I would like to continue studying
> > philosophy and go on to get my PhD or maybe I should go on to law
school.
>
> Create one.
>
> Possibilities: (... and I'm not really kidding)
>
> 1. Go directly into politics, skipping law school, political science,
> business degrees, etc., end relying entirely on what you have learned - a
> real-world application for the thinkerer.
A wrestler in Michigan? for Governor? The Pentagon enlists think tank
strategists of every sort.
urthman
news:a3j7jc$3eg$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> Socrates and Plato talk about Philosopher-Kings - but Socrates was
> force to drink hemlock and Aristotle was run out of town and died
> a year latter! Sophists told lies but at least they got paid for their
lies.
Yeah, but I bet they had some realy good moments while stirring up the soup!
> The federal govenment hired a 'Futurist' recently to try and get a
> handle on technology and how to deal with it. The Pentagon
> hires psychics - do a search on 'Stargate'.
It was actually a landmark effort when the Pentagon sought out movie makers
to consult on strategies in our recent conflict. I was deeply impressed and
excited by it. Movie makers develop a path to a known end, while military
strategists approach the problem as responses-to-action toward a desired
end.
In effect, military thinking can be summarized as "Ok, so now what?" :)
> I believe that as a philosopher working at a university because of your
> status/position - you may be sought out by attorneys handling big time
> cases for precedents set in the history by famous people with underlying
> philosophies for action. Like Supreme Court nominees - appropriate
> counter arguments on their underlying philosophies. (Not just simple
> shallow rhetoric for the sake of argument winning) Philosophy of law.
Unfortunately, "big" attorneys already see themselves as master philosophers
and consider the "greats" to be their peers and equals. Law school would
only serve to close an otherwise open mind.
> Then there is the book-writing and lectures.
>
> I wonder if some of the older workers at McDonalds have degrees
> in philosophy and sociology because they also thought about a
> burger with fortune telling with it - except attaching a philosophy
instead?
My point is, in this "land of opportunity", in the absence of an available
position or career choice, one can create a job opening. There was always a
first in any given field to make a career out of it, why not philosophy?
Especially since there are those that reject religion and, as a result, have
no perceived access to pre-packaged policy or opportunities that could be
considered "grounding" or "reality checks".
Interesting side bar - Motorola actually hired cultural anthropologists in
their marketing division, and perhaps they still do. As a result, they had
the first multi-color designer pagers and cell phones for the MTV
generation, and sold televisions to villages rather than individuals in
other less developed countries.
IMO, Motorola's culturals anthropologists was a stroke of genius. Why
couldn't philosophy be similarly placed? A philosopher at the core of a
business management team sounds useful.
> Mike Dubbeld
<snip>
> > Create one.
> >
> > Possibilities: (... and I'm not really kidding)
> >
> > 1. Go directly into politics, skipping law school, political science,
> > business degrees, etc., end relying entirely on what you have learned -
a
> > real-world application for the thinkerer.
>
> A wrestler in Michigan? for Governor? The Pentagon enlists think tank
> strategists of every sort.
Jesse "the Body" Ventura; Navy Seal, Pro (?) Wrestler, actor and now
governor of Minnesota had been dubbed Jesse "the Brain" Ventura.
Even Clint Eastwood was mayor of a small town in California for a while,
Sonny Bono was immersed in politics, and former president Ronald Ray-guns
was a cowboy actor!
Mike Dubbeld
of life. Its cheap. Ford should have hired an anthropologist to sell their
Pinto's in South America - the word apparently means 'no go' in Spanish.
The CIA in the 60's during the Viet Nam war and the scare of Communism
had people reading comic books. Why? They were trying to determine
if communist literature was infiltrating and influincing Americas youth....
"urthman" <urt...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:5Fc78.5735$3E5.4...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> "Mike Dubbeld" <mi...@erols.com> wrote in message
> news:a3j7jc$3eg$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> > Socrates and Plato talk about Philosopher-Kings - but Socrates was
> > force to drink hemlock and Aristotle was run out of town and died
> > a year latter! Sophists told lies but at least they got paid for their
> lies.
>
> Yeah, but I bet they had some realy good moments while stirring up the
soup!
>
> > The federal govenment hired a 'Futurist' recently to try and get a
> > handle on technology and how to deal with it. The Pentagon
> > hires psychics - do a search on 'Stargate'.
>
> It was actually a landmark effort when the Pentagon sought out movie
makers
> to consult on strategies in our recent conflict. I was deeply impressed
and
> excited by it. Movie makers develop a path to a known end, while military
> strategists approach the problem as responses-to-action toward a desired
> end.
It really shouldn't be a big surprise. I think those boys now have come to
rely on Hollywood footing the bill for some of their expenses by renting
out Helicoptors and pilots and weapons for movies. What better way to
get in good with them than to allow them to direct the original real life
plot?
>
> In effect, military thinking can be summarized as "Ok, so now what?" :)
>
> > I believe that as a philosopher working at a university because of your
> > status/position - you may be sought out by attorneys handling big time
> > cases for precedents set in the history by famous people with underlying
> > philosophies for action. Like Supreme Court nominees - appropriate
> > counter arguments on their underlying philosophies. (Not just simple
> > shallow rhetoric for the sake of argument winning) Philosophy of law.
>
> Unfortunately, "big" attorneys already see themselves as master
philosophers
> and consider the "greats" to be their peers and equals. Law school would
> only serve to close an otherwise open mind.
>
That is what I was thinking - wouldn't they rather do it themselves for the
glory. But I have reason to believe that philosophy goes well with Law.
Professor Robinson at Georgetown (a famous lawschool) works there
and I believe teaches Philosophy of Law or something like that.
> > Then there is the book-writing and lectures.
> >
> > I wonder if some of the older workers at McDonalds have degrees
> > in philosophy and sociology because they also thought about a
> > burger with fortune telling with it - except attaching a philosophy
> instead?
>
> My point is, in this "land of opportunity", in the absence of an available
> position or career choice, one can create a job opening. There was always
a
> first in any given field to make a career out of it, why not philosophy?
> Especially since there are those that reject religion and, as a result,
have
> no perceived access to pre-packaged policy or opportunities that could be
> considered "grounding" or "reality checks".
There'd have to be tee-shirts - Philosophers do it better as a serious
campaign.
>
> Interesting side bar - Motorola actually hired cultural anthropologists in
> their marketing division, and perhaps they still do. As a result, they had
> the first multi-color designer pagers and cell phones for the MTV
> generation, and sold televisions to villages rather than individuals in
> other less developed countries.
>
> IMO, Motorola's culturals anthropologists was a stroke of genius. Why
> couldn't philosophy be similarly placed? A philosopher at the core of a
> business management team sounds useful.
>
Philosophical Jepoardy every night. This philosopher famously said:
'The early worm gets the bird.'
Nick Lilavois
>Why did you buy that car? Well, it goes along with my entire philosophy
>of life. Its cheap. Ford should have hired an anthropologist to sell their
>Pinto's in South America - the word apparently means 'no go' in Spanish.
That was the Chevy Nova. "no va" is "no go".
>> My point is, in this "land of opportunity", in the absence of an available
>> position or career choice, one can create a job opening. There was always
>a
>> first in any given field to make a career out of it, why not philosophy?
>> Especially since there are those that reject religion and, as a result,
>have
>> no perceived access to pre-packaged policy or opportunities that could be
>> considered "grounding" or "reality checks".
>
>There'd have to be tee-shirts - Philosophers do it better as a serious
>campaign.
Speaking of t-shirts... ;-)
CHumph8197
I would like to give a serious answer
to the question. Yes, there are openings
for people with Ph.D.s in philosophy or
ABT (all but thesis) and an M.A., as
an instructor or asst. prof. of philosophy.
There are meetings of academic
philosophers several times a year where
such hiring is done (and papers are
presented). You need good people
skills, and have influential friends. Lots
of politics in academia. You need to
be able to write papers that get
published in academic journals, which
will ruin your ability to write for ordinary
mortals. Publish or perish is still the
rule. But it is even more important to
impress department chairmen, deans
and other high mucky mucks. Very
often a dept. looking for people will ask
candidates to come up and deliver a
paper. There are always openings.
Always even more candidates.
The only way of making any money is
to write a widely used textbook. Hope
this helps.
Dr.H
Star Travel
http://users.aol.com/thales97/
Utopia
http://users.aol.com/drhumph/
Mind and Soul
http://users.aol.com/miletus1/
Quinn DuPont
the first thing a philosopher should think about is the capitalist society,
and their role within it. My personal opinion is that for someone who is a
"seeker of wisdom" they should not be bothered with cluttering their life
with useless toys, instead focus on philosophy. Obviously, one needs *some*
money to survive, but if one wants *lots* of money, try business.
Philosophy is not a good choice for Capitalists; if as a philosopher you
make lots of money, great! If not, oh well...You can still be happy with
your thoughts and your meager existence.
"CHumph8197" <chump...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020203233212...@mb-ft.aol.com...
urthman
news:OKo78.21568$Jq.9...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca...
> I still like the idea of a "cool" philosophy cafe. But then again,
possibly
> the first thing a philosopher should think about is the capitalist
society,
> and their role within it. My personal opinion is that for someone who is
a
> "seeker of wisdom" they should not be bothered with cluttering their life
> with useless toys, instead focus on philosophy. Obviously, one needs
*some*
> money to survive, but if one wants *lots* of money, try business.
> Philosophy is not a good choice for Capitalists; if as a philosopher you
> make lots of money, great! If not, oh well...You can still be happy with
> your thoughts and your meager existence.
But a "cool" philosopher following the true bohemian-beatnik code might just
share his {extra; windfall; surplus} with the less financially sound
thinkerers! "Penny for your thoughts?" Cool, daddyo! Cream of brocolli soup
with a capacino listening to a poetry reading accompanied by sitar and
bongos - now that's living!
Quinn DuPont
thing to look at. Capitalism cannot exist without someone getting the short
end of the stick (impoverishment). If Joe philosopher took his knowledge of
society and put this towards removing the inequalities in this world, it
would undoubtedly benefit the world more than his paltry charity. In a
better world, we could all have the calories to be a philosopher, but then
again, this world would surely not have philosophers sitting around chattin'
and sippin' their cappuccinos listening to a sitar and bongo drums. The
problem *I* have is that I like the idea of the benefits of capitalism
(because I am the benefactor of the structure) yet I do not like inequality
because I happen to be ascribed into a relatively wealthy situation.
mezentius
<5Fc78.5735$3E5.4...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
urt...@usa.net belched forth in a stream of ichor...
> It was actually a landmark effort when the Pentagon sought out movie makers
> to consult on strategies in our recent conflict. I was deeply impressed and
> excited by it. Movie makers develop a path to a known end, while military
> strategists approach the problem as responses-to-action toward a desired
> end.
>
>
This "outreach" also included authors. Tom Clancy was one of them,
and said that the entire thing was "a waste of time."
--
jim
awa...@subdimension.com
------------------------------------
"What- me infallible?"
-Pope Stephen of Dublin
urthman
> Sure, but a bad argument for capitalism. The structure is the important
> thing to look at. Capitalism cannot exist without someone getting the
short
> end of the stick (impoverishment). If Joe philosopher took his knowledge
of
> society and put this towards removing the inequalities in this world, it
> would undoubtedly benefit the world more than his paltry charity. In a
> better world, we could all have the calories to be a philosopher, but then
> again, this world would surely not have philosophers sitting around
chattin'
> and sippin' their cappuccinos listening to a sitar and bongo drums. The
> problem *I* have is that I like the idea of the benefits of capitalism
> (because I am the benefactor of the structure) yet I do not like
inequality
> because I happen to be ascribed into a relatively wealthy situation.
Live at McPhil and Sophia's Cafe-Bistro:
Episode 1: "An abstract painting."
Today at McPhil and Sophia's Cafe-Bistro, known affectionately in the
neighborhood as the 'head shop' [chuckles], we present an inspirational
{recitation; performance} from someone who spent eight years in abject
poverty and finds nothing wrong in the wealth of others ...
Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. 'Urthman', if you please ...
[Minor finger-popping applause and at least one 'boo']
You can't really blame capitalism.
[bongos - puh-tap]
Capitalism is a good thing ...
[mellow sitar strum]
... and a deeply misunderstood thing
[gong]
Socially sustaining
And self maintaining
So quit complaining
[ba-dum]
[To mildly dissonant piano passages]
A simple exercise: Save these web pages onto your hard drive and import the
data into a spread sheet. In the census.gov pages, you want the top table
because these are the unadjusted dollar values.
[The bustling sound of lap-top noises]
1. Income Limits for Each Fifth and Top 5 Percent of Families
http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/f01.html
All you want from this is the year and number of families.
2. Mean Income Received by Each Fifth and Top 5 Percent of Families
http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/f03.html
You need the year (to match the above) and the mean incomes of each
grouping.
(By the way, this works for household incomes as well)
You will be required to do some rudimentary math to extract the influence of
the highest 5% from the upper 20% resulting in four groups representing 20%
of the families, one group representing 15% and another representing the
highest 5%. Since the previous table gave you the number of families (in the
thousands) this should be simple.
Don't look too hard at the numbers, they are ... meaningless!
3. Consumer Price Index calculated for 1913 to 2002
http://minneapolisfed.org/economy/calc/hist1913.html
You only need the year and value, ignoring the percent change.
[Add a heavy drum rhythm like Aerosmith's "Rag Doll" to the drivelling piano
tones]
Now ... for each mean income, create a new column per income group where
Value = Income divided by the CPI for each given year. This creates a
statistic showing the cost-affordability per income class, and remember that
the class divisions are based on equalized population distributions.
[The soup, she is good, yes?]
Now, {plot; graph} the new columns and what do you see?
[dramatic pause]
The highest 5% can be discarded because it represents a cultural change
where sports figures and entertainment personalities began getting much
larger incomes for short projects and short careers around the early 1980s.
Ignore it. It will stabilize at some point in the future - so long as we do
not get too distracted by it.
So, what significant changes do you see in the balance of the economic
trends between 1967 and 2000?
[dead-silence for dramatic effect - pause]
*NONE* - nothing - nada - zilch - zip ... other than the to-be-expected
swell and drift of the natural rhythms of human social interaction.
[mild-slow bongo over sitar strains]
Observation: all of the popular sayings and catch phrases regarding our
economy are *merely* the result of sophisticated (a term derived from
'sophist') terminology - in other words; bovine fecal matter.
[*bongo-slap* - and another silence for dramatic effect]
There is no such thing as "inflation".
[ba-dum]
There is no such thing as "economic growth".
[ba-dum]
There is no such thing as "cost cutting".
[ba-dum]
[Doing a bad Ted Kennedy impression]
We or 'they' {create; cause} the effects of "recession" and "growth" by
announcing it - by calling our attention to the swell and the drift - the
pied piper inadvertently plays and we follow!
[gong]
Conclusion: capitalism is economic Darwinism at its finest and is absolutely
necessary and unavoidable. It needs to be understood *properly* to be fully
appreciated.
[The performer opens his arms and drops his head as the piano player hits
the same chord as from the end of "A Day in the Life" by the Beatles]
[Minor finger-popping applause - barely audible against the din of an
argument as someone is trying to lead a discussion on existence somewhere in
the back ... *punch* ... "Ouch!" ... "Ok, now did that exist or not?"]
Would you like another cappuccino, sir?
[A casual remark from someone in the audience] "So then the problems with
our capitalism is not in the theory or principles but in our general
understanding of the associated phenomenon - our misperception deeply
affects our management of it which promotes the misguided good intentions of
others to interfere with it inappropriately!"
[Another] "Nah .. it's all just word salad cleverly and dramatically
disguised as intellectual idealism. Everybody knows that Greenspan sets the
interest rates to head off the inflation that they .... blah-blah-blah ..."
[Another] "I can't believe he actually tried to do the Ted!"
[Another] "Greenspan? You mean Merlin, right?"
[Another] "How'd Georgie get in here? I thought McPhil booted him a couple
of months ago?"
- Cool, daddyo! Groovy and just oh so far out!
urthman
http://www.jsent.biz/urthman/files/maya.mp3
Helps to set the mood a bit.
(1,157 Kb)
Quinn DuPont
will be of a less interesting form. My assumptions will be explicit.
>Capitalism is a good thing ...
>[mellow sitar strum]
>... and a deeply misunderstood thing
>[gong]
>Socially sustaining
>And self maintaining
>So quit complaining
>[ba-dum]
What you seem to have said:
Capitalism is socially sustaining.
Capitalism is a self-maintaining system.
On these grounds, capitalism should not be 'complained' about.
Likewise, it is not to be blamed. It is a 'good' thing.
First you have to be clear what you mean by 'socially
sustaining.' It is a very misleading term, as 'sustaining' often connotes
mere survival or existence. Thus, if a society continues to survive, it
will necessarily possess some sort of culture and various social forms. As
you put it, it is a non-question, since the criticism which you address is
not in fact that social systems disappear, but rather, they undergo a sort
of transformation which is usually resented and fought against by the
residents of the region. 'Socially sustaining' could thus be applied to
just about any set of economic or socio-political arrangements you could
imagine.
This is not by any means a particular flaw of capitalism, but
rather, a systemic characteristic of the way it has operated since its
inception. There is quite a bit of information out there on the legacy of
colonialism and, to take more contemporary examples, the negative effects of
tourism economies or SAPs, both of which are directly tied to the sort of
economic system in through which we operate.
Indeed, capitalism is a self-maintaining system. You should be
clear about what you mean by 'capitalism,' however. When speaking of its
benefits, you seem to be hinting at a set of ethos and ordering principles
for the economy. Yet it should be clear to any observer that this requires
a state system to maintain. Notice that every single industrialized country
(yes, even the East Asian NICs) has done so with heavy state protection. A
quick look through the US high-tech sector tells the same story.
The following claim that one should 'quit complaining' due to
these claims: Ambiguous sustainability and self-maintenance. Some of the
most stable societies in human history have been slave societies. If you
want to justify capitalism, you should do so on other, less contradictory
grounds.
Yes, to the quantification. I suppose you should be more
careful to the kind of question you are responding to. My point? First, I
said that ethically, I would rather lead a rather meager existence and focus
on what one might call philosophical ends. Second, I stated that capitalism
depends upon the continued, core-periphery relationships between states.
You have not addressed my argument. I will identify the two of
your most damaging errors:
The first is the nature of your statistics. They are focused on
the US domestic economy. As you recall, the comment I made regarding
distribution was addressed to the world. Since capitalism is a world
economic system, using statistics from the richest country of the world is
bad methodology. Just as I would not provide analysis of the hey-day of
imperial Britain through domestic indicators of English family income, the
same tactic does little to illuminate the trends which are in question.
Your second error regards the nature of your retort. I was
making an ethical claim that I do not think the series of (international)
economic relationships are just. You responded with quantitative
statistics. The interesting thing about data is that it doesn't often have
a lot of bearing on ethical discussions. I could just as easily be unhappy
with a perfectly free, egalitarian society. As your response was to the
effect that capitalism isn't really that bad, you only sought to replace my
normative claim with yours. I say bad, you say good. The problem with the
kind of data you present is that it does not speak to this in any meaningful
way without further argument. Its too bad that of the kind of data you
might have presented, you took the wrong set.
Yes, I admit that most of the economic terms we use today are
reified beyond belief. And the use of catch-phrases does little to grasp an
understanding of the world; I admit to that as well. I think you have a
point when you observe the (widely understood) fact that seemingly
authoritative pronouncements on the economy can lead to real effects.
Your conclusion is deeply implicated in the errors which I
identified earlier. Nothing you have written supports the claim that
capitalism is unavoidable. However I do tend to agree with you here; a
quick look at the end of feudalism doesn't seem to leave room for too many
alternatives (there is no good evidence today, empirical or rational, which
can establish its unavoidability into the future).
But 'economic Darwinism?' Come on! Darwin was quite clear that
regardless of adaptive abilities, mere survival was a precarious thing
indeed. And he attached no normative conclusions to even that! But the
kinds of data which you have appealed to; ie, relative income growth and
distribution; is not something which can be understood as adapting to the
environment. If you had sought to prove capitalism as adaptable, or your
ambiguous 'socially sustainable,' then you would have wanted to present
different data altogether, in order to predict the future (a worthwhile task
indeed?). Where Darwin imported no value judgments, you use his criteria to
establish them, in a very methodologically dubious fashion. A trying
metaphor, indeed- especially when by virtue of your reference to a 'proper'
understanding, you admit that we are dealing with a set of contested claims
in which adaptability is a small aspect of the debate.
Its interesting that you appeal to the 'theory or principles' of
capitalism instead of the way it works in practice. Of course, I was
referring to just that, the way in which our economic system plays out in
the world around us. I was not addressing Smith, Hayek, or Keynes. Could
I seek to justify communism through Marx's Grundrisse? Suppose I had argued
that the USSR's system of state communism/capitalism had to be analyzed with
an eye to the writings of Lenin or Trotsky. Your response?
The really interesting thing about your argument is your appeal
to a sort of 'false consciousness.' You seem to be the educated type, so I
won't bore you with its long history through Marx and the Frankfurt School.
But to say that the real problem of a system is that it is inherently fine,
the real problem being that the people don't understand how to behave, is
very problematic. Since its inception, the only aspect of capitalism which
I have addressed- the world disparities in access to resources (which were
in fact not present in the same way before capitalism)- have been pretty
consistent. After decades of communist rule, the CPC is still continuing
the permanent revolution and justifying the problems of the country to the
unfulfilled task of communism. The problem? The people don't understand
the principles. Difficult indeed.
It is also interesting that you complain of reified concepts,
and then idealize 'principles' and 'theories' which have never actually had
much luck in controlling or predicting the system which you seem to have
faith in (I'll dispense with definitions for big or slightly uncommon words,
daddy-o).
But really, deriving ethical statements from statistics?
Justifications for an economic system on the grounds of distribution and
economic indicators? Check the kind of arguments the slave owners were
giving for the continuation of chattel slavery in the US around 1840.
Interesting enough, they appealed to things like rising standards of living,
and other economic indicators, in order to argue against complaints which
usually focused on more- yep, you guessed it- ethical or political concerns.
So excuse any spelling or grammar errors; I'm doing this quickly
and not about to proof-read it, or add superfluous style.
Quinn