My Thoughts on: Marxism, Living Under American Capitalism, Marxian Philosophy, Baseball, Economics, Alcohol, and any other topic I feel like writing about.
Showing posts with label rambling crud. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rambling crud. Show all posts
10 February 2012
Marginal Jackass
Just when I was beginning to think Tyler Cowen actually believed Marginal Revolution's tag line "small steps toward a much better world" we get this:
http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2012/02/from-facebook.html
Is being a self promoting, arrogant, shit head part of blogging?
Is it part of making a better world?
I certainly enjoy self-promotion and being a shit head with this forum, so I hope so. I doubt it, but I hope so.
Is encouraging people to read another (same as all the others, methodologically dishonest, ideologically elitist, in support of dishonest hegemonic bourgeois ideals, etc.) neoclassical economics textbook, just because you are the author a "Small Step Towards A Much Better World"?
It probably is for the shareholders of the publishing company.
I expect this kind of arrogance and idiocy on the blog of N. Gregory Mankiw but not Tyler Cowen. Generally speaking Marginal Revolution is worth reading, even for those of us who completely disagree with most of what is written there. As opposed to Mankiw's blog which is usually just condescending nonsense.
Perhaps it is time for my colleagues at Anti-Mankiw to start becoming counter-margianl-revolutionary as well.
A preemptive response to some of the comments this post will likely receive:
Yes I am tired on a Friday night and a little grumpy, Yes I am jealous of both Cowen and Mankiw's success, and yes I am angry that their success allows them to indoctrinate far more students than those of us who are "honest" about economics. Perhaps I am wrong, and these servants of the bourgeois elite are good people, and have good intentions.
... is there room for good intentions in rational self interest?
20 June 2009
theory
What constitutes a theory? Is it nothing more than a collection of statements? yes, then what? a collection of ideas? does an idea become more than a statement in certain discourses and not in others?
We have established that one theory can not be more true than another, that is a basic premise of something that is constituted by what it is not. Also it is commonly accepted that truth is theory specific. That is what is true under one theory may not be true under another.
This leads to a definition of a theory as a set of statements that establish truths, but what then makes one theory more true than another. To say that 2+2 = 5, I know it to be true! but does that make it more true than 2+2 = 4, which so many others know to be true. These single statements are not in and of themselves meaningful independent of their theories. But take then the two competing theories. 1. Standard Math. 2. Everything George Orwell wrote is correct. By the first 2+2=5 is nonsense, by the second it is truth. So what is the standard of truth of theories? Logic? Rationalism? ....of course not....broad social acceptance? This can not be truth as it would render Marxism a lie!
More importantly is truth meaningful in a postmodern world? What matters that I know 5? if discourse around it finds that it is a lie? what matters that we know Marx, when there is no discourse around Marxism?
Perhaps the Keynesians have it right! Perhaps all is fundamentally unknowable and we should hedge our bets! blah! and perhaps disco was real music and John Lennon got it wrong but I don't think so. Ah to not fall back into a meaningless phrase for a conclusion.....ah worlds with truth may be empty but they result in less sleepless nights.
We have established that one theory can not be more true than another, that is a basic premise of something that is constituted by what it is not. Also it is commonly accepted that truth is theory specific. That is what is true under one theory may not be true under another.
This leads to a definition of a theory as a set of statements that establish truths, but what then makes one theory more true than another. To say that 2+2 = 5, I know it to be true! but does that make it more true than 2+2 = 4, which so many others know to be true. These single statements are not in and of themselves meaningful independent of their theories. But take then the two competing theories. 1. Standard Math. 2. Everything George Orwell wrote is correct. By the first 2+2=5 is nonsense, by the second it is truth. So what is the standard of truth of theories? Logic? Rationalism? ....of course not....broad social acceptance? This can not be truth as it would render Marxism a lie!
More importantly is truth meaningful in a postmodern world? What matters that I know 5? if discourse around it finds that it is a lie? what matters that we know Marx, when there is no discourse around Marxism?
Perhaps the Keynesians have it right! Perhaps all is fundamentally unknowable and we should hedge our bets! blah! and perhaps disco was real music and John Lennon got it wrong but I don't think so. Ah to not fall back into a meaningless phrase for a conclusion.....ah worlds with truth may be empty but they result in less sleepless nights.
23 May 2009
as per a conversation earlier...
...when a system hides so well the divisions within it, where to begin to look for weakness.
There is not a class war in our society, we have not yet reached the progress of our ancestors. In most areas we do not have the consciousness for a class war. This does not pertain to most reading this blog, but to far to many others.
Many workers in service treat the bourgeoisie better than their own comrades. Not because they want to be bourgeois themselves, but rather because our system perpetuates that "success" (and therefore money) is somehow bestowed upon the "better" part of society. We are conditioned to treat "our betters" with respect, not to question how they obtained this status.
Unification before revolution.
There is not a class war in our society, we have not yet reached the progress of our ancestors. In most areas we do not have the consciousness for a class war. This does not pertain to most reading this blog, but to far to many others.
Many workers in service treat the bourgeoisie better than their own comrades. Not because they want to be bourgeois themselves, but rather because our system perpetuates that "success" (and therefore money) is somehow bestowed upon the "better" part of society. We are conditioned to treat "our betters" with respect, not to question how they obtained this status.
Unification before revolution.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)